Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 15 October 17 October >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Appears to meet WP:N WilyD 09:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qian Nairong[edit]

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

Is this linguistics professor sufficiently notable? The article doesn't really show it, but this is not my area of expertise. Mild delete at the moment. --Nlu (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is in-depth coverage in The Global Times. Granted the Global Times is an offshoot of the People's Daily, the official communist newspaper, but I presume this is a nonpolitical topic. There is some coverage here. Going to Google Books and searching for his name, I see many books citing his works (the uniqueness of the name helps). Books from strong publishers such as the Oxford University Press. Going to Google scholar, I see many publications by him (linguistics related), and commentary on his works, for example here. He seems to be an expert on the Shanghai dialect, and the citations are to his various treatises on the subject. He is a department head at a major university; I would say that is about the same as a "named chair." Just searching in English gets us many citations to his work; obviously there must be much more in Chinese. Churn and change (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Yes, as a linguist of Shanghainese (and the other Wu languages) he's a pretty significant scholar, kinda wrote the "standard" grammar description, was one of the guys who reconstructed and classified its phonological history, etc. He's a pretty established academic (of the "will get a big in memoriam volume of essays some day" kind), and he's a fairly popular "public scholar", blogger, public lecturer, etc, famous for his preservation efforts for traditional Shanghainese (trying to preserve the old phonology, mostly. "New Shanghai" is quite different in pronunciation from the "Old Shanghai" and "Mainstream Shanghai" of older generations). So, there are lots of third-party sources in Chinese, hard to see how he's not notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.166.7.155 (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Churn and change. There's been sufficient coverage in reliable sources (Global Times and Language magazine at minimum), and he appears to be frequently cited by peers. Meets WP:GNG. WP:SCHOLAR is a little more problematic, because I don't think he is a "named chair" (that's not the same as a department head). But it doesn't need to meet both of these guidelines. --Batard0 (talk) 05:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is an exception for countries where named chairs are uncommon; a department head is a reasonable substitute. But, yes, I think that discussion is academic. Churn and change (talk) 05:23, 24 October 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 Rosa Luxemburg. MBisanz talk 20:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Line Löwenstein[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. I know that this is not an ironclad rule, but exceptions to it are, well, exceptions, and I see nothing in this case to suggest this is one. This was prodded twice, and redirected once (redirect was reverted). Time for the big guns of AfD to have a say here. PS. It is worth noting that the father Eliasz Luxemburg was redirected after an uncontested prod. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge back to her daughter. She's clearly not independently notable, based on what the article says today. Mangoe (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Rosa Luxemburg. Yaron K. (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rosa Luxemburg. Notability is not inherited. Line is not independently notable. Both sources within current article are only passing mention of her within the wider context of talking about her daughter. KTC (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the above. I initially opposed redirecting because I think the subject is likely to meet WP:GNG as the subject of significant coverage in biographies of Luxemburg (especially given that such coverage "need not be the main topic of the source material"); however a renewed look over WP:NOTINHERITED shows it's more stringent than I'd thought, and requires not only the GNG standards but also that the subject "have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative." – Arms & Hearts (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep some of this depends on judgement. I consider her sufficiently famous that her parents are important in their own right also, but others might judge differently. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't even see the point of a merge or a re-direct! Bondegezou (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence of substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Only mentions to be found are in passing and exclusively in the context of her daughter. There's so little information available about this person that it'd be impossible to expand the article beyond a couple of sentences. Fails WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 08:41, 24 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jos Clijsters[edit]

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

Bio of a CEO. I prodded it a while ago, it was deprodded due to his name being mentioned in some sources. But is this enough? No reliable source seems to focus on him, he is mentioned on a side, occasionally quoted briefly, in his capacity as a CEO. Only sources on him seem to be sites like [1], which don't look very reliable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - for a banking CEO, references found on reuters.com are relevant, reliable and valuable -- Bvlg (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Having looked through the sources and news items, I have to agree that he meets WP:GNG and other WP:BASIC guidelines. This amounts to substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. --Batard0 (talk) 08:46, 24 October 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. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Stuart[edit]

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

This short entry about a company reads like a promotional material, I have trouble seeing how it meets notability of WP:CORP. So far all this article has ridding for it is that the company was mentioned in 2009 in WSJ ([2]). I don't think one mention in a reliable source is enough. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As long as you are going to have a page that lists Executive Search Firms, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Executive_search_firms you should allow all Executive Search firms to be listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaMathieu (talk • contribs) 18:44, 22 October 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. WilyD 09:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Juice Paradise[edit]

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

Non-notable film. No evidence that such a film exists, or has ever been conceived. Likely WP:HOAX although the page author insists he "saw it on tv". WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - doesn't even exist on IMDB let alone anywhere reputable. NtheP (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly a hoax.Theroadislong (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep have the 'delete' people answered how I could see it on television in July if its a so-called hoax? Ummm...NOOOOOOOOO! And as for being non-notable? Well it was on TV. Do non-notable things get aired on mainstream television. Ummm.. typically NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldEdward2012 (talk • contribs)
Can you provide references to prove that the film is notable, such as links by INDEPENDANT news sources? Piandcompany (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! Another comment that fails to answer my two simple questions. And by the way, one of the 'delete' voters tried to remove "American pornograhpic films" category when the film reeks of nude females of a sexual nature in strip clubs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldEdward2012 (talk • contribs)
Wikipedia does not rely upon the "I saw it" of one random person on the internet. Anyone can say that they saw anything. It really holds no significance. You need to be able to provide sourcing showing that it exists, and that it meets the project's notability criteria. Personally, I would not be surprised if it did exist. But unless you can give us sourcing, you're facing a losing battle here. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you ask the TV people about it? Can't remember which channel it was but if was definitley July 26 because my accountant came for dinner that night and he said he had seen the film before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldEdward2012 (talk • contribs)
Since you're the one telling us to keep, it's up to you to supply the source, not us. Especially because we cannot find any, in any listing or in any sources. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G3 as a blatant hoax. Facially ludicrous, despite the continued claims to the contrary. If this existed, or indeed if Ryan Slater had a directorial debut in any form, it would be trivially easy to source. It is not, because he hasn't, and this doesn't. Frankly, aside from the fact that this is a textbook G3, its creator's insistence on categorizing it as an "American pornographic film" is potentially troublesome regarding the claimed roles of real actual people, for BLP reasons. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
but what do you call nudity of a sexual nature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldEdward2012 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the category on BLP grounds, and will warn the editor of BLP violations if they further insist on re-adding it. As unsourced as this thing is, that one factoid cannot remain. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. A hoax, although I don't blame the nominator for bringing it here; it's not an absolutely obvious one. Ubelowme U Me 22:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I brought it here because the page had been speedied, declined, PROD'ed and declined again. But it needed to be dealt with. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Sorry, I should have been more clear. I wouldn't personally have tagged it as "db-hoax", is what I should have said. I am glad it's here; it can be dealt with conclusively, and I appreciate its having been nominated. Ubelowme U Me 22:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it for speedy deletion as a blatent hoax, the article's creator removed the speedy template, it wasn't declined.Theroadislong (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. No sources to be found. I agree with WikiDan61 about invoking WP:SNOW. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly a hoax. Dcfc1988 (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. People May 22, 2005 mentions, "TODAY the Scottish Premiership will be decided between fierce rivals Celtic and Rangers. But even by Old Firm standards, the banning of Eggs Benedict from the Ibrox menu because of the new Pope's name is pushing it a little too far. What next? Celtic banning orange juice from Paradise?" Not relevant to the AfD nominated topic, but I posted it anyway. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:48, 24 October 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 Dickon Edwards. Going to redirect this one on the agreeing that "redirects are cheap." SarahStierch (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Portable Dickon Edwards[edit]

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

A non-notable collection of lyrics; article has no sources, and I was unable to find any using Google Books and News. It's also not a very useful redirect, since it's not a frequently occurring combination of words. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Agreed, Google News and Books provided nothing relevant so the book probably never received any attention. SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dickon Edwards where it is already covered, and because redirects are cheap. --Michig (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Dickon Edwards. No apparent sources to establish notability for standalone article per WP:BK. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for abysmally failing WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Dickon Edwards, per common sense. --Cavarrone (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect for absolute lack of reliable source coverage in news or anywhere else. Appears to be an obscure self-published lyrics book. Fails WP:GNG as well as other more specific guidelines. --Batard0 (talk) 09:46, 24 October 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. Promotional G11 with vague claims of importance DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Referral[edit]

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

A search of Google News brought up zero hits for me on this company. The sources provided are insufficient to establish notability: a press release by the company itself, a random website aggregator, the company's own website and an event pack from a conference. - Balph Eubank ✉ 20:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. To claim that it is the largest advisory network yet it be so insufficient seems questionable...Danielj27052705 (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Despite adding "2010" and "England" to my Google News (US and UK) searches, I haven't found any relevant third-party sources. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ok, understood and thank you for taking the time to explain. So what needs to happen to keep this as I would have kept this due to company doing all they can to be ethical in there ways and they are a real company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.85.62 (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC) I have looked and found more information:- http://www.infocreditgroup.com/NewsRoom.aspx?NewsId=25[reply]

http://www.colmancoyle.com/press-releases-and-firm-news-written/international-referral-conference.asp

http://www.americasmart.com/buyers/international/international-referral-program

There is lots of data about the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.85.62 (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first two links are small mentions with the second, although mentioning an event, is a press release therefore not independent and the third link is also a small mention. Visiting Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources may be useful. SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Anyone can say anything about themselves. Relevant policies: WP:V, WP:CORP and WP:RS

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WilyD 09:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Postseason pressure[edit]

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

While it is understandable that players would be nervous before a big game, there is no recognised condition called "postseason pressure". Furthermore, the only cited reference in the article covers relaxation methods - it does not mention postseason pressure anywhere. Jameboy (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as a coatrack for the lotus position. (which sounds uncomfortable, actually) Mangoe (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two words that sometimes appear in conjunction with each other in sports pages do not an article make. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 18 October 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. WP:N carries far more weight than a subjective judgement of who should be notable. That's a deathtrap, stay out of it ;) WilyD 09:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anca Mosoiu[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Laudable though her efforts may be, this individual has done nothing remotely suggesting encyclopedic notability. She set up an office three years ago — six employees in two rooms, from what I can tell — and that's basically it.

The coverage quoted here is woefully inadequate: three puff pieces in local papers. One of them barely mentions her and is about her future plans. Another focuses on the company, a third on her, and both are typical local news human interest stories, not something normally noticed by an encyclopedia. A few phrases will illustrate the tone of these pieces: "Welcome to Tech Liminal"; "Tech Liminal is not only a coworking space, it’s also a tech consulting firm"; "Mosoiu is not the only one who shares her tech knowledge in these workshops"; "Hometown Hero"; "Mosoiu escaped the bruising of the 2000 tech bust, but instead of riding the lucrative crest of the newest tech boom, she decided to follow her dream to create a space where people could experience a tech community that did not exist for freelancers".

