Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 April	25 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Britton[edit]

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

Declined CSD, but I do not believe adequate notability is asserted on the page, no independent sources are present, a search for sources only turns up non-reliable blurbs from clearly related organizations, or wikimirror bio links, and capturing 0.01% of the 2003 California recall vote is more indicative of non-notability than anything IMO Boogerpatrol (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added six independent and reliable sources and expanded the article somewhat. There are more sources out there. The guy is notable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I Only three of the sources cited in the article appear to be about the subject (all in relationship to an election). The Los Angeles Times did not cover his run in 1989, and did run a short bio in 2004 ^[1]. My sense is that the subject has not been covered by multiple sources in a significant manner. The subject does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Enos733 (talk) 05:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that WP:POLITICIAN is for subjects who do not meet WP:GNG but are nevertheless to be considered notable. My argument is that he does meet the GNG, rather than POLITICIAN.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that these sources are necessarily independent, reliable, or provide significant coverage of subject:

[1] is written by an individual associated with Britton's party, the SWP per [[Category:Socialist Workers Party (United States) presidential candidates], and source is about the same organization.

[2] only seems to indicate that he exists, and was involved in the group during his youth,

[3] describes Britton's elevation to the National Committee resulting from his being a college buddy of Barnes, and as "a case of 'elevating the mediocre and the pliant'"

[4],[5], [6], and [7] are either trivial mentions, or point out his status as "little known" or marginalized in the 2003 California recall circus, where, as mentioned above, he garnered his 751 (0.01%) of the vote,

and [8] is not independent, as "The Militant" is the official SWP organ.

(for the sources behind paywalls, review titles at the article, which seem to typically indicate his status as a patently minor candidate) Boogerpatrol (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking substantial coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. He gets mentioned in the press, but aside from fringe candidacies, he doesn't get actual coverage. Thus, he fails both WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. The usual rule for a one-shot candidate is to redirect to the election's page, but his candidacies occurred multiple times, and are of such an insignificant nature, that deletion is merited. Ray^Talk 18:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete via G12 by User:INeverCry, unambiguous copyright infringement. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Chameleon (2009 film)[edit]

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

This low budget South African film does not appear to meet WP:MOVIE, since its only reference at the moment is to its IMDB page. I couldn't seem to find any significant coverage, but that might be because it was overshadowed by The Chameleon (film). I'll withdraw if anyone can find reliable sources for this. Funny ^Pika! 23:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1942107/ and tagged as such. -- Whpq (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 02:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of leap years[edit]

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

The lead is a content fork of the main article, leap year; the list itself is unnecessary WP:RAWDATA. Having explained that a leap year is any number divisible by 4, except for numbers divisible by 100 but not 400, it is not necessary to then give a list of all numbers between 1600 and 2100 that have this property — why only that range, anyway? (Even if it is felt necessary, the list could easily be included as a paragraph of the main article, along the lines of, "Thus, the leap years between 1600 and 2100 inclusive are: 1600, 1604, 1608, ...") I note that an editor replaced the page with a redirect to "leap year" not long after the page was created but this was reverted. Dricherby (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No valid navigational function, no encyclopedic content that is not available on the page leap year from which this is forked, this is set of answers to a not-very complex mathematical formula. Carrite (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Article is unnecessary for the reasons given above, and it is a consistent target of misinformed "corrections". However, the lead is in some regards easier to understand than the discussion of the Gregorian calendar at Leap year, so some merging might be useful. -- Elphion (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Praemonitus (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unnecessary article with non-encyclopedic content. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article doesn't accomplish anything that hasn't been put forth in the main "Leap Year" article, which has the algorithm on there already. Breadblade (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 02:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Araf Shardd[edit]

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

Non-notable golfer per WP:NGOLF Tewapack (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recently turned professional Bangladeshi golfer who plays in the developmental PGA EuroPro Tour. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NGOLF or WP:GNG. May have been some WP:COI during creation. Funny ^Pika! 00:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NGOLF or WP:GNG! --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NGOLF/WP:GNG. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The developmental PGA EuroPro Tour is not among those listed as conferring notability in WP:NGOLF. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete at this time. As no direct policies are being broken by the existence of this BLP, there's no immediate need to delete as well (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker Reed[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:BASIC requirements, and falls very far short of WP:WRITER. No third party coverage has been offered to demonstrate the significance of this woman's apparent achievements. Note: this is not the same person as the Huffington Post author, who is a male. Findsources will result in false positives. JFHJr (㊟) 21:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — See also the relevant discussion at WP:BLPN or its archives regarding contentious content and sourcing. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added the relevant blog posts about her self described status as a sexual assault victim. without these references, the material would have to be immediately removed, even if it hurts the articles chance of surviving AFD.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the author has not received sufficient coverage at this time, neither has her book. notability is not inherited from the mother. I of course hope that her work as an activist does bring her notability, but its not there yet. My "vote" has nothing to do with the merits of her book or her blog posts, only about coverage. I would be happy to be proven wrong, with sourced refs. the blog posts i added to support the BLP issues are not quite notable, though a MS blog is not chopped liver.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — "Ms. Magazine blog" is not subject to the same standards as "Ms. Magazine", and the blog has the disclaimer that all blog content is the opinion of the writer not the editors. The writer of the Ms. Magazine blog article is a student at the same university as the subject of the article. MisTemPest (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree its not the same as the mag, and im glad you have described exactly how its different, those details i didnt know. I wouldnt be surprised if the ms blog and ms reeds blog get more attention, but they havent yet, which is the whole problem here, and we cant "fix" it by covering it ourselves more than it has been already (if i had a blog i would probably cover it).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker Reed is the co-author of a published work by Scholastic Press, with many sources to prove that. (Amber House, novel, 2012, Scholastic Press) http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/book/amber-house http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-545-43416-4 http://www.arthuralevinebooks.com/book.asp?bookid=215 https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/kelly-moore/amber-house/ http://www.kirkusreviews.com/features/complex-mysteries-kelly-moores-amber-house/