And as for the claim that "She is credited with helping to build the tech industry in Oakland": first, she is actually credited with "bringing together the people who want to ... lay the groundwork to build a much-needed tech industry in Oakland". And second, so what? I'm sure there are individuals who "brought together the people who wanted to lay the groundwork to build a much-needed refrigerator industry in Toledo", or a much-needed carpet industry in Omaha, or a much-needed furniture industry in Topeka, or perhaps a much-needed pencil industry in Santa Clara, but that doesn't strike me as a particularly encyclopedic attribute, particularly when the only source conveying this information is a glowing profile in a local paper. - Biruitorul Talk 20:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment How do you get past the three references that could support WP:GNG. Go Phightins! 20:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The hometown hero article seems credible. Go Phightins! 20:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not trying to "get past" anything, but a couple of promotional pieces in local papers do not automatically make for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". By that standard, anyone who has founded a small business that's gotten the attention of the local paper a couple of times is entitled to a place in an encyclopedia. - Biruitorul Talk 23:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like she passes WP:GNG and the creator has added more citations. Nice to see a woman tech activist article getting deleted during Ada Lovelace Day LOL. SarahStierch (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What day it is is irrelevant, and the subject's sex and profession are relevant only insofar as reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy have commented on their relevance. Unfortunately, the added citations are more of the same: either wholly unacceptable (blogs, event announcements and forum posts) or trivia (passing mention in a culinary feature on rose hips (!), passing mention on a radio program and a photographic slide show that I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove. - Biruitorul Talk 23:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per SarahStierch. Subject gets excellent press in San Francisco newspapers and TV. Web tech is an important industry.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are not discussing the importance of web tech, but the encyclopedic merit (or lack thereof) of one Anca Mosoiu. When the San Francisco Chronicle runs an unbiased article on her, that will be a surer sign of notability. And before you reply that WP:GNG doesn't mandate coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle — yes, that's true, but the converse is also true, namely that laudatory articles in minor local papers do not always translate into encyclopedic merit. - Biruitorul Talk 23:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am pretty sure the Oakland Tribune established in 1874 is the major newspaper of Oakland, California "the third largest city in the San Francisco Bay Area, the eighth-largest city in the state, and the 47th-largest city in the U.S. with a population of 395,817"heather walls (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • San Jose is the largest city of the Bay area, and its only full-fledged newspaper is the Mercury News. Has been that way pretty much forever. Their coverage area includes Silicon Valley; by and large they are the newspaper of the valley. I have no idea why nom thinks they would go around pushing non-notable people in their pages. Churn and change (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Mercury News just ran a photo gallery on her, which we shouldn't even be citing (for lack of depth). The gallery mirrors a piece in the Tribune (a sister paper), part of a larger series on local figures found inspiring by the paper's reporters. Should all these individuals get Wikipedia biographies? - Biruitorul Talk 23:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Yaron K. (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The San Jose Mercury News has the fifth largest circulation in the US (twice that of the Chronicle) and the Oakland Tribune[9] has a decent-size subscriber base. With CBS and the other lesser sources, that's enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mercury News or not, I would suggest a photo gallery hardly counts as "significant coverage". - Biruitorul Talk 04:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. San Jose Mercury News and Oakland Tribune are WP:RS as per above; the SJ Merc is a go-to resource for tech industry news. Coverage of a female tech startup is a contribution to WP:CSB. Also, given the current economic situation in the US, we would do well to consider implementing notability standards that encourage articles on successful entrepreneurship which promotes local economic development. This article is not simply an instance of an isolated small business that employs six people. Running a co-working operation creates conditions and a space for others to network and grow their businesses as well. Djembayz (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before raising the "systemic bias" canard (which it usually is), do you have any evidence to suggest that our coverage of notable female tech startups is less than their weight in the real world?
  • For one, this isn't about a startup. And of course this question is nearly impossible to answer without real extensive research, but I did a quick reading of this list of computer scientists that I chose randomly. I found approximately 25 women with articles out of more than 300 people. Personally I would lean toward yes, there is a bias. heather walls (talk) 05:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree more investigation is needed, but your methodology is flawed, as Wikipedia reflects reality rather than creating its own. If you look at an outside list of the top computer scientists, say this one, you will find (at least I found) ten women among the top 165 computer scientists. Of these, nine have articles, which isn't bad at all. A tenth (Nadia Magnenat-Thalmann) was deleted for copyright problems, but I would fully support recreating that article, since the notability of Professor Magnenat-Thalmann, unlike that of this article's subject, is immediately obvious without bending any standards. - Biruitorul Talk 14:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for what you suggest, please feel free to bring that up at the discussion page of WP:N, where I will vigorously object to the notion that an encyclopedic biography is earned by someone who's run a six-employee business for three years and has garnered a few puff pieces detailing said business, no matter how many clients it serves and no matter what economic conditions happen to be prevailing in its vicinity. - Biruitorul Talk 04:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Mercury News, Oakland Tribune and San Francisco Examiner are all major newspapers of the Bay area, read by a whole lot of people here, and carrying a whole lot of clout; not "local" papers whose coverage we can ignore. Meets WP:GNG with the coverage in independent and reliable sources. Churn and change (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Even if the Oakland Tribune is more than just a local paper (let's grant that for argument's sake), it does not necessarily follow that all its coverage is equally pertinent in scope. The same goes for the New York Times, even: would anyone say Robin Lane should get a Wikipedia biography? As to how we choose what to use and what not to, this is not a matter of editors' POV, but simply of separating promotional pieces from hard news.
  • I'd like to ask those opting to keep the article if they also see other "hometown heroes" named by the Oakland Tribune as worthy of encyclopedic biographies. I'm sure these are all valuable people, but it's one thing to do good (which the subject of this discussion has done) and quite another to rise to the WP:BIO threshold. I would suggest none of these people meet that criterion, Mosoiu included, even if they've been featured in a section that freely admits its mission goes beyond mere journalism: "Hometown Heroes celebrates people in the Bay Area who make a difference in their communities. In addition to highlighting remarkable individuals, the Hometown Heroes feature aims to encourage volunteerism, raise visibility of nonprofits and key causes in the area and create a spirit of giving". - Biruitorul Talk 04:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let us check what WP:BIO says: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The Mercury News, Oakland Tribue, and SF Examiner are sources which are "reliable," "independent of each other", and "independent of the subject." These newspapers aren't neighborhood publications the way you put it. Coverage in the Mercury News matters for companies here because, well, it is the only newspaper around in the valley. If you are claiming they are creating notability in this case, maybe so; that isn't our issue. The question is if there is notability, whether created by newspapers or not. There is. If your beef is the newspapers shouldn't have covered this person, you should write a letter to the editors saying so; if you can get the papers to retract their articles, you can come back here and argue for deletion. Churn and change (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include [10], [11], [12]. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If a piece is published in the editorial space of a publication (as distinguished from ad space), it's third-party reporting, regardless of what news style (breaking, analysis, features, opinion) it's written in. The attempt to characterize reporting as a "promotional piece" or "puff piece" is highly subjective on the editor's part (and from a misinformed perspective, since the NYT feature on Robin Lane is given as an example: that's still third-party reporting). We don't exclude features reporting in considering coverage for a BLP. Most artists and entertainers, for instance, will not be the subject of "hard news" coverage, but rather of features profiles, which are at any rate more likely to provide biographical data than a "news" brief on their DUI arrest. As for "local" as a way to disqualify a source, at a time when most old-school newspapers publish online and can be read anywhere in the world, what does that mean? A lot of the "delete" nomination seems based on whether Anca Mosoiu is important or unique, which doesn't determine notability. The issue is whether a critical mass of third-party sources (whether they're humanly interesting or not) provide enough information to generate an article written in an encyclopedic manner. I'm not sure that's the case, but let's make the argument correctly. (And BTW, the placing of the "not a vote" template in the middle of the discussion strikes me as bit overbearing.) Cynwolfe (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you tell the POV of the newspaper articles covering the subject? If so, and if it's positive, then they are indeed promotional, and should be handled with caution. It debases the encyclopedia to pick out a phrase in a blog post on rose hips so we can pretend to legitimately call the subject a "tech guru".
    • Your point about artists has a hole in it. Yes, it's possible that much valuable information about a particular artist could be gleaned from a feature piece. However, before citing such an article can be considered, an artist first has to meet the non-trivial WP:ARTIST requirements. The artist must first have done something fairly big (had a serious exhibition, have had multiple professional reviews, etc) before qualifying for a biography here. With entrepreneurs, there's no such guideline, and so we are faced with the rather absurd option of keeping an article on a really quite insignificant figure (encyclopedically speaking, that's a legitimate label for someone who's run a six-employee business for three years) simply because feel-good/activist section of her local paper decided to run an article on her.
    • "Local" in this context means no relevance beyond the firm's employees and clients, the surrounding neighborhood and the reporter to happened to track down the subject. - Biruitorul Talk 23:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "not a vote" template is there because there was a post written, in an attempt to canvass users to come here, on the WikiWomen's Collaborative Facebook page, and possibly elsewhere. But feel free to move the template to elsewhere on the page. Yaron K. (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Although I'm not one to shriek "canvassing" when editors are simply trying to maximize the number of views represented, I'm also not keen on offsite canvassing, so the template seems appropriate. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For Sarah's post to be canvassing, one of two conditions has to be met: it has to be written non-neutrally, or it has to be aimed at a group biased on this topic. She has been careful about the neutrality part; assuming the women's collaborative would be non-neutral on this is judging them. I would say that reflects a biased belief they are here to push non-notable women-related articles at the cost of WP's encyclopedic mission. If one rejects that belief-based assumption, informing them of this Afd can no longer be considered canvassing. Churn and change (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I probably shouldn't have said it was canvassing, since I don't know. At the very least, it could be interpreted by someone reading it as canvassing, in which case the "not a vote" message would be helpful when they arrive at this page. Yaron K. (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per San Jose Mercury News and Oakland Tribune coverage. I don't find the argument convincing that a particular qualified source's coverage is not in-depth or significant enough to warrant notability since multiple qualified sources made the same decision to cover her. I find it strange that some people are seriously arguing that newspapers covering major metropolitan areas don't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable independent sources. Catavar (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To say that the Mercury News "covered" the subject is a bit of a stretch: they put up a photo gallery and repeated the "hometown hero" designation given to her by the Tribune (the two papers share the same owner, so it's not surprising). Indeed, the honest thing to do would be to just drop the Mercury News link, since a photo gallery isn't really citable and the information is covered elsewhere. As for the Tribune article: like I've suggested, while it's fine as a source in some cases, that doesn't imply every article they run is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia; there is such a thing as editorial judgment. (And no, I'm not using that as a synonym for "my POV"; presumably, everyone who reads newspapers and edits Wikipedia decides some things will be added and others not.) As I've pointed out, the section featuring Mosoiu is more activism than journalism — it "celebrates people in the Bay Area who make a difference in their communities" and "aims to encourage volunteerism, raise visibility of nonprofits and key causes in the area and create a spirit of giving". Just as we would never consider having an article about some high school teacher, some retired pharmacist or some lawyer-preservationist, so too it makes precious little sense to have a biography of some entrepreneur with a six-employee shop. A nice story, yes, but not one for an encyclopedia. - Biruitorul Talk 23:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many reliable sources have shared owners, e.g., The Wall Street Journal and Fox News. It is normal to have multiple citations for the same information covered in multiple sources. Plenty of Wikipedia articles cite sources that could be considered "activism" by this rather broad definition. Notability criteria doesn't seem to include a minimum number of people employed by a subject's company. I'm not familiar with any of these criteria normally being applied to eliminate reliable sources or judge notability. Catavar (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep merc/tribune coverage is significant, not trivial mentions, and KALW reference is also important.all are vital local reliable sources.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets the WP:BASIC criteria of WP:BIO. The deletion rationales are unconvincing, being mostly based on the assumption that established news outlets are unreliable. Gobōnobō + c 23:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Delete arguments seem based on subjective views of journalistic standards and importance rather than notability, which means having sufficient third-party sources regard the subject as "worthy of notice." My "keep" is weak because I'd like to see more sources (and someone needs to address the verification tags at once), but the sources do provide information that can be treated in an encyclopedic manner. Somehow, strenuous efforts must be made to exclude minor business leaders or activists—real-life people whose accomplishments have been deemed "worthy of notice" by third parties—because it might damage WP's credibility or "editorial judgment". And yet we allow vast swathes of articles to be devoted to embarrassingly detailed descriptions of the actions of fictional characters in TV shows, based on nothing more than a fan summarizing the primary source. It's ridiculous to consider the latter encyclopedic, and the former not. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:00, 21 October 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. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spee Club (Harvard)[edit]

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

I'm making this nomination at the request of another editor, and currently am neutral.

In summary, the proposer argued for the deletion of this article on notability grounds and that the article has attracted long-term vandalism. j⚛e deckertalk 20:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep It's as notable as any of the other final clubs, but for some reason has never made it past stub status. Mangoe (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Mangoe that all the Harvard final clubs are notable, and Spee Club has plenty of potential sources.[13][14] Among the matters that have earned it coverage over the years, it was the first club to accept an African-American member[15]; had JFK (among the first Catholics admitted to a finals club)[16]) and RFK as members[17][18]; and its connection to the great frat comedy National Lampoon's Animal House through Doug Kenney.[19][20]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is coverage in the Crimson, Harvard's student-run newspaper: [21], on an incident here, here, and mentioned as the fourth-most prestigious student's social club at Harvard. These articles are RSes (serious articles in Harvard's student newspaper are RSes for this subject). The crimson has a never-ending set of references to the club. There is more here, Harvard's student weekly. Then there are the JFK- and RFK-related references. Churn and change (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 18 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agonist (Christian)[edit]

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

Per WP:MADEUP. There is no reliable source cited for the usage of this term, and Google Books doesn't come up with anything much either. The description is thus original synthesis. StAnselm (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are some uses of the phrase "Christian agonist" in reliable sources, often in reference to Milton. On the other hand, that's not what this article is about. What this article is about is a fringe synthesis of religious topics. Some of this material is derived from www.christian-agonist.com (and, indeed, that appears as an external link). This article doesn't link to agon.us, but some of the contributor's other work clearly derives from it. Someone with some familiarity with the broader Christian topics may need to review the contributions of All Worlds (talk · contribs); there is related material at Agon, Cafeteria Christianity, Saulieu and probably more that seems dubious at best, and I have substantial concerns about much of Sacred cockfight. I don't see anything in a reliable source to support any of this. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is a strong feeling of both synthesis and fringe about this article (and the others named by Squeamish Ossifrage), and a distinct lack of proper sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Surely the article does establish the existence of the term and activity, and attempts of collection of knowledge disseminated around the globe and would deserve something more than claims of fringe and simple deletion without at least some efforts of salvage of information. All Worlds (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Synth. --Nouniquenames 04:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- An article on the Greek word Agonizomai (I strive) and the theology concerned with it, might well be encycloaedic, but I suspect this article fails WP:NEO. Certainly I have never heard the term. The article might be edited and repurposed to the object I am suggesting.
    • Your comments are appreciated and the article will be attempted to be edited and rewritten during this interim in the pursuit of a better wiki-article. All Worlds (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rewrite – As a term used in a Christian context, "agonist" seems to be on the border-line: a few writers are using it but I can't find evidence that suggests the word has become part of the main-line religious academic vocabulary. However, the main problem seems to me to be the "essay style" of the article which seems to contain a lot of OR and large chunks depend on primary and/or sources which fail to meet Wiki's criteria for reliability. It is hard to see how this article can be rescued: if something is needed on this subject it would probably be easier to sit down and write it from scratch. Jpacobb (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your rewrite is most certainly heard, even write it from scratch, and an alternate over an outright and counter-constructive deletion, if possible to get done properly, which shall be attempted. All Worlds (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There don't appear to be reliable sources that establish this as a Christian denomination, as the article claims, or as a separate term with a well-defined meaning. The sources available show that the phrase "Christian agonist" has been used on a few occasions, but there's nothing significant in reliable sources to show its notability as a term. I'm not sure whether it's WP:OR or not, but it seems likely that there is an element of synthesis, as argued above. --Batard0 (talk) 11:07, 24 October 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. Fails WP:N is a difficult argument to overcome. WilyD 09:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Omer Bar[edit]

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

Self-published author; notability not yet established in accordance with WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Cindy(talk to me) 19:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable; I also deleted a similar page on Commons and the two images there (commons:Special:Log/Mickey.lez). Trijnsteltalk 19:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:AUTHOR--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Dental plan (Lisa needs braces) 14:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete - not news or book hits in google. SalHamton (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - very important world wide Author — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.2.205 (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep important to Jewish religion, important scientific discovery — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.77.118 (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable.Fails WP:AUTHOR--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:57, 23 October 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. --BDD (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Skype-ing[edit]

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

Contested PROD - WP:MADEUP - Probably not useful as a redirect  -- WikHead (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I was going to redirect this to Skype myself, but figured the hyphen in its name would render the redirect implausible. Without a hyphen, a redirect would indeed be the way to go.  -- WikHead (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears both "Skype-ing" and "Skyping" are used, as shown by Google News. SwisterTwister talk 21:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it's something that someone would actually type into the search box?  -- WikHead (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Skype is a separate word with "ing" as the ending. SwisterTwister talk 22:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Skype. Corn cheese (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Skype. This is now a very common expression, though I would never spell it this way. Kooky2 (talk) 00:48, 23 October 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. WilyD 09:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Z LaLa[edit]

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

A musician that has released only album. The label that released the album, Omega Alpha Records, has only put out one album. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. She is supported by "House of Papillion" which also owns the record company. No independent, reliable references are available. According to the article, she released her single in 14 languages including sign language. Hmmm.... Bgwhite (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. Also appears to be a good possibility of COI editing here, as one of the major contributors to the article has a user name matching the record label. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:22, 16 October 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic H. Francisco[edit]

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

Fayedizard has already nominated two related articles for deletion (here and here). Upon my efforts to source those articles, I've concluded that none of the related material meets the music and musicians notability standards. All of the references to this article, the album articles I have bundled with it, and the articles previously nominated are self-published, lack editorial control, or are otherwise suspect. The awards won by these albums are not major, established awards. In fact, the American Instrumental Music Award, the California Indie Music Award, and the Western Grammy Award are all hosted exclusively on Google Sites. The sales certifications are sourced to the artist's own Bandcamp microsite, and are therefore self-published. The record labels involved are similarly tenuous and appear to exist only within the confines of Bandcamp and Google Sites. I cannot find any review in any industry periodical or at any site with editorial control. The minimal listing at allmusic is certainly insufficient. Bundled with this nomination are the albums which have not already been nominated for deletion under separate listings.

- Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Articles fail to document notability per WP:NM. Squeamish Ossifrage explains it so well. For the past few days, I have been trying to persuade the articles' creator to provide reliable secondary sources, but none have been supplied. – Wdchk (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - per nom. Not that it matters, but the music is also terrible, imho. --Malerooster (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Very good explanation, by the way. It's like a circle of notability claims. The artist is notable because he made these albums; the albums are notable because they were made by the artist; the labels are notable because they carry these albums; the awards are notable for...no apparent reason. I particularly like this quote from the AIMA's website: You may ask yourself, "Is this site trustworthy? Is this organization legitimate? It's on a Google site, after all." The answer is yes, we are a legitimate organization. But they still don't tell us who they are, where they are located, what their qualifications are, etc. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I too had failed to find evidence of notability on a first encounter with this weave of articles when I put an Autobiography warning notice on User talk:Dhf510; the nominator has done a more substantial review. So awards appear non-notable, references to CD Baby are plainly inadequate, and there is no evdence of proper WP:RS notice. AllyD (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Don't delete it. What's the deal with the awards being non-reputable? Because they're based from google sites? Is everything about money? Is that all that notability is? How much money someone has? God, leave it alone. Do you have to shoot down peoples' dreams? Dhf510 —Preceding undated comment added 09:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dfh510, thank you for joining in this discussion. What we're trying to do is to establish whether the articles meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for music-related topics, as documented at WP:NM. The point about the awards is important because one of the criteria that would establish notability is "Has won or been nominated for a major music award". If you believe these articles meet the documented standard, you are welcome to explain your reasoning – but please do make specific reference to the guideline. – Wdchk (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete I'd like to address User:Someguy1221. When you say that "The artist is notable because he made these albums; the albums are notable because they were made by the artist; the labels are notable because they carry these albums; the awards are notable for...no apparent reason", isn't that really how all of music works? You're a bully, leave this page alone. User:Dhf510 (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Dhf510, nice to see you chatting on the boards a bit - can I take this oppertunity to ask if you are the subject of the article? (i.e. are you Dominic H. Francisco?) You, of course, don't have to answer.Fayedizard (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fayedizard, yes I am. (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.218.26 (talk) [reply]
  • Delete all as they fall short on WP:NM, as others have convincingly demonstrated. --Batard0 (talk) 11:23, 24 October 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. WilyD 09:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Andrew Bovino[edit]

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

A Lawyer known for only two cases. Except for the refs saying he was attacked in South Africa on his honeymoon, almost all the references are dealing with the court cases Mr. Bovino has been involved in. They either don't mention Bovino or just mention that he is the attorney. Several of the refs are exactly the same. Of the refs that go beyond just a mention, the ArticleFactory ref is unreliable as anybody can submit articles. ArticleFactory says you can increase your exposure by writing your own articles. The rest are from his company or the standard lawyer listings, such as the state bar page. There are no independent, reliable refs about him. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads like an advertisement, delete per WP:SPAM - DonCalo (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He's had a couple of cases that made the papers? That's insufficient for notability. Qworty (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I can find no independent sources as to the notability of the person, though some of the cases the article mentions themselves have independent and reliable sources. The advertising-spam aspect doesn't help either. This was also likely drawn up by the article's subject. -- Lord Roem (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are not enough reference to prove Bovino is notable. --Vic49 (talk) 14:28, 23 October 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. I'm a little moved by the NOTCHANGELOG here, but given a balanced headcount and an article that isn't just parroting Apple's website but does appear to have real sources, I don't think it can carry the day. Merging remains an editorial possibility, but please think of my poor grandmother with dial-up internet. WilyD 09:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes version history[edit]

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

Outright failure of WP:NOTCHANGELOG. There may be some details to highlight in the main iTunes article, and some content to be merged (though a spot check suggests its duplicating details), but even with merge details, this article is inappropriate MASEM (t) 18:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This article covers information about a notable topic that many readers would find useful. It appears to be well-referenced and researched. It is not obviously unmaintainable. Bovlb (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:USEFUL is not a valid reason to keep. Apple should have this information on its website, and the iTunes article can point to that. --MASEM (t) 20:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Apple doesn't have this on its website. This article has well-done research and it's a notable topic. --WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 04:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every patch reference is a link from apple.com. It's not in one single place, but that's not our job to do. --MASEM (t) 05:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Errr, no it's not. A lot of the versions are sourced from various Apple technology websites. Furthermore, Apple is notorious for removing historical versions from their servers.Angstygangsta (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not our responsibility to make up for what Apple lacks or remove. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Found no reason keep it somehow. Corn cheese (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep ---As per User:Bolvb and User:Wanna Know My Name? Later. Page is well cited (I recently went in and tried to find any unsourced entries, and for the most part has been quashed. I do, however think a slight revamp is in order, perhaps by streamlining and/or removing the device software tables, as that content can be found in the respective device tables.. Angstygangsta (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • An appropriate streamline would be doing something like on Steam (software), hitting the major milestones, and which can be put in the main itunes page. NOTCHANGELOG is policy. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that logic, would it not be more appropriate to put all of the respective 'version history' and 'system software' pages in an AfD en masse? Why single out iTunes version history in this case? Angstygangsta (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because 1) mass AFDs are heavily challenged by users if there's too many entries and 2) there are possible details to merge to the software article so 7 days is far too short to allow that. That said, if this is closed as delete, a message at VPP to discuss a plan to go forward to delete the rest to allow merge time. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Acknowledged. Sorry about that. Angstygangsta (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Also, if this closes as keep, we may have to reassess what NOTCHANGELOG really means in relationship to this. I note that the last AFD on this back in 2007 was at a point where while there was NOTCHANGELOG language somewhere within policy and guideline language, it didn't appear to be an official part of NOT policy. Enough time has passed that consensus may have changed. --MASEM (t) 01:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 18 October 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. WilyD 09:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Bontadelli[edit]

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

A sports broadcaster. Does baseball games for the Lincoln, Nebraska Saltdogs. The Saltdogs are in an independent league not affiliated with MLB. Mr. Bontadelli also does radio broadcasts for Compass Media Networks. Up until 2010, he was Director of Media Relations for the Single-A Yakima Bears baseball team. Except for some quotes, I'm unable to find any refs that are about him that don't come from his employers. Bgwhite (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any substantial independent information about him after a good faith search. --Jayron32 04:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Independent league broadcasters are not inherently notable. AutomaticStrikeout 14:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no presumption of notability under any applicable SNG, and there are insufficient references to the subject in independent, reliable sources to establish the subject's notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:53, 20 October 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. WilyD 09:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're Too Good For Me[edit]

You're Too Good For Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no evidence of notability. :( I arrived at the page following a thread posted at the COI noticeboard. Fayedizard (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As far as I can tell, there are just no reliable sources for any of this material. I've gone ahead and bundled the remaining articles into their own AFD discussion as well. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article fails to document notability per WP:NM. I tried, but failed, to find better references. For the past few days, I have been trying to persuade the article creator to provide reliable secondary sources, but none have been supplied. – Wdchk (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 18 October 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 you want the content for a merge if the artist is kept, ask me. But that seems unlikely. WilyD 09:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic H. Francisco discography[edit]

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

Almost entirely duplicates content within Dominic_H._Francisco article. Fayedizard (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unnecessary fork of Dominic_H._Francisco. Normally, I'd be advocating a redirect here, because that's a plausible search term for anyone familiar with our article naming conventions. In this case, however, I don't think the musician meets the notability standard, either. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I've gone ahead and taken the rest of the material to AFD here . Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article fails to document notability per WP:NM. I tried, but failed, to find better references. For the past few days, I have been trying to persuade the article creator to provide reliable secondary sources, but none have been supplied. – Wdchk (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should have been discussed together with the musician's own AFD, but it's a clear delete if the parent article is deleted; I see no basis at all for keeping the discography of a non-notable musician. If the musician's article is ultimately kept, then keeping this separate is purely a question of WP:SPLIT and WP:SIZE. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 18 October 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. Hopefully folks can continue to improve it. Probably best to remove her birth year which is uncited. SarahStierch (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Cloherty[edit]

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

Subject requests deletion, via OTRS Ticket # 2012100210001588. They are concerned that there may be inaccuracies in the article. Additionally, the subject feels the article is not up to our notability guidelines for biographies. Opened this discussion per their request. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Keep - inaccuracies are a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM problem, not a reason to delete. But the subject cannot be expected to know that as a non-editor. We've had a few of these cases recently and I've made the same point a few times. Notability is based on coverage in sources, not coverage only in complimentary sources. We need to be conscious of the usual BLP stuff but coverage is coverage. We reflect the coverage. If you don't like the coverage, hire a PR person to get more "balance". But balance here is a matter of WP:NPOV. That said, though I think the sources might (just) allow the subject to meet WP:GNG, I'm not convinced the subject is so obviously notable that the article should be kept at all costs. Where it is a line-ball call but someone has asked for an article about them to be deleted, I would general be inclined to recognise that request. But a few more / substantial sources (regardless of tone) would likely put the question beyond doubt. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's nothing specific at outcomes but there was a failed proposal at WP:OPTOUT. The recent ones I remember are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott G. Stewart and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamella Bordes - one was deleted and one was kept. I contributed to both. It seems the consensus has generally been that a request from the subject carries more weight than a general AFD started for clean-up or policy-based reasons, but only in the sense that editors are more inclined to cite WP:HARM. I think in general, a BLP subject is less likely to ask for their page to be deleted if the article is "complimentary". These tend to come up when reliable secondary sources support an article which might not be complimentary to the subject. The other point I have seen made a few times (and have made the same point myself) is that WP has WP:NPOV requirements which news media outlets do not. Thus, uncomplimentary coverage can often still result in a fairly neutrally worded WP article. Without the article, a google search (which seems to be the catalyst for many of these cases) would only bring up the news coverage, complimentary or not. In this particular case, the coverage seems neither particularly complimentary or uncomplimentary of the subject. I think the request may have been made because deletion might seem, to the subject, easier than asking WP to put some effort into fixing it. That is not necessarily the case. The article itself could do with some work - especially in relation to WP:MOS and WP:NPOV. If the information is not accurate, that's different - that can be fixed.
But like Scott G. Stewart, where notability is marginal and the article has marginal encyclopaedic value, few will "die in a ditch" to keep it. What's the point of keeping something with marginal encyclopaedic value where the subject would rather it doesn't exist? It's not a particularly good reason for deleting something but for a lack of good reasons for keeping it... Stalwart111 (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - after citing WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM I decided to try and do exactly that. Have cleaned up all the references, some of the commentary not strictly supported by references and some of the other sections that needed work. Am now seeing more than enough "significant coverage" to justify keeping the article. Have also brought some sections back to more WP:NPOV language to (hopefully) address some of the concerns the subject had about the article (which, looking at it, were entirely justified). None of the coverage cited is in any way negative (in either general tone or specific assertion) so suggestions in the intro that gave WP:UNDUE weight to marginal commentary should not have been there - in essence, one paragraph was picked out from a pages-and-pages-long feature article, responsibility for that "issue" was arbitrarily attributed to the subject (without verification) and then given undue weight via inclusion in the intro. Really inappropriate. I have now changed my "vote" above to Keep and have struck some of my commentary now which is probably no longer relevant. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:19, 11 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY, SOFIXIT, and GNG. She is cited by numerous reliable sources, such as Forbes, so I would err on keeping the article now, that she is more than marginally notable. Great job, Stalwart111. Bearian (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sheesh, Forbes and The New York Times aren't good enough? There are also Bloomberg Businessweek, Business New Europe, and the Woodrow Wilson Award[22]. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's abundantly clear from the sources already cited in the article that this person meets the WP:GNG requirements, as well as other more specific ones. She's been covered in the New York Times, Forbes, Crain's New York Business and other reliable publications with depth and in a significant way. If the article needs work, that's a content issue, not a notability one. --Batard0 (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the original article had numerous problems, the article has been cleaned up significantly. The secondary sources demonstrate that the subject is notable and meets Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies.--xanchester (t) 15:57, 24 October 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. feel free to create a redirect if you're inspired. I ain't. WilyD 09:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abandon vessel[edit]

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

A one line article, that seems to be based on the dictionary definition of the subject. Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. SMS Talk 17:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nothing more than a definition and likely to remain so. Mangoe (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abandon Wikipedia. The article's sinking fast! Editors, women and children first. The expression's "abandon ship" anyway. Nobody says "abandon vessel".Clarityfiend (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, but to where? The general topic of ship evacuation is very notable, and there are articles on odd aspects, such as General emergency signal which should probably be merged with Muster drill, and Lifeboat (shipboard). Almost certainly others, and certainly there are articles on particular shipping disasters such as HMS Birkenhead (1845) and RMS Titanic. But I have not spotted a general article taking an historical perspective. For example, one of the little understood aspects of the Titanic disaster is that prior to that the general view had been that evacuating a large passenger ship into lifeboats would simply be impractical and too dangerous in most likely scenarios; historical experience had been that accidents normally involved foundering on a coast usually in bad weather. The ship was designed to stay afloat long enough to take passengers off, and ramming an iceberg at speed, or a catastrophic fire, had not been properly accounted for. --AJHingston (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 18 October 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. Nobody has show up to ask otherwise WilyD 09:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liripop[edit]