Under WP:BASIC requirements it states: 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. -- Tucker Reed is notable for being a published author of a very well-received novel. There are many reliable, secondary sources that are independent of each other and independent of Ms. Reed.

Under WP:WRITER notability with regard to authors is defined as follows: Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals: 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2. The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications. 3. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. 4. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 5. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Tucker Reed has co-created a significant piece of work that has received multiple, independent reviews, (number 4 on the list)(with two additional volumes in the trilogy to be released in the winters of 2013-14 and 2014-15). Tucker Reed's work has won significant critical attention, from Kirkus, Booklist, Publisher's Weekly, and countless reviews elsewhere on the internet (number 5). In addition, Tucker Reed created a blog on date rape that is being widely cited by peers (number 1). Finally, Tucker Reed and her blog are the subject of two major publications (Ms.Magazine, [April 10, 2013] and xoJane [release impending]), and the list continues to grow (number 2).

So, I don't understand why JFHJr thinks Tucker Reed falls "very short" of meeting the standard of a WP:WRITER.

A user named MisTemPest has been relentlessly trying to delete the following from her page: Initially anonymous, Reed identified herself and her alleged attacker in a post on February 23, 2013.[4] This decision—and Reed's subsequent efforts to raise awareness for sexual assault victims at the University of Southern California—was profiled in a Ms. magazine article on April 10, 2013.[5]

The statement has sound sources. It is a true event. And it pertains directly to the pertinent information already listed on her page. It is a huge event in Ms. Reed's life, and to not include it in her wikipedia completely dismisses Reed's passionate attempts at social activism in the area of rape awareness. I don't understand how wikipedia can block information from being written on a page that is factual, unbiased, does not accuse anyone of anything, and is merely mentioning something (and then CITING) what has happened thus far.

An online article from USC's Daily Trojan will be released within the coming weeks, in addition to the xoJane online article, both speaking out about Ms. Reed's alleged sexual assault claims. These sites will also directly mention her blog with the February 23rd post, Reed's formation of the non-profit organization S.C.A.R. (the Student Coalition Against Rape, at USC), and the Ms. Magazine article that initially got the word out for Ms. Reed. Further, Reed is one of the subjects of a documentary film that is being produced by the BBC, by academy-award winning filmmakers (Ms. Reed would be able to provide more information about this project).63.155.173.245 (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever MisTemPest keeps bringing up about the "Ms. Magazine article not being subject to the same standards as Ms. Magazine" -- it is a sound and reliable source to attest to the fact that Ms. Reed did, indeed, have a Ms. Magazine article written about her online, and is not meaning to cite or reference anything else besides just that. 63.155.173.245 (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I'll note xojane has published Reed's own writing, so it's not quite a third party source. Has someone unassociated with her written about her? And how do you know about what's upcoming? JFHJr (㊟) 03:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — "Has someone unassociated with her written about her? And how do you know about what's upcoming?" Answer to first question: yes, Ms. Magazine. More articles will be out within coming weeks. Answer to second question: IP address 63.155.173.245 is part of SCAR, the subject's group. This makes her privy to forthcoming source information. Now, a question of my own, JF: what is the status of the deletion attempt lodged by the rapists's supporters? Also, how come we're deleting corroborative sources. I understand they in and of themselves do not constitute credible enough source material to substantiate unsubstantiated claims, but other media outlets are covering the same information slowly but surely. Will the citations be admissible then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissTempeste (talk • contribs) 11:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject co-wrote one book, and the notability of that one published book is questionable-sources appear to be press releases or blogs. Comments made on this page that future sources (college paper and more online opinion blogs) will support subject's self-identified notability are irrelevant, the subject is not notable today. MisTemPest (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you create this article? JFHJr (㊟) 02:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, he didn't. He created a mocking SN. His IP belongs to the subject's rapist and he is trolling to get the article deleted. Which is a waste of everyone's time because press coverage already does exist to substantiate the subject's entry info regarding her book (covered by Kirkus and Publisher's Weekly, which are NOT press releases or blogs). And why all the hemming and hawing about the Ms. article? If the Ms. article is being dismissed because it represents article author opinion, what article doesn't? A news article? So do we ignore all magazine features? Or is it under increased scrutiny because the subject attends the same school as the writer? Don't a significant number of media features result from a subject's acquaintance with a publication employee? This seems like witch hunting to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissTempeste (talk • contribs) 11:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create the article. I did not originally nominate it for deletion. I am not the alleged assailant. It is true I created my signature just a few weeks ago in response to the article. I am not attacking the subject or her followers. Over the past few weeks I have made multiple edits to the article which I firmly believe were justified. My edits were repeatedly reversed so on 23 April I reported the issue at WP:BLPN. I have read all the blogs written by and about Reed which have been used as sources in the article. In her blog she acknowledges authorities have not yet charged anyone. Regardless, she has used social media to post names and pictures. In her blog she acknowledges that she has been sued for the unfounded accusation. I feel my edits and comments have been correct and true. MisTemPest (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MissTempeste, how do you know where the IP of a registered user leads? Or any of the IPs? Regardless, AfD isn't a place for WP:OUTING someone. JFHJr (㊟) 03:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having read all of the foregoing and looked into the sourcing, I'm convinced that she fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I struggle to understand how Wikipedia can claim that Tucker Reed, a notable author with many fans for her numerous works, is not notable under WP:AUTHOR (which is the exact same thing as WP:WRITER), when she, in fact, IS NOTABLE. She has many sound citations and references to prove that and to back that up. http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/book/amber-house http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-545-43416-4 http://www.arthuralevinebooks.com/book.asp?bookid=215 https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/kelly-moore/amber-house/ http://www.kirkusreviews.com/features/complex-mysteries-kelly-moores-amber-house/