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

Contested prod. No sources supporting this term as a musical genre. A reasonable search finds few relevant sources. Seems to be associated with a single artist, Daniella Mass. BusterD (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that a very similar article with this name has already been deleted yesterday. O.Koslowski (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - aye, nothing on the term itself, only a few mentions in association with a colombian artist of questionable notability. -— Isarra ༆ 06:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG (no sources found). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:50, 24 October 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. Appears to meet WP:N WilyD 09:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando (band)[edit]

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

Tagged as needing sources since 2009, with none forthcoming and I can't turn anything decent up. Not seeing much to get it past WP:BAND to be honest. Hiding T 16:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The substantial bio and album review at Allmusic and the band's entry in The Encyclopedia of Popular Music are sufficent to satisfy notability criteria. They were one of the biggest bands of the Romo movement and got quite a bit of press back in the mid-90s, as indicated in CMJ New Music Monthly. Further coverage here and here which, while brief, demonstrate the band's importance to the genre. --Michig (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From memory they got very little press back in the mid-90's, tiny snippets and the one 8 page spread in the Maker that CMJ mention, which doesn't amount to quite a bit of press. NME didn't cover it at all. Hiding T 20:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with thanks to Michig for providing coverage. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 18 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Matar (footballer)[edit]

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

Restored article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. The article was restored on the grounds that it had previously been kept per afd. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Matar. Keep !votes in the previous afd were based on sources listed at WP:FPL at the time, which did not actually confirm that the Kuwaiti Premier League is fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage, and also fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has never played in a fully-pro league or at senior international level. GiantSnowman 16:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. The player hasn't played in any of the leagues listed as fully professional, nor has he competed in international competitions. Apart from that, significant coverage can't be found per WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 12:45, 24 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ATP (programming language)[edit]

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

Not finding any reference to this online. I believe it fails inclusion guidelines. If anyone has a conflicting policy or a source to show me differently I think this should be deleted. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article admits that this doesn't even exist yet (and, considering that this purports to be platform-independent object-oriented natural language programming, almost surely won't ever exist). Fails WP:MADEUP and/or WP:CRYSTAL, and would be a candidate for A7 speedy deletion except software is explicitly exempt from that criterion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. No indication of why this subject should be notable. Appears to be completely WP:MADEUP. Msnicki (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was actually going to A7 this after waiting a few minutes. Never got around to this. WP:SNOW? ⁓ Hello71 21:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per the article itself, the language does not exist, except perhaps as a development project, nor are there any users, nor are there any references. Rwessel (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Language at development stage; can't find references, searching on the net. Churn and change (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 18 October 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. WilyD 08:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Singlish vocabulary[edit]

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

The list by itself, excluding the above parts of the page, is unnecessary, and plausibly dubious, being largely unreferenced. The referenced part is just text spun off from the parent page, Singlish. Wikipedia is not a listing of all dictionary terms. We could also trains wiki this to Wikitionary, as a second option. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Survived a 2006 AFD, somehow, but doesn't meet our modern expectations. From WP:WINAD, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide." But that's exactly what this is, a slang dictionary and guide. Our article on Singlish already provides quite a bit of detail on slang construction, as well as the history and general grammar of the creole. That this is largely unreferenced, and leans very heavily on a single, specific source where it is referenced, are also points against retention. Most of the 2006 Keep !votes were variations on WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL. That may be true, but it still doesn't meet inclusion standards. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. Plenty of scholarly literature on this subject. For example, after a quick search I found chapter 4 "Discourse and Lexis" in Singapore English by David Deterding. I agree that we should probably lose the list of words, as that is more Wiktionary's area, but there is plenty of scope here for an article that doesn't violate WP:WINAD. In fact, it's probably about time someone split the vocabulary section off from the main Singlish article and moved it here, as that article is more than 100k already. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is, after removing the list, the rest of the page is an exact copy of information in the Singlish page. That said, we can transwiki the list by itself, and merge the rest to the Singlish page. A split is not needed, methinks. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I see I was looking at the "Singlish phrases" section in Singlish, rather than the "Vocabulary" section, which has already been split to Singlish vocabulary. I think Singlish phrases and Singlish vocabulary are close enough that we could incorporate them into one article, though. Maybe the rest of the grammar section (aside from "Singlish phrases") would be better split into Singlish grammar. In any case, merging anything to Singlish doesn't seem like a good idea because of its size. We have to think of the future possibilities for the article as well - Singlish vocabulary could be a fine article if we took selected entries from the word list and worked in commentary about Singlish vocabulary in general. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I agree that transwikiing the list to Wiktionary would be a good idea - wikt:Category:Singapore English is pretty thinly-populated at the moment. Not sure if they would want to make it an appendix or something as well. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up offending material (by removal or transwikiing the list material with no explanations). The non-list sections are notable and useful. —  AjaxSmack  01:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki the actual list to Wiktionary; that much I'm sure of. A list of words with their origins and definitions is a dictionary. As for the rest, merging somewhere seems appropriate, but as Strad points out Singlish is already more than 100k, which WP:SIZERULE suggests warrants splitting. Maybe merge the 'Singlish phrases' and 'Vocabulary' sections of Singlish with the first two sections of this page. As for the page name, I worry that "Singlish vocabulary" will invite re-creation of a list. I guess, though, that that concern can be dealt with through ordinary editing practices. Cnilep (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a rename might be in order. Not quite sure what to yet, though. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 05:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe... List of Singlish phrases/terms? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 06:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up per Mr. Stradivarius. Having spent a lot of time in Singapore, I find the information here relevant, useful and well-researched..--Zananiri (talk) 14:07, 23 October 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. --BDD (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Timeline of Amsterdam history[edit]

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

Completely redundant with History of Amsterdam; timeline page not necessary. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure in what sense the article is claimed to be "completely redundant". One would think it means all events mentioned on the timeline are already dealt with in the History of Amsterdam article. I have not systematically checked all of these events, but I have checked a fairly large subset, and in doing so in fact didn't find a single one already treated in the history article. So while perhaps there might be a valid claim that there is something wrong with the selection criterion, I don't think the rationale for deletion of complete redundancy is valid.  --Lambiam 02:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It might be described as a list of events in Amsterdam. This can deal with single events (such as the construction of buildings) that were not sufficiently notable to be included in a general hiostry of the city. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:20, 14 October 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, KTC (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful article on a great city. I also think that the article could be expanded to give more information with references on Amsterdam's historical and political background.--Zananiri (talk) 14:30, 23 October 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. WilyD 09:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Turns Red[edit]

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

A very minor local band that never garnered any sort of notability. None of the sources presented in the article are valid, as they consist of personal sites (Myspace, etc), youtube links, sites that do not even mention the band, or are defunct. The only place that actually gave any sort of writeup on the band was a student-run university paper, which is not enough to establish notability. Searching for additional sources also came up with no results. None of the claims of notability presented in the article (opened for more notable bands, has fans on Myspace) are acceptible signs of notability. Rorshacma (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The group is not notable at this time, Google News archives provided two German reviews here and here for their second album, Shadow's Far. I'm not fluent with German but both of them appear to be insignificant. Despite that I have added "music", "2008" and "New Jersey" to my search, I have not received additional results. I'll admit, the university news article was detailed but appears to be the only evidence. Considering that the news article was published three years ago, it's likely that they continued performing locally and MySpace-based, receiving little to no coverage (probably blogs). SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Those two German pages are actually reviews for an album titled "As Black Turns Red", by the band named Shadow's Far. Similar name, but they're not actually about the same group. Rorshacma (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see it now. Hmm, now it's more grim for the article. SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:43, 10 October 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, KTC (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Likely COI too, tone reveals someone from the band or close to it wrote the article. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this group; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time.  Gongshow Talk 16:30, 16 October 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 20:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Porul ilakkanam[edit]

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

unreferenced stub of uncertain authenticity Jac16888 Talk 13:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Tolkāppiyam. Google Books suggests nine books (on Tolkāppiyam or Tamil literature) treating Porul Ilakkanam, and Google Scholar finds one journal article on the topic. Presumably there are more works written in Tamil. Cnilep (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no prejudice to a proper re-creation. This shouldn't be merged to Tolkappiyam, this is one topic that is addressed by the book. The concept of Porul Ilakkanam could have a decent article, but this one is not a starting point. Most sources are likely to be in Tamil for this, but there should be some papers in linguistic journals. —SpacemanSpiff 05:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switching to Keep per the recent stubbification by Anbu121. —SpacemanSpiff 04:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added references. It is currently a stub, but deserves a separate article. I too agree that merge is not logical by virtue of nature of the subject. --Anbu121 (talk me) 13:41, 7 October 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, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think this is not proper??? --Anbu121 (talk me)
  • Keep. I see no reason why this article should be treated as an exception to the usual process of improvement by editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 13 October 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, KTC (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but not to Tolkāppiyam, which is a specific grammar text. Rather, the merge target should be Tamil grammar, which briefly mentions the "five parts" of Tamil grammar but is desperate for some expansion and context there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds like a sensible merge target to me as well. Cnilep (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a tough one, but I'm saying keep. There is some coverage discussed above and cited in the article that's marginal at best in terms of its reliability, but I don't think anyone disputes that this is one of the five parts of Tamil grammar; I, at least, don't doubt that that's the case. Naturally, this will be covered extensively in Tamil grammar books, which will almost uniformly have to be in Tamil. Thus it shouldn't come as a surprise that there are WP:RS issues with English sourcing or that sourcing is difficult to find. Moreover, as a fundamental concept in Tamil grammar, this is the equivalent in terms of significance to noun, verb or independent clause or predicate, and if we're not WP:BIASed, it ought to be included. This argument may be critiqued as WP:OSE, but I think this is one rare case where an WP:OSE argument carries water. --Batard0 (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upon further reflection, I'm not entirely sure my argument above is a sound one. Clearly this is the English Wikipedia, and we can't have separate articles for parts of speech in every language. Perhaps a separate article is warranted because of the uniqueness of this grammatical concept as compared to English-language concepts, or perhaps it fits better in the Tamil grammar article. I'm satisfied that sources likely exist in Tamil, but I'm ultimately on the fence on this. --Batard0 (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is an encyclopedia written in English, but is no more about the English language than it is about any other language. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree, of course. But does this mean the guidelines should allow for an article for French noun or German preposition? This isn't based on any policy or guideline, mind you, I'm just a bit conflicted on the principles. --Batard0 (talk) 17:42, 24 October 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. Promotional, DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NG Group[edit]

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

delete, non notable Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Non-notable and spam. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ugh, promotional and hardly indicates the company's significance and notability. I found an official website for the company here which claims they have locations in Israel, Czech Republic, Ireland, Romania and Denmark. Considering they have a short and simple name, it is easy to receive irrelevant results, so I added "1994", but alas, I haven't found any significant relevant results. SwisterTwister talk 20:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete WP:PROMO The list of industry is a fairly obvious attempt to keyword spam hoping to leverage getting search engine exposure for people searching by those. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:04, 19 October 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 G11 by DGG (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow's Company[edit]

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

This article was deleted just a few days back. I guess the same draft has been created again. There are some refs in the article. Many of them are passing mentions and some of the refs don't even quote the name of the company. The article looks a bit promotional too. Anbu121 (talk me) 14:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete A7/G4/G11. And salt for longer this time, as it was recreated less than 12 hours after the previous salting expired. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - again and SALT indefinitely strongly suggesting that creator follows AFC process. ukexpat (talk) 16:47, 16 October 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 G3 by JohnCD (G3: Blatant hoax). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ophtahalology[edit]

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

Things made up one day, delete Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Nonsense, borderline db-g1. PKT(alk) 14:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a {{db-hoax}}, tagged as such. This "medical speciality" exists only here on Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed but I find sometimes you irk the wrong people by csd so when in doubt I use these. sorry to waste time Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:48, 16 October 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 Policy Network. Ping me if people try to change it back to an article and I'll protect it. Jenks24 (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf Cramme[edit]

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

Devoid of any references to indicate notability FunkyCanute (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Policy Network. He is the director of a notable organization, but that notability is not inherited. While he's quoted widely in his role as director, sources specifically about him are lacking. Past efforts to make this redirect have been consistently reverted, so if redirection is the consensus here, protection may be required. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Policy Network and semi-protect for a year - Google Scholar provided insufficient results and Google News provided nearly all mentions (from several languages) with connection to Policy Network. When I added "Policy Network", the results thickened. I would disagree with an indefinite protection as the future may hold a better article for him. SwisterTwister talk 01:43, 20 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magik (rapper)[edit]

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

The very same article was deleted last night, per A7 Widr (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magik is an important part of polish hip-hopolo history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.251.9 (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He may be however there is no sources or refrences to tell us that. WP:ALIVE and WP:NOR Danielj27052705 (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danielj27052705? Why did you mentioned WP:ALIVE??? It was a blunder. --WTM (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check out Jestes Bogiem movie, it's about magik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.251.9 (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we please try to get this discussion on track, based on evidence from reliable sources? A good start would be a better deletion rationale from the nominator. These seaches are better than the automatically included ones above: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to have no other purpose than being a playground for continuous vandalism. There are no references at all, just dubious YouTube links. No one unfamiliar with the subject can check if the edits are correct or not. I requested a page protection for the original article that was vandalized the same way, but the admin decided to delete it instead with this note: "(A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))" Widr (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found some references in Polish, and they look like enough to satisfy WP:BASIC (although this is with the help of Google Translate). It also looks like someone is making a film about him and his fellow rappers.[23][24][25][26][27] — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a big article, in which whole background and his works were described. Magik is one of the legends in our polish music culture. Its a disgrace to put this offending links on eng wiki: ^ WYKOP - Diss na Magika vol. 1 ^ WYKOP - Diss na Magika vol. 2 Person who wrote the fake article also : - changed the name of an album to an offending one : Kaliber 44 - Księga Tajemnicza. Proktolog (1996) instead of Ksiega Tajemnicza Prolog - put wrong personal details in description (Wadowice instead of Jelenia Gora) - changed the names of crew members - previous version which I edited, which was then reedited was even more offending than the one that stays now If you just simply google translate the attached article from polish wiki, you will see many discrepancy within the data. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viosenka (talk • contribs)