And I also STRUGGLE to understand how Tucker Reed does not meet the criteria for WP:BK. WP:BK states as follows: The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

Again, Tucker Reed has MANY sources (some of which are seen above) that are independent of the book itself, and are not re-prints of anything, and are not from self-interested parties advertising for the book themselves. They are from reliable third parties. http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-545-43416-4 https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/kelly-moore/amber-house/ http://www.kirkusreviews.com/features/complex-mysteries-kelly-moores-amber-house/

In addition, WP:GNG CLEARLY STATES: If a topic has received SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE in RELIABLE SOURCES that are INDEPENDENT OF THE SUBJECT, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

Tucker Reed obviously has reliable sources, independent of herself, writing about her and COVERING her. I do not understand any of these disputes against her, and I am very confused as to why her page is up for deletion. I would GREATLY appreciate someone explaining this, without just posting another link to a Wiki page that talks about stuff that "Tucker Reed does not have".

Thank you. 63.155.173.245 (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to your questions. Every book out of the major houses gets a Publishers Weekly and a Kirkus review. These are the default reviews, and therefore don't mean anything, even if they are positive. Have a look at WP:42--coverage must be SIGNIFICANT. Her publisher's website also doesn't count, because it is WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS and WP:ADVERT. In other words, it is a self-published primary source that is meant as advertising. So what are we looking for here on Wikipedia? Answer this for us: Where are the secondary-source feature stories about Tucker Reed? Not BLOGS that anyone can post, but FEATURE STORIES. Salon? New York Times? Washington Post? They just don't exist for this writer. She doesn't meet WP:42 or WP:GNG, and so she just isn't notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Now, let me try to be a little more helpful here. Let's say this rape controversy actually goes viral, AND the New York Times does a story ABOUT Tucker Reed--not just mentioning her, but actually ABOUT her. Now you've got one source. ONE. And one won't be enough, so you'd better get a lot more. I hope this clarifies matters for you. Thanks! Qworty (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get an admin to speedy close per WP:SNOW at this point? This has been open for a while, and while there's been a lot of back and forth, there hasn't been a single actual Keep vote. All of the actual votes are Deletes. Thank you! Qworty (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't lobby closing admins, thanks. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Qworty's statements about the publishing industry are utter nonsense; their ignorance is apparently vast, and their antipathy toward published writers is deep, inexplicable, and frequently displayed here. It is plainly false to say that "every book out of the major houses" gets a PW review, for example; its reviews are often seen as selecting more significant releases, its editorial content independent, and PW coverage is a strong indicator of notability for books and authors. Their analysis here (and in similar discussions should be disregarded; it is nearly as hallucinatory as their insistence that the New York Times has malignantly slanted its coverage to discredit Wikipedia (an end to which Qworty is vigorously if unconsciously working). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the demonstrated sufficient RS coverage to establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Three sources count towards notability: PW, Kirkus and Ms. Magazine. The later is a blog, true, but it is an official blog of a reliable published magazine, it's more than just some person's self published comments, we assume there is editorial control involved. It contains information about Reed. The PW and Kirkus sources are reliable and independent and have a long history of being used in Wikipedia AfD. I agree that the sourcing is weak, however there is it is per GNG: "multiple reliable independent sources". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This may be a borderline case, but it's pretty clearly on the inclusion side of the border, if only just. I second Hullaballoo's comments about PW and Kirkus - they most certainly do not review every book published by a major house. The BLP issues that have been raised with some of the page's previous content suggest the need to watch that page, not delete it. polarscribe (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To The Amber House Trilogy, assuming it is not also deleted. The subject has not received wide-enough individual coverage, in my opinion, to merit inclusion under WP:AUTHOR, her individual work does not meet WP:NBOOKS, and she is not a notable activist. The subject's basic claim to notability is that she was allegedly assaulted, and wrote about it on her blog. That's it. This article is also essentially a soapbox for the author(s) - the idea being (I feel) that an article on Wikipedia will give wider coverage to the allegations made by the subject, which by the way were serious and gross violations of WP:BLP as seen from any angle. I would have no problem !voting differently on this if there was significant, real coverage that didn't include blogs and her own publishers, but I see this as a worrying BLP concern with no redeeming qualities whatsoever that would otherwise prompt me to recommend this be kept and watched until the end of time to prevent the alleged assault perpetrator from being named. I have no opinion on whether the allegations are true or not, and I don't have a problem with anyone seeking justice any way they can, but Wikipedia is not a battleground, and we don't need this type of thing. Maybe later. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given an author and their works, both of which are mildly notable, it's better to keep the article on the author, who may write more. Kirkus in recent years has become nonselective, but Publishers Weekly is a selective review source and in my opinion goes very far to establishing notability . The first book is in about 400 libraries, and I think that's sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relist all of Tucker Reed, The Amber House Trilogy, and Kelly Moore to give time for consensus to evolve. Consider merging Tucker Reed with either the book or her mother. It appears that three related articles are being considered for deletion separately. Can they be combined into one AfD? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nomination of Kelly Moore is a spill-over from this, and I have recommended Keep, because Deadly Medicine is notable even if the trilogy is not. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Amber House Trilogy. A lot of the coverage cited here is actually coverage of the book, not the author. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Keep - Multiple sources count: PW, Kirkus, the KPFK radio source, and Ms. Magazine. The later is an official blog of a reliable published magazine and contains information about Reed. The PW and Kirkus sources are reliable and independent and have a long history of being used in Wikipedia AfD. Sourcing is reliable per GNG: "multiple reliable independent sources". -- User:MissTempeste 21:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iconic Photograph[edit]

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

I'm sorry but this is the sort of original research magnet whose content is entirely subjective as description of things that the author likes. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have concerns about the current version of the page but I don't think they're insurmountable. (The definition is uncited, the article is overly reliant on a single source, the title shouldn't have a capital "p".) Contrary to the nominator's assertion, the article is not a WP:ILIKEIT but a critical discussion of a phenomenon, citing scholarly research. We have an article on cultural icons in general so why not an article on cultural icons that are photographs? Dricherby (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:No original research is a core policy and it cannot be ignored in this way. An article of this kind needs to meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists, not made up criteria. For example, Category:Photographs contains photos that meet the notability criteria, and based on this, a List of photographs could be made. What Iconic Photograph does is substitute WP:Notability criteria with original research and a grab bag of varying opinions about why this or that critic thinks a photo was important. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't a list of photographs that are claimed to be iconic so it doesn't need to meet any list-based criteria. It's an article about the concept of the iconic photograph and how that interacts with culture and society. Dricherby (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me it looks like a list pretending to be something else. The "concept of the iconic photograph" here is original research. Take away the original research, and you have a set (or list) of photos which are famous, or important, or "iconic". Here on Wikipedia, "iconic" means WP:Notable. The semantic shuffle is an obstacle to understanding why this article is a problem. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a list at all. There are three examples named and only two of those pictured. There are more distinct sources quoted (four) than there are example photographs. A disguised list would be written as "Photograph A is iconic because of XYZ; Photograph B is iconic because of LMN; Photograph C..." but this is written as "Iconic photos do XYZ" with a couple of examples illustrating these points." Given that there are four sources, I don't think it's original research, either. Dricherby (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of some sources somewhere in the article doesn't address the lack of sources for the central assertions of the article. Is there a single photograph with a Wikipedia article about it that isn't "iconic"? As in, famous? Recognisable, an important event, evokes a response, has been often reproduced. Or as we say, "notable". That's why I think this is just a recapitulation of the criteria for notability. Another approach to that, if not a list of photographs, is a navbox or infobox that could be added to the articles about photographs.
Since much of Iconic Photograph is about the opinions of Robert Hariman, the section of the article Robert Hariman that deals with his definition of "iconic" could be expanded. Or a new article No Caption Needed could be written, expanding further on the ideas contained in his book. There are several viable options here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hopelessly unencyclopedic. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is not difficult to see the definition of this phrase stemmed from the No Caption Needed: Iconic Photographs... book. The book seems to be non-notable. Putting the adjective "Iconic" and the noun "photograph" together doesn't make a sound basis for an encyclopedia article - it's rather like having an article about "Beautiful paintings" - subjective and very hard to define. Sionk (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 02:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sharron Gold[edit]