  • Keep. The Polish Wikipedia article has plenty of references to sources that clearly demonstrate notability. This should never have been speedily deleted, but rather semi-protected (as has now been done) to protect it from vandalism. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Phil; also - a good article on pl wiki, as clearly indicated by the interwiki links. If the indication was present at the time of speedy, I would consider that a review is needed of the administrative actions taken by the admin who deleted it, as at least here we can see a case of a clearly improper execution of a speedy deletion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:05, 22 October 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 20:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Boshoff[edit]

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

Subject is non-notable, plus article reads like a blatant promo piece, full of vanity phrases and peacock terms. It's not an encyclopedic article. Quick deletion nomination was removed yesterday with the promise that references will be added within 24 hours, but no relevant independent sources have appeared since, just a list of websited affiliated with the subject (which isn't enough). A quick internet search also reveals no indication of his notability. — Yerpo Eh? 09:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PoseidonDiver (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC) This subject is one of the premier divers in the world currently and if you refer to http://www.eurotek.uk.com/johanboshoff.htm you will note that he is a speaker invited to deliver a speach making him more notable that some of the other diver listed on wikipedia. Here i would refer you to divers like Don Shirley and Parcal Bernarde(Man who claimed he holds the world record without verifyable evidence).[reply]

"Being a presenter at an expo" isn't a criterion for notability in Wikipedia - only independent coverage in reliable sources is (as per Wikipedia:Notability). The page that you linked to only contains the promo text that you tried to publish here, which obviously can't count as "independent". Other divers you mention are appropriately covered, and even if they weren't, this would not be an argument for keeping this promo article. Rather, it would be an argument for deleting their articles which you're welcome to start (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion). — Yerpo Eh? 09:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PoseidonDiver (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC) I agree with what you are saying in regards to the other divers but as for notability of Johan Boasoff being an expert in the field of diving I can assure you he is. I do however hear your point about the promo piece and will endevour to change to read as a bibliographical format. According to what I can gather you specialise in biology so also struggle to see how you can argue notablity knowing nothing about diving or tech diving?? Please correct me if I am wrong?[reply]

I would suggest the placement of the {{expert-subject}} tag on the page to get another subject matter expert involved with resources not only availible online. I will place this tag on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoseidonDiver (talk • contribs) 10:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but your assurance isn't enough. I argue notability according to what the article says and it's your responsibility to prove it. The sources don't need to be online, they can be printed newspaper or journal articles (which are usually accepted in good faith), which you can cite according to the instructions on Wikipedia:Citing sources. I'm talking about national newspapers, trade journals and such, what's important is that they're not very obscure and local, and that they publish their own material about the subject, not copies of promotional texts. — Yerpo Eh? 10:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: as I've a feeling that you're personally affiliated with the subject, I invite you to also take a look at the page Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

PoseidonDiver (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Actaully not affiliated with the subject and understand my assurances is not enought. I would also not have accepted that as for referinging national newspaper that is expactly what I am doing. The subject recently also led an groundbreeaking expidition to the Chinhoyi caves in Zimambawe (http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48771:zims-underwater-paradise&catid=42:features-news&Itemid=134). I am like states busy correcting the article to read more biblographical and cite various sources including news paper articles. and yes it is my duty to prove notability but that being said I do feel this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion as per Wikipedia.[reply]

PoseidonDiver (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Another reference to a local news paper but dont expect you to understand afrikaans :-) http://m.news24.com/beeld/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/SA-duikers-help-meer-oor-grotte-uitvind-20120810[reply]

The new sources are a good start, but they mention Boshoff only briefly in connection with a broader subject and you should take care to trim the content to what sources support, except basic biographical and non-controversial data like birth date, occupation etc. All the specific statements, especially those that sound promotional (for example "the first of its kind in the world" or "The Dive Spot is currently the most active technical dive school in South Africa"), must be supported by good sources.
All in all, you convinced me that the subject is notable and I withdraw my deletion proposal, but the article needs a lot of work. I suggest you put {{In use}} on top to inform others that you intend to do a major revision shortly. Another editor will close this proposal in due time, unless there's some other issue. — Yerpo Eh? 13:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PoseidonDiver (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Fully agree with your comments and will place the {{In use}} tag immediately. On a side note - thanks for the great learning curve in terms of the use of Wikipedia - that is highly appreciated.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 10 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. The article is poorly written, but the key thing is lack of sources establishing notability. Yaron K. (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the sources listed above might mean the subject meets WP:GNG but I am concerned about major copyvios from this blog. I understand they might have been placed there to be re-worked into non-copyvio text but that's not really appropriate. Whole sections from the end of the article are lifted directly from that article. There are way too many sub-headings and far too few sources for the vast tracks of prose that have been included. I understand that the article is being fixed and I agree the issues raised are mostly WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM problems. But it needs major work immediately and if the work is not done the copyvios alone mean it should be deleted. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failure to meet WP:GNG. Only a handful of mentions can be found in WP:RS, and they're all trivial. This article may be a start, but it's about an exhibition, not about Boshoff. Other evidence of significant coverage is lacking. I searched google and google news and found nothing more compelling. Fails the WP:GNG significant coverage guideline. --Batard0 (talk) 16:22, 24 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Mettraux[edit]

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

This article is such ugly example of bombardment that it is pure spam. So many references and non references that have nothing to do with Mettraux and are just puffing up this bio. Remove all the crap and we are left with nothing much more than some unsubstantiated quotes from his own website. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nom seems to be right. I've de-peacock'd the article and removed irrelevant links (e.g. websites of orchestras that say nothing about Mettraux). All that's left is a CV with quotes cited on his own website. I'll have a look on the web for possible RS. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look reveals 15 news items on Mettraux in distinctly minor places, though perhaps they might be enough to establish notability. No well-known newspapers among them.Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My first thought on looking at the article was "This is the cleaned-up version?". Looking back at the history, I confirmed that it indeed is. The previous version was so unambiguously promotional that I am bewildered by the fact that a speedy deletion was declined. The current version is better, but still substantially promotional in character. However, it is possible to despam an article if its subject is notable, so let's look at the references and see what is there. Exactly half of the current references are pages at www.laurentmettraux.com. One is a dead link. Several are links to pages that don't even mention Laurent Mettraux. In fact there is a grand total of one reference to a page which mentions him, other than his own web site, and that does no more than give credit in a concert programme. OK, so next thought is "were there better refs which were lost in the process of cleaning up?" Well, there were 43 references, and I have checked a random sample of 12. Not one of them mentions Laurent Mettraux at all. So the only independent source listed in any version of the article, as far as I have seen, that mentions him merely lists his name in a credit. It may be that in fact he is notable, but so far we have no evidence that he is. However, I thought maybe there are suitable sources, but the author of the article failed to provide them.
I started with a Google search. There were some Google images. Those that I checked all turned out to be hosted either on his own web site or on sites promoting his concerts, etc etc. Other than that, the first page of Google hits was as follows: 1: his own web site. 2: Wikipedia. 3: YouTube. 4: LinkedIn. 5 & 6: Two pages at indiatimes.com, for both of which the most they tell us is "There are no Quotes on Laurent Mettraux". 7: A page on a web site that sells space for users to post their own content. Also, the page merely lists Laurent Mettraux's works, so even if it were an independent reliable source (which it isn't) it would not be substantial coverage. And the next page of Google hits was no better.
I searched on Google books. First was a book which said "the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online". I didn't see anything else about him, rather than by him.
I searched Google news. I found a total of two reports, each of which made just one passing mention of Laurent Mettraux. (Incidentally, the sentence mentioning him was word for word the same in both.)
Conclusion: Neither in the article itself nor anywhere else have I been able to find any evidence that he satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In the unlikely event that he does, then rather than try to further clean up this piece of promotion and find proper references to add to it, far better to start from scratch and write a new, non-promotional article. More likely, he isn't notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, yes, he doesn't seem to have left much trace in WP:RS anywhere: hard to credit if his work was performed by so many fine orchestras. Perhaps he made most of it up, who knows. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 19 October 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 Tuvalu National Football Association. Jenks24 (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soama Tafia[edit]

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

Individual apparently has a senior role in the Tuvalu National Football Association. However, the biographical article is completely unreferenced and does not really show why the subject is notable. No third party sources in the article talk about what he has done. Seems to be a very minor figure in Oceanian football and does not appear to pass WP:GNG Fenix down (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Soama the many have done for the Tuvalu football, he is an important man at the TNFA. The Tuvalu National Football Association are recognise member of the FIFA. There its many sources concerning him. --Klant01 (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Tuvalu are not a recognised member of FIFA, only of the OFC as their article clearly states. If there are many sources, please provide them. The article as is is completely unreferenced. The external links point to a variety of primary sources. this is the TNFA official website and could only be a primary source, this is the website to the foundation you are directly involved in promoting football in Tuvalu and is therefore again a primary source with a potential conflict of interest, this is a completely irrelevant article about somalian piracy involving the article subjects brother, not him and so is a source for nothing at all (except perhaps somalian piracy) and this is a link to his church and is therefore also a primary source. Only this comes even close to discussing him in football terms as the manager of the futsal team in one competition. I do not think that this is enough to fulfil the general notability guidelines. If there are as you say many sources for him, please provide them, but make sure they are substantial third party references please. Fenix down (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no indication of notability, fails WP:GNG. Redirecting like GiantSnowman suggests might be good too. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afelee Valoa[edit]

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

Footballer who has not played for a professional football club in a fully professional league and has only been called up to the national futsal team. WP:FOOTYN seems to indicate that a player must have played a full international for the 11-a-side team in order to pass. Fenix down (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played at senior international level or in a fully-pro league). GiantSnowman 16:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Article satisfies to WP:FOOTYN. (3. Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games.) He participated at the Oceanian Futsal Championship, a football tournament recognised by the FIFA. The winner of this tournament participates at the FIFA Futsal World Cup. Tuvalu is part of the OFC, the football association from Oceania and therefore recognised by FIFA. Article is already a half year on wikipedia if it will not be to the criteria satisfy Article already rather removes. --Klant01 (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Your claims that futsal caps satisfy WP:FOOTYN are incorrect. As was established here consensus (and on reflection common sense) says they do not (I even argued your case!!) and that WP:FOOTYN refers solely to 11-a-side football, hence why it is an essay from Wikiproject football, not wikiproject futsal, so the fact that it is a FIFA recognised tournament is not relevant as it is in a sport that is different from the one the guideline you quote in support of your argument was intended for. The only fallback then is WP:GNG, which as GiantSnowman has pointed out it also fails as there is no significant reliable third party coverage. Thirdly, please try to avoid using the "It's been here for ages so should stay argument". This is completely irrelevant and is specifically one argument that editors are asked to avoid here. Fenix down (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hasn't actually played for his country's national team. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. – Kosm1fent 19:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. He fails WP:NSPORT, since it does not cover futsal national teams as playing for them does not necessarily generate significant coverage, and since hasn't played in a fully pro league or the 11-a side national team. In the absence of significant coverage also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a footballer he fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level. As a futsal-player he fails WP:NSPORTS as he hasn't participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:54, 20 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matti Uaelesi[edit]

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

Footballer who has not played for a professional football club in a fully professional league and has only been called up to the national futsal team. WP:FOOTYN seems to indicate that a player must have played a full international for the 11-a-side team in order to pass. Fenix down (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played at senior international level or in a fully-pro league). GiantSnowman 16:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Article satisfies to WP:FOOTYN. (3. Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games.) He participated at the Oceanian Futsal Championship, a football tournament recognised by the FIFA. The winner of this tournament participates at the FIFA Futsal World Cup. Tuvalu is part of the OFC, the football association from Oceania and therefore recognised by FIFA. Article is already a half year on wikipedia if it will not be to the criteria satisfy Article already rather removes. --Klant01 (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Your claims that futsal caps satisfy WP:FOOTYN are incorrect. As was established here consensus (and on reflection common sense) says they do not (I even argued your case!!) and that WP:FOOTYN refers solely to 11-a-side football, hence why it is an essay from Wikiproject football, not wikiproject futsal, so the fact that it is a FIFA recognised tournament is not relevant as it is in a sport that is different from the one the guideline you quote in support of your argument was intended for. The only fallback then is WP:GNG, which as GiantSnowman has pointed out it also fails as there is no significant reliable third party coverage. Thirdly, please try to avoid using the "It's been here for ages so should stay argument". This is completely irrelevant and is specifically one argument that editors are asked to avoid here. Fenix down (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hasn't actually played for his country's national team. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. – Kosm1fent 19:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. He fails WP:NSPORT, since it does not cover futsal national teams as playing for them does not necessarily generate significant coverage, and since hasn't played in a fully pro league or the 11-a side national team. In the absence of significant coverage also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a footballer he fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level. As a futsal-player he fails WP:NSPORTS as he hasn't participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:54, 20 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easter Tekafa[edit]

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

Footballer who has not played for a professional football club in a fully professional league and has only been called up to the national futsal team. WP:FOOTYN seems to indicate that a player must have played a full international for the 11-a-side team in order to pass. Fenix down (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played at senior international level or in a fully-pro league). GiantSnowman 16:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Article satisfies to WP:FOOTYN. (3. Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games.) He participated at the Oceanian Futsal Championship, a football tournament recognised by the FIFA. The winner of this tournament participates at the FIFA Futsal World Cup. Tuvalu is part of the OFC, the football association from Oceania and therefore recognised by FIFA. Article is already a half year on wikipedia if it will not be to the criteria satisfy Article already rather removes. --Klant01 (talk) 12:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Your claims that futsal caps satisfy WP:FOOTYN are incorrect. As was established here consensus (and on reflection common sense) says they do not (I even argued your case!!) and that WP:FOOTYN refers solely to 11-a-side football, hence why it is an essay from Wikiproject football, not wikiproject futsal, so the fact that it is a FIFA recognised tournament is not relevant as it is in a sport that is different from the one the guideline you quote in support of your argument was intended for. The only fallback then is WP:GNG, which as GiantSnowman has pointed out it also fails as there is no significant reliable third party coverage. Thirdly, please try to avoid using the "It's been here for ages so should stay argument". This is completely irrelevant and is specifically one argument that editors are asked to avoid here. Fenix down (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hasn't actually played for his country's national team. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. – Kosm1fent 19:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. He fails WP:NSPORT, since it does not cover futsal national teams as playing for them does not necessarily generate significant coverage, and since hasn't played in a fully pro league or the 11-a side national team. In the absence of significant coverage also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a footballer he fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level. As a futsal-player he fails WP:NSPORTS as he hasn't participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:53, 20 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mahaga Teiaputi[edit]