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

~~(author contested PROD)~~ Only assertions of notability per WP:CREATIVE are not sourced. Complete list of sources includes: IMDB, en.wikipedia, subject's own websites, an amazon product review, and a google books "about" page. No major independent coverage can be found on a quick look through google. Sperril (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Struck part of above. It was actually it was a BLP PROD. References were added which caused the BLP PROD tag to be removed. My apologies. Sperril (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to not meeting WP:BASIC with no independent coverage I could find. WP:CREATIVE does not seem to apply to this person as I cannot find any indication that the recent book Spiked has gotten attention. Am willing to reconsider if others can do a better job of researching. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage about her or her works. The claim of her first novel being a German best-seller is not backed by any sources, nor is it specified what best seller list this made. As for her second novel, I can find no critical reviews of it in reliable sources and being an Amazon "best seller" is not notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 02:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raquel Evita Saraswati[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. No real claim of notability or coverage in multiple independent sources. WP:RS source material I could find consistent of only trivial mentions. Errant ^(chat!) 20:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Im surprised that after being deleted in 2006, It then returns in 2007 undetected... -

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - n/n and subject has requested deletion via OTRS. In borderline cases we defer to the subject's wishes. ukexpat (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the fact that it was already deleted before, doesn't seem any better now, subject has requested deletion in a borderline case...the reasons for deletion are overwhelming. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cutrone[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:PROFESSOR by a mile, and also clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. JFHJr (㊟) 19:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We only create articles for the select professors who are WP:N. This means they go beyond the normal role of the professor and pass WP:PROF or WP:GNG. I see no evidence that this subject does and by virtue of his adjunct title tend to doubt that he does.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the "adjunct" but the "assistant" in the subject's job title that makes notability unlikely. Many adjunct professors are very notable, but pursue other professional interests so only have part-time professorial positions. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as unambiguous promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SIF Mechanism[edit]

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

Self promotional article by an SPA. No independent sources to confirm notability. WP:OR. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 18:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient claim of notability. No ghits. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 18:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete housekeeping non-admin closure: 19:53, 24 April 2013 Floquenbeam deleted page Daniel NIazi (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Niazi). czar · · 20:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel NIazi[edit]

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

Has been speedied G4 twice: once unspeedied by a 3-edit IP, once by the original editor. Has previously been deleted at AfD under the correct spelling - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Niazi. There seems to be a hidden redirect such that "Daniel Niazi", Go, reaches this article. No sources independent of the person and his organisation. PamD 17:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Procedural. Assuming this has already been deleted at AFD we shouldn't put up with "same stuff, wrong spelling of the title" nonsense for even a minute. And Salt. Carrite (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. (edit conflict) Really nice pickup with the letter change, but I imagine the OP (Yosefwiki) was already privy to the indef block on the right spelling (including 10 blocks at nowiki!) Should this user be reported somewhere? There are no hits for "Daniel NIazi" (more for "Niazi" but no RS). czar · · 18:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet again. (Should be speedy G4) From memory not the first time that variant misspelt names have been used to create these promotional pages. The last time I saw it, he was appearing as Daniel Niazi Jacobsen, then as Daniel Niazi Nappen Jacobsen. AllyD (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've speedied this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Improper nomination. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nakshatra (Filmmaker)[edit]

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

Hello, Removed all the sentences which did not prove the claims and now only keeping sentences with valid sourcess and citations. You can review article and our sources once again. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amytrish (talk • contribs) 06:19, 8 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

It should be brought to the notice of fellow wikipedians, that this article, still seems pompous personal propaganda. There are zillions who make short films on GLBT Issues and win awards it solely cannot be the reason to have a Wikipedia page. I request intervention of the community to step in and guard Wikipedia against potential propagandistic attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smarojitbiz (talk • contribs) 11:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above editor User:Smarojitbiz . Under Criteria G11 of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion this should be deleted. Thefriendlycasper (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Casper ( talk) 09 April 2013 (UTC) — Thefriendlycasper (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I agree with the persons above me. It's clearly a propaganda-based page. (1) Anupam Kher did NOT create the cash prize money BECAUSE of 'Logging out'. (B) What are 'homosexuality awareness projects'? (C) Part of Indian gay activism? Because he walked the march? There were thousands others at every march possible around the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloggermahoday (talk • contribs) 16:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC) — Bloggermahoday (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's really funny to see how people made fake/new accounts just to trash this guy. I smell jealousy and personal hatred here. Wiki community should focus on article's sources and not at the barking dogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idiotbox123 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC) — Idiotbox123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Relisting comment: Relisted for discussion as the original AFD was not properly formed or listed. Please pardon the mess.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 17:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. Apparent bad-faith nomination: all of the above accounts have been created exclusively to comment on this AfD and the nominated page. No actual reason for deletion has been given, except for an after-the-fact and, in my opinion spurious, claim of WP:G11. Dricherby (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 00:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Stryker[edit]

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

article appears to not establish notability Stephane34 (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's one of the better-known figures in American yoga. Some of that has to do with his marriage to Cheryl Tiegs but substantial coverage of his work in yoga can be found via GNews [9], HighBeam [10], and, of course, frequent references in Yoga Journal at GBooks[11]. As always, paywalls get in the way, but, for example, a 2004 Star Tribune article called him "one of the most visible faces of the American yoga movement." [12] --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

~~The result was delete. L Faraone 00:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

The result was soft delete. L Faraone 15:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Adele[edit]

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

article appears to not establish notability Stephane34 (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as RESUME. Quis separabit? 00:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 00:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Writopia Lab[edit]

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

WP:COI issues, by user:Writopiawiki. Also, doesn't seem notable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also see Rebecca Wallace-Segall with same issues. czar · · 17:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are definitely COI issues but they are surmountable in this case. The group appears to enjoy press coverage from many reliable sources (when Wallace-Segall isn't the one writing the articles) per their press page. Any number of these articles (non-SPS) would suffice for the GNG. Now whether W-S is independently notable is another story. czar · · 17:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 02:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmer Stewart Gallery[edit]

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

I'm pretty sure this is nonnotable. There are no independent reliable sources on Google as far as I can see (most of the refs are written by the director of the gallery). The only independent and possibly reliable source in the article doesn't even mention the gallery. ^King Jakob _C2 13:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note Fixed nomination. Sideways713 (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Gnews hits all come from local newspapers, which would be okay if they were anything more than press releases. Likewise, this article was created as a press release by a now blocked COI account. 99.0.83.243 (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- We do not have articles on individual shops. This appears to be a shop selling pictures and other artwork. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Nothing more than an advert.--Charles (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete under G3. Had I seen that previous article, I would have G3'ed this one instantly. Good catch, that. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PaRappa the Rapper (cartoon series)[edit]

(Find video game sources: "PaRappa the Rapper (cartoon series)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Completing nomination on behalf of anonymous editor 136.181.195.25, who posted their rationale at User talk:Masem. That rationale is included verbatim below. No comment on the merits, except that my own brief search turned up no sources of any kind - even something that was just announced would have a press release. None of the named actors seem to have acknowledged involvement in the project, either. The relevant criteria seems to be WP:CRYSTAL. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has no sources to verify it's a real thing, and all attempts to find sources have only led to off-site discussions of said Wiki article, with consensus declaring it fake. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 15:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - This was brought to my attention on my talk page, and I would have probably CSD'd the article, but I see no reason to have a prolonged AFD on this. --MASEM (t) 15:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I'm not sure why the G3 was declined twice, or how blatant is being defined. The only available sources on this are message boards excited from some misinformation found on Wikipedia. Cut and dried hoax. czar · · 15:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin: PaRappa the Rapper (TV series), a similar article, was also deleted twice as G3 over the past two years. You may want to escalate this case. czar · · 16:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 02:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben River[edit]

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

Article appears to be created by an unsigned musician/s to promote their own live event; artist does not pass notability criteria. No secondary sources. Autobiographical/promotionalSilverwood (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being an unsigned musician is not criteria for deletion, however this musician seems to have no non-trivial independent coverage, so he fails WP:MUSICBIO. The "references" in particular seem to violate WP:PROMOTIONAL. ALH (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. No released albums. -- Whpq (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 no assertion of signifiance or importance. JohnCD (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bestin anto[edit]

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

Vandalism BustOut (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7—personal listing of a non-notable person. czar · · 15:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as an A10 duplication. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Things to reuse[edit]

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

Just rubbish basically. BustOut (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It could just be added to the Recycling article. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 14:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A10: covers same topic as the existing reuse without a separate claim for topic notability. czar · · 15:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 02:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert W. Wood (attorney)[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of anonymous editor 50.136.156.75, whose rationale was posted on the article's talk page and is included below verbatim. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be deleted because it is autobiography, not notable, and violates the conflict of interest policy. There is a conflict of interest because the page was originally written by Chris Welsch, an employee of Robert W. Wood, during his employment. Also, the list of awards is clearly promotional. Robert W. Wood is not notable because he is not the subject of any biography, nor has he made any enduring contribution to the legal field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.156.75 (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur that notability is not established and GNG is not presented.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability fail. Silverwood (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Although the delete arguments are strong, significant work has been done - I'm considering this as "no consensus to delete" at this time (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Sanicola[edit]