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

Footballer who has not played for a professional football club in a fully professional league and has only been called up to the national futsal team. WP:FOOTYN seems to indicate that a player must have played a full international for the 11-a-side team in order to pass. Fenix down (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played at senior international level or in a fully-pro league). GiantSnowman 16:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Article satisfies to WP:FOOTYN. (3. Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games.) He participated at the Oceanian Futsal Championship, a football tournament recognised by the FIFA. The winner of this tournament participates at the FIFA Futsal World Cup. Tuvalu is part of the OFC, the football association from Oceania and therefore recognised by FIFA. Article is already a half year on wikipedia if it will not be to the criteria satisfy Article already rather removes. --Klant01 (talk) 12:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Your claims that futsal caps satisfy WP:FOOTYN are incorrect. As was established here consensus (and on reflection common sense) says they do not (I even argued your case!!) and that WP:FOOTYN refers solely to 11-a-side football, hence why it is an essay from Wikiproject football, not wikiproject futsal, so the fact that it is a FIFA recognised tournament is not relevant as it is in a sport that is different from the one the guideline you quote in support of your argument was intended for. The only fallback then is WP:GNG, which as GiantSnowman has pointed out it also fails as there is no significant reliable third party coverage. Thirdly, please try to avoid using the "It's been here for ages so should stay argument". This is completely irrelevant and is specifically one argument that editors are asked to avoid here. Fenix down (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hasn't actually played for his country's national team. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. – Kosm1fent 19:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. He fails WP:NSPORT, since it does not cover futsal national teams as playing for them does not necessarily generate significant coverage, and since hasn't played in a fully pro league or the 11-a side national team. In the absence of significant coverage also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a footballer he fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level. As a futsal-player he fails WP:NSPORTS as he hasn't participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:53, 20 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malona Taukatea[edit]

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

Footballer who has not played for a professional football club in a fully professional league and has only been called up to the national futsal team. WP:FOOTYN seems to indicate that a player must have played a full international for the 11-a-side team in order to pass. Fenix down (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played at senior international level or in a fully-pro league). GiantSnowman 16:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Article satisfies to WP:FOOTYN. (3. Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games.) He participated at the Oceanian Futsal Championship, a football tournament recognised by the FIFA. The winner of this tournament participates at the FIFA Futsal World Cup. Tuvalu is part of the OFC, the football association from Oceania and therefore recognised by FIFA. Article is already a half year on wikipedia if it will not be to the criteria satisfy Article already rather removes. --Klant01 (talk) 12:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Your claims that futsal caps satisfy WP:FOOTYN are incorrect. As was established here consensus (and on reflection common sense) says they do not (I even argued your case!!) and that WP:FOOTYN refers solely to 11-a-side football, hence why it is an essay from Wikiproject football, not wikiproject futsal, so the fact that it is a FIFA recognised tournament is not relevant as it is in a sport that is different from the one the guideline you quote in support of your argument was intended for. The only fallback then is WP:GNG, which as GiantSnowman has pointed out it also fails as there is no significant reliable third party coverage. Thirdly, please try to avoid using the "It's been here for ages so should stay argument". This is completely irrelevant and is specifically one argument that editors are asked to avoid here. Fenix down (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hasn't actually played for his country's national team. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. – Kosm1fent 19:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. He fails WP:NSPORT, since it does not cover futsal national teams as playing for them does not necessarily generate significant coverage, and since hasn't played in a fully pro league or the 11-a side national team. In the absence of significant coverage also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a footballer he fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level. As a futsal-player he fails WP:NSPORTS as he hasn't participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:52, 20 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Taufaiua[edit]

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

Footballer who has not played for a professional football club in a fully professional league and has only been called up to the national futsal team. WP:FOOTYN seems to indicate that a player must have played a full international for the 11-a-side team in order to pass. Fenix down (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played at senior international level or in a fully-pro league). GiantSnowman 16:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Article satisfies to WP:FOOTYN. (3. Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games.) He participated at the Oceanian Futsal Championship, a football tournament recognised by the FIFA. The winner of this tournament participates at the FIFA Futsal World Cup. Tuvalu is part of the OFC, the football association from Oceania and therefore recognised by FIFA. Article is already a half year on wikipedia if it will not be to the criteria satisfy Article already rather removes. --Klant01 (talk) 12:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Your claims that futsal caps satisfy WP:FOOTYN are incorrect. As was established here consensus (and on reflection common sense) says they do not (I even argued your case!!) and that WP:FOOTYN refers solely to 11-a-side football, hence why it is an essay from Wikiproject football, not wikiproject futsal, so the fact that it is a FIFA recognised tournament is not relevant as it is in a sport that is different from the one the guideline you quote in support of your argument was intended for. The only fallback then is WP:GNG, which as GiantSnowman has pointed out it also fails as there is no significant reliable third party coverage. Thirdly, please try to avoid using the "It's been here for ages so should stay argument". This is completely irrelevant and is specifically one argument that editors are asked to avoid here. Fenix down (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hasn't actually played for his country's national team. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. – Kosm1fent 19:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. He fails WP:NSPORT, since it does not cover futsal national teams as playing for them does not necessarily generate significant coverage, and since hasn't played in a fully pro league or the 11-a side national team. In the absence of significant coverage also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a footballer he fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level. As a futsal-player he fails WP:NSPORTS as he hasn't participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:51, 20 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Siopepa Tailolo[edit]

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

Footballer who has not played for a professional football club in a fully professional league and has only been called up to the national futsal team. WP:FOOTYN seems to indicate that a player must have played a full international for the 11-a-side team in order to pass. Would seem perhaps to pass some form of notability as it is alleged he played at the Pacific games for the national volleyball team, but this statement and the rest of the article is completely unreferenced. Fenix down (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played at senior international level or in a fully-pro league). GiantSnowman 16:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Article satisfies to WP:FOOTYN. (3. Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games.) He participated at the Oceanian Futsal Championship, a football tournament recognised by the FIFA. The winner of this tournament participates at the FIFA Futsal World Cup. Tuvalu is part of the OFC, the football association from Oceania and therefore recognised by FIFA. Article is already a half year on wikipedia if it will not be to the criteria satisfy Article already rather removes. --Klant01 (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Your claims that futsal caps satisfy WP:FOOTYN are incorrect. As was established here consensus (and on reflection common sense) says they do not (I even argued your case!!) and that WP:FOOTYN refers solely to 11-a-side football, hence why it is an essay from Wikiproject football, not wikiproject futsal, so the fact that it is a FIFA recognised tournament is not relevant as it is in a sport that is different from the one the guideline you quote in support of your argument was intended for. The only fallback then is WP:GNG, which as GiantSnowman has pointed out it also fails as there is no significant reliable third party coverage. Thirdly, please try to avoid using the "It's been here for ages so should stay argument". This is completely irrelevant and is specifically one argument that editors are asked to avoid here. Fenix down (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hasn't actually played for his country's national team. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. – Kosm1fent 19:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. He fails WP:NSPORT, since it does not cover futsal national teams as playing for them does not necessarily generate significant coverage, and since hasn't played in a fully pro league or the 11-a side national team. In the absence of significant coverage also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a footballer he fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level. As a futsal-player he fails WP:NSPORTS as he hasn't participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:51, 20 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starchel Soloseni[edit]

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

Footballer who has not played for a professional football club in a fully professional league and has only been called up to the national futsal team. WP:FOOTYN seems to indicate that a player must have played a full international for the 11-a-side team in order to pass. Fenix down (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played at senior international level or in a fully-pro league). GiantSnowman 16:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Article satisfies to WP:FOOTYN. (3. Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games.) He participated at the Oceanian Futsal Championship, a football tournament recognised by the FIFA. The winner of this tournament participates at the FIFA Futsal World Cup. Tuvalu is part of the OFC, the football association from Oceania and therefore recognised by FIFA. Article is already a half year on wikipedia if it will not be to the criteria satisfy Article already rather removes. --Klant01 (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Your claims that futsal caps satisfy WP:FOOTYN are incorrect. As was established here consensus (and on reflection common sense) says they do not (I even argued your case!!) and that WP:FOOTYN refers solely to 11-a-side football, hence why it is an essay from Wikiproject football, not wikiproject futsal, so the fact that it is a FIFA recognised tournament is not relevant as it is in a sport that is different from the one the guideline you quote in support of your argument was intended for. The only fallback then is WP:GNG, which as GiantSnowman has pointed out it also fails as there is no significant reliable third party coverage. Thirdly, please try to avoid using the "It's been here for ages so should stay argument". This is completely irrelevant and is specifically one argument that editors are asked to avoid here. Fenix down (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hasn't actually played for his country's national team. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. – Kosm1fent 19:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. He fails WP:NSPORT, since it does not cover futsal national teams as playing for them does not necessarily generate significant coverage, and since hasn't played in a fully pro league or the 11-a side national team. In the absence of significant coverage also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a footballer he fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level. As a futsal-player he fails WP:NSPORTS as he hasn't participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:50, 20 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Petaia[edit]

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

Footballer who has not played for a professional football club in a fully professional league and has only been called up to the national futsal team. WP:FOOTYN seems to indicate that a player must have played a full international for the 11-a-side team in order to pass. Fenix down (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played at senior international level or in a fully-pro league). GiantSnowman 16:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Article satisfies to WP:FOOTYN. (3. Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games.) He participated at the Oceanian Futsal Championship, a football tournament recognised by the FIFA. The winner of this tournament participates at the FIFA Futsal World Cup. Tuvalu is part of the OFC, the football association from Oceania and therefore recognised by FIFA. Article is already a half year on wikipedia if it will not be to the criteria satisfy Article already rather removes. --Klant01 (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Your claims that futsal caps satisfy WP:FOOTYN are incorrect. As was established here consensus (and on reflection common sense) says they do not (I even argued your case!!) and that WP:FOOTYN refers solely to 11-a-side football, hence why it is an essay from Wikiproject football, not wikiproject futsal, so the fact that it is a FIFA recognised tournament is not relevant as it is in a sport that is different from the one the guideline you quote in support of your argument was intended for. The only fallback then is WP:GNG, which as GiantSnowman has pointed out it also fails as there is no significant reliable third party coverage. Thirdly, please try to avoid using the "It's been here for ages so should stay argument". This is completely irrelevant and is specifically one argument that editors are asked to avoid here. Fenix down (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hasn't actually played for his country's national team. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. – Kosm1fent 19:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. He fails WP:NSPORT, since it does not cover futsal national teams as playing for them does not necessarily generate significant coverage, and since hasn't played in a fully pro league or the 11-a side national team. In the absence of significant coverage also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a footballer he fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level. As a futsal-player he fails WP:NSPORTS as he hasn't participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:50, 20 October 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 Tuvalu National Football Association. Jenks24 (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paulson Panapa[edit]

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

Former footballer who has not played for a professional football club in a fully professional league and has not played international football either and so seems to fail WP:FOOTYN. Individual is now apparently president of the Tuvalu National Football Association however, the article offers no indication as to why this post is notable and most of the article seems to relate to his work with Dutch Foundation Stichting Dutch Support Tuvalu, which the article creator appears to be heavily involved in. Tuvalu have had next to no impact on the international scene, nor have their clubs had any impact at a continental level. I can see how this person and his role could become notable but at the moment this is a fully unreferenced biographical article that does not indicate notability. Fenix down (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. As stated in all the other deletion discussions you have responded to, please try to avoid using the "It's been here for ages so should stay argument". This is completely irrelevant and is specifically one argument that editors are asked to avoid here.
2. Noël Le Graët has an article because that is one supported by a number of significant thir party references clearly showing the subjects notability. Please also see this which is another argument not to use in deletion discussions. Simply because there is one article on a FA president, does not mean that there should be one on all of them, there is no evidence of independant notability of this person either as a footballer or administrator. As an entirely unreferenced biographical article, there are significant grounds for it to be speedily deleted as is.
3. The TNFA are not recognised by FIFA, only by OFC
4. Please also avoid the there's a lot of information in this article argument as it is again one that editors are asked to specifically avoid.
I would be happy to see a redirect to the National association as per GS.Fenix down (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to association's article per GiantSnowman. – Kosm1fent 19:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 18 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faiana Ofati[edit]

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

Footballer who has not played for a professional football club in a fully professional league and has never represented his country and so fails WP:FOOTYN. Fenix down (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or at a senior international level, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:48, 20 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Maleko[edit]

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

Footballer who has not played for a professional football club in a fully professional league and has only been called up to the national futsal team. WP:FOOTYN seems to indicate that a player must have played a full international for the 11-a-side team in order to pass. Fenix down (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played at senior international level or in a fully-pro league). GiantSnowman 16:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Article satisfies to WP:FOOTYN. (3. Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games.) He participated at the Oceanian Futsal Championship, a football tournament recognised by the FIFA. The winner of this tournament participates at the FIFA Futsal World Cup. Tuvalu is part of the OFC, the football association from Oceania and therefore recognised by FIFA. Article is already a half year on wikipedia if it will not be to the criteria satisfy Article already rather removes. --Klant01 (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Your claims that futsal caps satisfy WP:FOOTYN are incorrect. As was established here consensus (and on reflection common sense) says they do not (I even argued your case!!) and that WP:FOOTYN refers solely to 11-a-side football, hence why it is an essay from Wikiproject football, not wikiproject futsal, so the fact that it is a FIFA recognised tournament is not relevant as it is in a sport that is different from the one the guideline you quote in support of your argument was intended for. The only fallback then is WP:GNG, which as GiantSnowman has pointed out it also fails as there is no significant reliable third party coverage. Thirdly, please try to avoid using the "It's been here for ages so should stay argument". This is completely irrelevant and is specifically one argument that editors are asked to avoid here. Fenix down (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hasn't actually played for his country's national team. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. – Kosm1fent 19:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. He fails WP:NSPORT, since it does not cover futsal national teams as playing for them does not necessarily generate significant coverage, and since hasn't played in a fully pro league or the 11-a side national team. In the absence of significant coverage also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a footballer he fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level. As a futsal-player he fails WP:NSPORTS as he hasn't participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:47, 20 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etimani Maio[edit]