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

Less than notable music producer and songwriter article that reads more like a billboard advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Technical 13 (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Darkwind (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability; none of the sources cited are significant coverage in the context of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. —Darkwind (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Full disclosure, as you'll see from my contribs, I'm not exactly uninterested here. In my view this article was clearly approved in error - the reviewing instructions are quite clear that an AFC with these scanty references should be rejected - and in an ideal world would be punted back to AFC. Since that isn't an option, my main contention here is that the article demonstrates little or no notability and I see little reason to suppose the subject is notable; notability is not infectious, and the essential claim here is of having worked with notable people. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. He has substantial credits and gets mentioned here and there in the press (HighBeam has a 2005 Manila Bulletin article with a reference to him as an "18 year-old music genius") but I can't find any substantial coverage of the sort usually required to support an article like this.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full disclosure here as well, I wrote the article, and never thought I'd have to defend it so much. If the article reads like a billboard, or advertisement, please tell me what lines I can change to fix that. Sources are cited mostly to prove the credits in this short, to the point article. Its hard to defend myself in the "articles for deletion" section, but I do invite anyone with an open mind to consider the article MIGHT be notable to those who are interested in the field of pop music. A screenwriter thats written episodes of various popular TV series over the last ten years would be considered notable enough to me personally, but maybe not to someone else. Pinkbeast has been hounding me SINCE THE CHAT ROOM where I was advised by Coolboygcp that "you seem notable" who then approved me. Writing for Cher Lloyd, One Direction, Big Time Rush, Yanni, Michael Bolton, Paulina Rubio is not notable enough for a short article? NOT getting them coffee.. WRITING the SONGS THEY SING. PLEASE advise what I can do to make the article as unbiased and fair as possible. I'm open to the fact it might seem biased (although I cant zero in on exactly WHERE it comes across that way), and I hope you can perhaps be open to the fact that to some degree, however minimal, it might be notable enough to remain on the site in peace..
First thing, please always remember to sign your posts on talk pages and procedural discussions with ~~~~.

Second thing. Notability on Wikipedia doesn't mean what it means in the "real world" and a suggestion is to read up on WP:NOTABILITY and in your case, since you are claiming notability in the music world, WP:MUSIC → WP:COMPOSER may apply. The discussion titled WT:AFC#Reviewer approving seemingly unsatisfactory articles about Coolboygcp (talk · contribs) has led to a consensus request on him having a WP:TOPICBAN because the user was wrong to accept this article from WP:AfC, as well as some others. Technical 13 (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consider Thank you for pointing me to the article on Coolboygpc. It was started by... you guessed it ....Pinkbeast.. This user, as Ive said seems to clearly be projecting his own issues concerning 'notability' into a crusade that seems mainly targeted on me at the moment. He's looking for validation (self admittedly) concerning his attitude from the very start, (probably before he even read my article). He saw someone in the chat room discussing the question of notability and chimed in, uninvited, with "Everyone thinks their notable." Since then he's been ALL OVER me, and now coolboygpc. How about this.. If Pinkbeast will lay off coolboygpc, who was so wrong for thinking a guy who's been writing songs for some of the worlds biggest artists is notable, you can delete my article. I cant believe the ferocity over this. This started off as something I was very proud and happy about. I'll send Pinkbeast periodic updates of my discography until he deems me "notable" enough for him. 173.52.117.156 (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition Reading Pinkbeasts complaint of coolboygcp further, he says things like " the article which proved not surprisingly to be written by the subject..." I was upfront from square ONE about who I was. I never tried to hide it.. He's trying to turn this article into the "cliche" scenario which Im sure he deals with everyday, without considering that MAYBE this isn't exactly that.173.52.117.156 (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you disagree with Pinkbeast's behavior, you can always file a request for an investigation at the WP:RFC/U. However, this AfD for your article is not the place to discus it. If you want to talk about it more with me, you may start a new subsection on my user talk page and I would be happy to offer you what resources I can find that may be of use. The hard part about the AfD for me is that your article should have never left AfC. I'm also an AfC reviewer, and I know that "most" of the other reviewers wouldn't have accepted it. It is fairly difficult to push it back to AfC, however, I wouldn't be opposed to that happening in this case if an administrator was willing to take the time to do it. Your other option, would be to request it to be WP:USERFIED as a {{Userspace draft}} as it appears there will be a consensus and it will likely get deleted otherwise. I would be happy to work with you as a reviewer to let you know when it would be reasonable to expect it to not be deleted from the article mainspace and at that point, you could {{subst:Submit}} it for review by another AfC reviewer and it would be fairly reasonable to expect it to not get deleted. Technical 13 (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith about the motives and actions of others editors. As far as I can see, Pinkbeast's concerns and comments expressed here have been consistent with Wikipedia policies. And Technical 13 is absolutely right to point you to WP:NOTABILITY; you should also have a look at WP:Identifying reliable sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies Im sorry to have that conversation here. I honestly just wanted to point out the history of events so maybe others could consider their own opinion before considering that users comments as someone viewing the article from a fresh perspective. I would LOVE for you to please advise me on what I can do! There are some news articles that I left out, as was pointed in this discussion earlier, but when I wrote the article, my aim was to just fill the requirements, and when I wasnt getting rejected based on ref sources, I figured I was good in that area. Also, many of those songs in the articles have charted on billboard and itunes, so would notating that help or just make it seem more of an advertisement? (I DID do that at one point but was then deleted by Strike Eagle for some reason.) ANY constructive advice would be appreciated. 173.52.117.156 (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

greatly appreciated..