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

Footballer who has not played for a professional football club in a fully professional league and has only been called up to the national futsal team. WP:FOOTYN seems to indicate that a player must have played a full international for the 11-a-side team in order to pass. Fenix down (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played at senior international level or in a fully-pro league). GiantSnowman 16:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Article satisfies to WP:FOOTYN. (3. Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games.) He participated at the Oceanian Futsal Championship, a football tournament recognised by the FIFA. The winner of this tournament participates at the FIFA Futsal World Cup. Tuvalu is part of the OFC, the football association from Oceania and therefore recognised by FIFA. Article is already a half year on wikipedia if it will not be to the criteria satisfy Article already rather removes. --Klant01 (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Your claims that futsal caps satisfy WP:FOOTYN are incorrect. As was established here consensus (and on reflection common sense) says they do not (I even argued your case!!) and that WP:FOOTYN refers solely to 11-a-side football, hence why it is an essay from Wikiproject football, not wikiproject futsal, so the fact that it is a FIFA recognised tournament is not relevant as it is in a sport that is different from the one the guideline you quote in support of your argument was intended for. The only fallback then is WP:GNG, which as GiantSnowman has pointed out it also fails as there is no significant reliable third party coverage. Thirdly, please try to avoid using the "It's been here for ages so should stay argument". This is completely irrelevant and is specifically one argument that editors are asked to avoid here. Fenix down (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hasn't actually played for his country's national team. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. – Kosm1fent 19:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. He fails WP:NSPORT, since it does not cover futsal national teams as playing for them does not necessarily generate significant coverage, and since hasn't played in a fully pro league or the 11-a side national team. In the absence of significant coverage also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a footballer he fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level. As a futsal-player he fails WP:NSPORTS as he hasn't participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:46, 20 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laupula Huehe[edit]

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

Footballer who has not played for a professional football club in a fully professional league and has only been called up to the national futsal team. WP:FOOTYN seems to indicate that a player must have played a full international for the 11-a-side team in order to pass. Fenix down (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played at senior international level or in a fully-pro league). GiantSnowman 16:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Article satisfies to WP:FOOTYN. (3. Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games.) He participated at the Oceanian Futsal Championship, a football tournament recognised by the FIFA. The winner of this tournament participates at the FIFA Futsal World Cup. Tuvalu is part of the OFC, the football association from Oceania and therefore recognised by FIFA. Article is already a half year on wikipedia if it will not be to the criteria satisfy Article already rather removes. --Klant01 (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Your claims that futsal caps satisfy WP:FOOTYN are incorrect. As was established here consensus (and on reflection common sense) says they do not (I even argued your case!!) and that WP:FOOTYN refers solely to 11-a-side football, hence why it is an essay from Wikiproject football, not wikiproject futsal, so the fact that it is a FIFA recognised tournament is not relevant as it is in a sport that is different from the one the guideline you quote in support of your argument was intended for. The only fallback then is WP:GNG, which as GiantSnowman has pointed out it also fails as there is no significant reliable third party coverage. Thirdly, please try to avoid using the "It's been here for ages so should stay argument". This is completely irrelevant and is specifically one argument that editors are asked to avoid here. Fenix down (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hasn't actually played for his country's national team. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. – Kosm1fent 19:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. He fails WP:NSPORT, since it does not cover futsal national teams as playing for them does not necessarily generate significant coverage, and since hasn't played in a fully pro league or the 11-a side national team. In the absence of significant coverage also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a footballer he fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level. As a futsal-player he fails WP:NSPORTS as he hasn't participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:46, 20 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Funafuti[edit]

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

Footballer who has not played for a professional football club in a fully professional league and has only been called up to the national futsal team. WP:FOOTYN seems to indicate that a player must have played a full international for the 11-a-side team in order to pass. Fenix down (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played at senior international level or in a fully-pro league). GiantSnowman 16:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Article satisfies to WP:FOOTYN. (3. Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games.) He participated at the Oceanian Futsal Championship, a football tournament recognised by the FIFA. The winner of this tournament participates at the FIFA Futsal World Cup. Tuvalu is part of the OFC, the football association from Oceania and therefore recognised by FIFA. Article is already a half year on wikipedia if it will not be to the criteria satisfy Article already rather removes. --Klant01 (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Your claims that futsal caps satisfy WP:FOOTYN are incorrect. As was established here consensus (and on reflection common sense) says they do not (I even argued your case!!) and that WP:FOOTYN refers solely to 11-a-side football, hence why it is an essay from Wikiproject football, not wikiproject futsal, so the fact that it is a FIFA recognised tournament is not relevant as it is in a sport that is different from the one the guideline you quote in support of your argument was intended for. The only fallback then is WP:GNG, which as GiantSnowman has pointed out it also fails as there is no significant reliable third party coverage. Thirdly, please try to avoid using the "It's been here for ages so should stay argument". This is completely irrelevant and is specifically one argument that editors are asked to avoid here. Fenix down (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hasn't actually played for his country's national team. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. – Kosm1fent 19:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. He fails WP:NSPORT, since it does not cover futsal national teams as playing for them does not necessarily generate significant coverage, and since hasn't played in a fully pro league or the 11-a side national team. In the absence of significant coverage also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a footballer he fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level. As a futsal-player he fails WP:NSPORTS as he hasn't participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:45, 20 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semalie Fotu[edit]

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

Footballer who has not played for a professional football club in a fully professional league and has only been called up to the national futsal team. WP:FOOTYN seems to indicate that a player must have played a full international for the 11-a-side team in order to pass. Fenix down (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played at senior international level or in a fully-pro league). GiantSnowman 16:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Article satisfies to WP:FOOTYN. (3. Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games.) He participated at the Oceanian Futsal Championship, a football tournament recognised by the FIFA. The winner of this tournament participates at the FIFA Futsal World Cup. Tuvalu is part of the OFC, the football association from Oceania and therefore recognised by FIFA. Article is already a half year on wikipedia if it will not be to the criteria satisfy Article already rather removes. --Klant01 (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)--Klant01 (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Your claims that futsal caps satisfy WP:FOOTYN are incorrect. As was established here consensus (and on reflection common sense) says they do not (I even argued your case!!) and that WP:FOOTYN refers solely to 11-a-side football, hence why it is an essay from Wikiproject football, not wikiproject futsal, so the fact that it is a FIFA recognised tournament is not relevant as it is in a sport that is different from the one the guideline you quote in support of your argument was intended for. The only fallback then is WP:GNG, which as GiantSnowman has pointed out it also fails as there is no significant reliable third party coverage. Thirdly, please try to avoid using the "It's been here for ages so should stay argument". This is completely irrelevant and is specifically one argument that editors are asked to avoid here. Fenix down (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hasn't actually played for his country's national team. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. – Kosm1fent 19:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. He fails WP:NSPORT, since it does not cover futsal national teams as playing for them does not necessarily generate significant coverage, and since hasn't played in a fully pro league or the 11-a side national team. In the absence of significant coverage also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a footballer he fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level. As a futsal-player he fails WP:NSPORTS as he hasn't participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:45, 20 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ola Eliu[edit]

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

Footballer who has not played for a professional football club in a fully professional league and has only been called up to the national futsal team. WP:FOOTYN seems to indicate that a player must have played a full international for the 11-a-side team in order to pass. Fenix down (talk) 10:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played at senior international level or in a fully-pro league). GiantSnowman 16:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Article satisfies to WP:FOOTYN. (3. Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games.) He participated at the Oceanian Futsal Championship, a football tournament recognised by the FIFA. The winner of this tournament participates at the FIFA Futsal World Cup. Tuvalu is part of the OFC, the football association from Oceania and therefore recognised by FIFA. Article is already a half year on wikipedia if it will not be to the criteria satisfy Article already rather removes. --Klant01 (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Your claims that futsal caps satisfy WP:FOOTYN are incorrect. As was established here consensus (and on reflection common sense) says they do not (I even argued your case!!) and that WP:FOOTYN refers solely to 11-a-side football, hence why it is an essay from Wikiproject football, not wikiproject futsal, so the fact that it is a FIFA recognised tournament is not relevant as it is in a sport that is different from the one the guideline you quote in support of your argument was intended for. The only fallback then is WP:GNG, which as GiantSnowman has pointed out it also fails as there is no significant reliable third party coverage. Thirdly, please try to avoid using the "It's been here for ages so should stay argument". This is completely irrelevant and is specifically one argument that editors are asked to avoid here. Fenix down (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hasn't actually played for his country's national team. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. – Kosm1fent 19:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. He fails WP:NSPORT, since it does not cover futsal national teams as playing for them does not necessarily generate significant coverage, and since hasn't played in a fully pro league or the 11-a side national team. In the absence of significant coverage also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a footballer he fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level. As a futsal-player he fails WP:NSPORTS as he hasn't participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:44, 20 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ala Avia[edit]

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

Footballer who has not played for a professional football club in a fully professional league and has only been called up to the national futsal team. WP:FOOTYN seems to indicate that a player must have played a full international for the 11-a-side team in order to pass. Fenix down (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played at senior international level or in a fully-pro league). GiantSnowman 16:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Article satisfies to WP:FOOTYN. (3. Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games.) He participated at the Oceanian Futsal Championship, a football tournament recognised by the FIFA. The winner of this tournament participates at the FIFA Futsal World Cup. Tuvalu is part of the OFC, the football association from Oceania and therefore recognised by FIFA. Article is already a half year on wikipedia if it will not be to the criteria satisfy Article already rather removes. --Klant01 (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Your claims that futsal caps satisfy WP:FOOTYN are incorrect. As was established here consensus (and on reflection common sense) says they do not (I even argued your case!!) and that WP:FOOTYN refers solely to 11-a-side football, hence why it is an essay from Wikiproject football, not wikiproject futsal, so the fact that it is a FIFA recognised tournament is not relevant as it is in a sport that is different from the one the guideline you quote in support of your argument was intended for. The only fallback then is WP:GNG, which as GiantSnowman has pointed out it also fails as there is no significant reliable third party coverage. Thirdly, please try to avoid using the "It's been here for ages so should stay argument". This is completely irrelevant and is specifically one argument that editors are asked to avoid here. Fenix down (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hasn't actually played for his country's national team. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. – Kosm1fent 19:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. He fails WP:NSPORT, since it does not cover futsal national teams as playing for them does not necessarily generate significant coverage, and since hasn't played in a fully pro league or the 11-a side national team. In the absence of significant coverage also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a footballer he fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level. As a futsal-player he fails WP:NSPORTS as he hasn't participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:44, 20 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maalosi Alefaio[edit]

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

Football player who has not played for a fully professional team, nor has he represented his country internationally in any competition and so fails WP:FOOTYN Fenix down (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or at a senior international level, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:41, 20 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technic Pack[edit]

Technic Pack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find video game sources: "Technic Pack" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Fails WP:GNG -- no multiple, reliable, independent sources with significant topic's coverage. While popular with let's plays and known in Minecraft's modding community, the mod pack has not received any press coverage that I can find from either specialized VG sources or generic googling. (I should note I wouldn't consider PC Gamer article significant coverage, as it is basically a beginner's WP:HOWTO guide. There are 2 paragraphs of generic promotionally sounding description and has no critical evaluation.) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who wrote the article. I wrote it quite quickly so the sources may not be the best. It's strange that I could not find any better information regarding Technic apart from wikis and forums. The pack I think is a major part of the Minecraft modding community so I thought it might be best to contribute an article. I understand that the article meets criteria for deletion, however. Given the pack's popularity, I'm surprised not much coverage from independent sources is given. Perhaps, if the pack receives press coverage in the future the article could be re-written. User:elemented9 21:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:51, 10 October 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) 18:53, 10 October 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) 06:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails the general notability guideline. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article clearly doesn't meet GNG criteria, but if anyone is interested in an alternative, I do think there is enough material to create a Minecraft mods page and merge some of this article's sourced content into it. While not notable alone, the Minecraft modding community and releases appear to be significant enough (from cursory searches) to stand as their own article with ample independent sources. Food for thought. czar · · 19:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. A page that includes the entire modding community in General is probably more appropriate and meets notability guidelines. I've archived the content of the article here and I may get started on such a page if I can find references and sources to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. If anyone is interested I can contact you when the page is up, unless someone else plans to start the article themselves. Element2. TALK 20:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep me updated if you do. Also post a message to WT:VG to let other people know—it's a large topic. czar · · 20:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On further consideration of the article I wrote, it does fail to meet notability guidelines regardless of the pack's popularity. A page for Minecraft modding as Czar mentioned is probably more appropriate. Element2. TALK
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica 2012[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:Verify and WP:NOTE, Nothing apart from a Facebook page. Nothing reliable in Google Wikishagnik (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I haven't found any relevant third-party sources with Google US or España and that Facebook page hardly mentions anything. I'm concerned because it appears the awards were cancelled in 2010 and mtvla.com results suggest this is so. This may be a hoax. SwisterTwister talk 01:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:40, 10 October 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) 06:54, 16 October 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 Metro Transitway (Los Angeles County). Jenks24 (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Transitway/ Liner (Los Angeles County)[edit]

Metro Transitway/ Liner (Los Angeles County) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on same subject exists at Metro Transitway (Los Angeles County). –Dream out loud (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously merge -- This article looks like a pointless fork of the Metro Transitway (Los Angeles County). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- The Metro Liner system of buses that run on the Transitways should have its own page... and the transitways should have individual pages (entries on the main page of that highway?) But this article is pointlessly redundant. --RickyCourtney (talk) 08:03, 19 October 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. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome Web Store[edit]

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

While this article is well referenced it has no merit as a Wikipedia article and is a good example of systemic bias - in this case towards computer and internet related articles. It is also a sort of spam and gives Google a commercial advantage over competitors (because of the popularity of Wikipedia). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - article has coverage in multiple reliable sources so meets WP:GNG. Nominator's reason for deletion seems to be a textbook WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and suggest a withdrawal by the nominator. Per sources in the article, this topic meets WP:GNG. Till 13:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - The nomination makes no case that the subject is not notable. Subject passes WP:GNG. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 14:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Chrome Web Store would be as significant and notable as the Apple App Store. Additionally, considering that this is Google, it would certainly gain significant coverage and it has. As for the "It is also a sort of spam" comment, there are far worse articles that read like advertisements. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy and Snow Keep - No valid deletion rationale has been presented. See also WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep No proper reason to delete. It is very much notable --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:33, 18 October 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let it fly energy[edit]

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

I could be wrong, but I don't believe an energy drink is inherently notable simply because it is sponsored by an athlete. AutomaticStrikeout 01:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The energy drink founder/owner is Mike Miller, player from the Miami Heat. He is not a sponsor. It has received coverage in ESPN, Dime Magazine, and Forbes. --Doublea25 (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some references to the energy drink.

--- http://espn.go.com/nba/truehoop/miamiheat/story/_/id/8174883/miami-heat-mike-miller-retire-hopes-avoid-back-surgery

--- http://www.forbes.com/sites/lancemadden/2012/06/28/miami-heats-mike-miller-becomes-face-of-impending-new-energy-drink/

--- http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/heatzone/2012/07/16/heats-let-it-fly-team-busy-this-summer/

--- http://dimemag.com/2012/06/mike-miller-has-his-own-drink-called-let-it-fly-energy-shot/ --Doublea25 (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. I prefer to eat spaghetti a la Shaquille O'Neal, but I can not find the recipe in here. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not notable because it's sponsored by an athlete, it's notable because it's received press coverage in multiple reliable sources. MaNeMeBasat's contribution is impressively argued but I'm not sure how it's relevant to Wikipedia policy. If you really don't think the references are sufficient to establish notability, it should be merged to Mike Miller. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, you catch the point, that's fine, so merge is even more appropriate than delete. But you can read Flat earth news, it helps. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has several reliable high profile media outlets as sources. I did one search for Let It Fly Energy and it did not take long to find recent press coverage on this company. --Robroymalibu (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Note to closing admin:Robroymalibu has made no edits outside of this AfD. AutomaticStrikeout 20:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 10 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Isn't notable or noticed enough. TBrandley 04:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.MiracleMat (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No wp:suitable coverage shown. I don't know what the "it's notable because it's received press coverage in multiple reliable sources" comment was based on. Of the three references given. I think that two don't even mention it, and the other about this being an activity of the celebrity. North8000 (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, all 4 links mention it. I don't understand how this is not notable enough when you have ESPN and Forbes writing about it, among others.


1. ESPN http://espn.go.com/nba/truehoop/miamiheat/story/_/id/8174883/miami-heat-mike-miller-retire-hopes-avoid-back-surgery Miller made 45 percent of his attempts from 3-point range this season, averaging 6.1 points in 39 games. It's been a whirlwind summer -- "everything changes as a champion," Miller said -- with promotional appearances and plans to be involved in the release of an energy drink called Let It Fly on Aug. 10, but he's sounding confident in the plan to be able to play again.

2. FORBES http://www.forbes.com/sites/lancemadden/2012/06/28/miami-heats-mike-miller-becomes-face-of-impending-new-energy-drink/ As the face of a brand new energy drink shot named “Let It Fly,” though, the Miami Heat guard-forward combo has finally become a front man, albeit in a different domain.

3. PALM BEACH POST http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/heatzone/2012/07/16/heats-let-it-fly-team-busy-this-summer/ That’s part of the acronym for Let It Fly Energy drink. And while Mike Miller is the face of it — which is why he’s mixing those words into every quote — he’s recruited three of his Heat teammates as partners, Shane Battier, Udonis Haslem and James Jones.

4. DIME MAGAZINE http://dimemag.com/2012/06/mike-miller-has-his-own-drink-called-let-it-fly-energy-shot/ MIKE MILLER HAS HIS OWN DRINK CALLED ‘LET IT FLY ENERGY SHOT’ --Doublea25 (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there are some sources on it doesn't make it notable, I suggest you read WP:NOTABLE. TBrandley 23:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Charles (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. There's clearly been some coverage in independent, reliable sources. But the coverage is in the end trivial and only appears in the context of an advertising campaign and the athletes promoting it, which underscores its triviality. Fails WP:GNG on lack of significant coverage. --Batard0 (talk) 16:51, 24 October 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. MBisanz talk 20:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malta–Ukraine relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. almost all the coverage i could find was multilateral not bilateral. the best is a presidential meeting in 2008. neither country has embassies, no binding agreements, just "cooperation" ones. Those wanting to keep must show actual evidence of real bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Query - do any of the supporting references directly support any of the contentions in the article itself or this this just pure WP:SYNTH? I get that there are a couple of articles that cover specific initiatives/comments/visits but those "ideas" seem to have been extrapolated to create a broad article about bilateral foreign relations. This is very different to Australia–New Zealand relations or Canada–United States relations. I'm not trying to start a WP:OTHERSTUFF discussion but those are established relationships with treaties, regular visits and shared history. This just seems to be two "random" countries slapped together in an article with a couple of minor events tenuously holding them together. Israel–Ukraine relations and Portugal–Ukraine relations are much the same - basically WP:OR with a single "event" being used to justify a much broader article. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, well spoken Stalwart. basically a lot of stubs started by a serial now banned creator Groubani (talk · contribs), random combinations with very little interactions are hardly encyclopaedic. LibStar (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The fact that even though these countries have diplomatic relations with each other, neither of them has an embassy in the other country, tends to suggest that their relations are not that notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So-called "Original Research" is a prohibition against the first publication of novel scientific theories and unsourced original essays. There need not be a book out there or an article in the New York Times for a topic to be encyclopedic. Every single molecule of writing on WP that is not copyright violation is technically "original research" — "original" in that it is not copied but appears here in a specific form for the first time, "research" in that some facts are included and others ignored, at the discretion of the writer. Carrite (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reasonably fair assessment, I think, but I suppose my take was that we're dealing with something that falls more into the category of WP:SYNTH than straight WP:OR (though they come under the same policy). Essentially someone has brought together a few events which are not part of a wider (proactive) foreign relations effort between the two countries (all mostly routine stuff) and drawn the conclusion that there is a formal diplomatic relationship between the two that should be called "Malta–Ukraine relations". Per your further comment below; I could only imagine there would be plenty of coverage for the relationship between the USA and Soviet Russia/USSR in the period you cite, regardless of whether or not they had mutual embassies. I would suggest, by way of example, that Belgium–Ukraine relations and Sweden–Ukraine relations are probably okay. Also a bit WP:SYNTH, but there seems to be more evidence to substantiate a "relationship" in both cases, especially on historical grounds, regardless of diplomatic missions. I wouldn't agree to a bundled nomination of all "X - Ukraine relations" articles but on a case-by-case basis, this one probably doesn't make the grade, in my opinion. Stalwart111 (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This topic is encyclopedic and is sourced out sufficiently to pass GNG, esoteric though the topic may be. Countries need not have embassies or consulates to have foreign relations — see the case of the USA and Soviet Russia/USSR for the years 1917 to 1933 for example. I realize the nominator hates this type of article with a passion, but it really would be better to grit teeth and move along if sources are showing. Carrite (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:ADHOM, you can't use the nominator as a reason to keep. that's a selective example of no embassies, US has no embassies in Cuba and North Korea, but these are clearly notable non friendly relations. no embassies and no bindings agreements and no significant trade, no regular meetings at state leve. Carrite has failed to provide sources to support notable relations. all this article hinges on is one presidential meeting. LibStar (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Carrite's example is patently facetious: from the moment the hiatus in US-Russia relations stopped (and probably before), books and articles have been written on the topic, as well as on US-North Korea relations, US-Cuba relations, and so forth.
  • In the real world, as opposed to the pretend world of Wikipedia editors inventing fictitious topics on random bilateral pairings no one's heard of, Ukraine has notable relations with probably one country outside its immediate neighbors (the US) and, among supranational bodies, the EU. In the real world, Malta's notable relations are limited to Italy, Libya, the United Kingdom and (possibly, by default) the US. And please, don't take my word for it: here is the International Relations Department of the University of Malta with contact information, and here is the leadership of Harvard's Ukrainian Research Institute.
  • Also, let's not pick on LibStar: my only objection is that he should be redirecting the articles he doesn't like, since unless someone is stalking him or by chance watching those pages, there's a far lower likelihood of anyone noticing their disappearance, or of attracting a crowd that's suddenly "discovered" their existence.
  • In any case, the problem is not the "esoteric" nature of the "topic", but rather its non-existence. Yes, a couple of press releases from the mouthpiece of the Ukrainian government, as well as a blurb on its foreign ministry's site, do mention that officials of that country once interacted with those of Malta, as officials of every country interact with officials of other countries every week of every year without this encyclopedia taking note (and rightly so). They also signed a couple of pieces of paper, of the sort that hundreds are signed every year, again without drawing our notice, as such things are entirely routine and non-noteworthy. But as for actual coverage of "Malta–Ukraine relations" in any sort of depth or contextually relevant venue: not a chance. - Biruitorul Talk 21:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - stubby, and maybe necessarily so (though Maltese/Ukrainian speakers would be helpful), but on a highly imporant encyclopaedic topic - there's a real bilateral relation here, despite absurd assertions to the contrary; that it doesn't rise to the importance level of the Cold War is a rediciulous standard of notability, way, way, way above and beyond what's usually done. WilyD 08:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
having relations is not the same as notable relations. Did you bother to look for sources? LibStar (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you?
      • For one, you're setting up a straw man. No one said a bilateral pairing need "rise to the importance level of the Cold War", only that it be covered, as such, in independent reliable sources. For another, nothing of what you've presented even remotely rises to that level, nor does it validate an article. These types of random meeting between officials happen every week of every year, and are not normally picked up by this encyclopedia (nor should they be), except in this absurd context of a group of determined Wikipedia editors "rescuing" articles on topics no one's ever heard of. Again, in the real world (let's stop pretending for a moment), the bilateral relations of Malta that actually have any significance are with Italy, Libya, the United Kingdom and perhaps the United States, while Ukraine's are limited to its neighbors and again, possibly the US. Given the utter lack of sources on "Malta-Ukraine relations", and the lack of anything but routine news reports on anything having to do with both countries, the only legitimate option is deletion. - Biruitorul Talk 18:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There seem to be a smattering of articles in reliable sources about these countries' relationship, as cited above, and it passes WP:GNG as significant on those grounds, but only slightly. --Batard0 (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I beg to differ: the sources, such as they are, present evidence of a couple of encounters between officials of the two countries that a group of Wikipedia editors has decided constitutes "Malta-Ukraine relations". But there is no source actually describing such a relationship as such, nor is one ever likely to turn up, given the circumstances. - Biruitorul Talk 18:22, 24 October 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, WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wegmans Store Locations[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability per the general notability guideline and notability guideline for organisations and companies. I can't see that there is a reason to have a whole article about the store locations of a relatively low profile supermarket chain. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:NOTDIR.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't a substitute for a company website.MiracleMat (talk) 04:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I am sure the store website has the list, and there is no need for us to duplicate it. Churn and change (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I gave myself some time to think about this one and I vote delete. Adding "list of locations" may encourage other users and, as soon as you know, there will be overwhelming lists. I appreciate the author's efforts but it is unlikely that each individual location would be notable itself. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm most likely to find it on their website. I also can't see a reason for this article. Corn cheese (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. JIP | Talk 05:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Absolutely classic example of what is meant to be excluded by the Wikipedia policy of WP:NOTDIR. Carrite (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Delete - Fails WP:NOTDIR. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:58, 17 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Master and Victim[edit]

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

PROD was removed by another editor, my rationale was: "Does not meet WP:NF, written like an essay and an advertisement" LegoKontribsTalkM 01:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I removed the PROD tag because I think there's a decent chance that someone could make a case to keep. For now, I'm neutral. Go Phightins! 01:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - agree with Phightins that someone might be able to make a case for Keep but at the moment the only sources are from the production company itself and from a single magazine article. Would be inclined to think this is a combination of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL and that it could probably justify an article in the future (once it is released and has been reviewed in reliable sources). Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - Lions Gate Entertainment are a production company. Have they had anything to do with producing this film? If so, the reference that cites their magazine could obviously not be considered independent. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The official website for the film says, "Master and Victim is an independant British Horror Film that started production in 2010. Having already been featured in Lions Gate's "Fright Club" magazine, the film is already getting quite a reputation." That implies that it is not affiliated with Lionsgate, I think. Go Phightins! 01:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was my first inclination too, but I query why an uninvolved production company would promo another production company's unreleased movie... Maybe that's just what they do. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment, weak delete Pending any new information, I will tentatively vote delete. Go Phightins! 02:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - Google News US and UK provided zero relevant results aside from one listing here at Leila Reid's website, an actress from the film. The film is not notable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 02:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Most of the plot was copied and pasted directly from http://www.masterandvictim.co.uk/home.html. I have blanked the copyrighted content. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As I am reading this right now, I have it that the film has not been released yet. According to WP:NFF:

Additionally, 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. Similarly, films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines.

—WP:NFF

It is simply too soon for this article to be considered. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment, weak delete i would like to say keep if the article can add some sources. if it makes it out of post production it will likely later be worthy, if coverage is done during the production like most movies and is sourced i'd change my mind, i do believe with a little work it could be kept and later can be built upon by other editors WinsnerB1942 (talk) 22:25, 18 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zink magazine[edit]

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

I don't see any evidence that this magazine is notable. Gawker's mentioned it a few times--and the purpose of their mention is specifically to point out that the magazine isn't important (that they used PR on an unrelated topic to gain some sort of attention). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commment: While I was unaware of the prior AfD when I nominated, the arguments there don't convince me to withdraw. Two references allegedly exist, but neither have been added to the article. And, at best, we have exactly 2 sources; while that is enough to barely meet GNG, that's not enough to guarantee keeping the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The initial issues in the original AFD have never been fixed, and it appears the original was not closed based on the merits of policy. This one is a non-notable, non-niche magazine with limited market. It's sole "conundrum" about being ridiculed isn't enough to to even sneeze at notability dangerouspanda 11:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources don't seem substantial enough to establish notability. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not particularly notable, and exactly one edit (a trivial grammar change) between the closing of the first AFD and the recent edit war. The current frozen version is not what was there at the end of the AFD, so you should check that too [28]. I'm not sure why the article is fully protected. The IP and the user were both blocked for a week well before the admin-only protection was added. Meters (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I recall the 'zine, but not the controversy. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find anything notable cited by reliable sources. Churn and change (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 18 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_October_16&oldid=1142633823"