As an alternative to deletion, return this to AFC and salt the main-article page for a period of 1 year (or less, I'm not picky). This will require an administrator to move the page out of AFC after there is a good article that meets WP:Notability approved by at least one AFC reviewer and counter-approved by the "moving" administrator. If this is not possible or desirable, then softdelete. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC) I think we can settle the notability issue within a few days, no need to buy additional time by going back to WP:AFC. Deferring "keep" or "delete" until notability issue resolved. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Return this to AFC would be ideal; I just didn't know that could be done. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've ignored all rules and moved several newly-created mainspace articles to AFC this year alone. However, none of them were at AFD. I moved most because they were brand-new and they were created with {{AFC submission}} AND were clearly not ready for prime time, so it was likely that the article was simply created in the wrong place to begin with. I think I moved one for some other reason to save it from a worse fate. I only remember getting "push back" once. "Playing cowboy" and ignoring all rules is risky, but in each case I carefully considered the options and I believe I did the right thing. If we, those discussing this article, come to a consensus to move the article to AFC and the closing administrator ratifies that decision, we will have created precedent for future AFDs. Having said this, I must now state that I have a WP:Conflict of interest in that I have opened this discussion to formalize my previous actions and, should this AFD be closed with "move to AFC", the actions of this discussion. As a proponent of the proposal I just linked to, I have a clear conflict of interest in recommending that this discussion close with "move to AFC". davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator I have no objection to that. Technical 13 (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
David Respectfully, as I am getting a rather brutal crash course on Wiki, your suggestion seems like an alternative to actually FIXING the article. The Wiki equivalent of closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "Just get it out of here!" The WHOLE POINT (as it seems to me) of it ending up here is that SOMEONE thought it was worthy enough to exist. Once speedy deletion is denied, and an administrator has agreed it should exist, the intention is to IMPROVE IT (exact word of administrator who suggested it end up here)! While it sits in AFD, it can be CONSTRUCTIVELY improved, but once again, in this case there is no real specifics being pointed to. Just some links that SUGGEST notability should be considered, which it was, and found affirmative twice so far... So once I again I implore you to point to what I can do to improve. The whole article minus the discog is four sentences.. I have six references, one of which being one of NY's biggest newspapers, acknowledging my notoriety and credits, another from Asia calling me an "18 year old music genious." Allmusic.com which Wiki SPECIFICALLY suggests I use. Discog.com? I'm at your service! I'll cite every record in the discography if I have to! Please reconsider:(173.52.117.156 (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)173.52.117.156 (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'View History This article has already been "notable approved" by at least one AFC reviewer, and if you'll look at the history, an administrator has already DENIED deletion on the grounds that notability has been established but suggested it be 'improved.' I'm here, asking how to improve it, (Ive already added ANOTHER reliable news source since this discussion) and the answers Im getting are--"delete it" "send it back to AfC" and "Make it a user page." I was expecting people to HELP me improve the page, but it seems like nothing short of removing it will do. I've been noted for possible conflict of interest, but Im asking what I can do to make the article as unbiased and factual as possible. Hopefully someone can help without an immediate agenda for removal/deletion. 173.52.117.156 (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.117.156 (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the history, the only thing I found was a WP:CSD was declined because there was a credible assertion of notability within the article. This is not the same as meeting WP:Notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, StephenBuxton (talk · contribs) never stated that they agreed the article should exist. Their edit summary was (with some added formating to emphasize stuffs): "CSD Declined - notability has been asserted, but better references needed. Not overly promotional. Suggest AFD/Improve" I think if you follow the links and pay attention to the underlined/bold stuff, you'll see he didn't disagree that it needs to be fixed/deleted and simply stated it doesn't meet the extremely strict qualifications for speedy deletion. I've left a talkback on their talk page requesting they clarify for you what their edit summary means. Technical 13 (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess when I read it, I obviously was imagining phrases like "CSD denied" "notability asserted" and "improve" as underlined and in bold. I was NOT trying to imply the admin approved the article, or boast that he disagreed with you. My ONLY point, was can we stop ONLY talking about deletion and shift to how to IMPROVE. I didnt realize the extent to which it needed to be referenced, and no one was pointing to specific things in the article they wanted confirmed or cited. Finally David started, and I've been vigorously improving and filling in the article with him help, and whoever else will help. 173.52.117.156 (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have started reviewing this in depth in a way that SHOULD have happened at AFC. Based on other Wikipedia articles and his work history at the ASCAP web site, it's pretty clear his works DO appear on multiple Platinum-certified albums which charted highly in multiple countries. Once I find non-Wiki reliable sources to back this up I will add citations. I encourage other editors to "beat me to the punch" in improving this article's references. What is NOT clear yet but which needs to become clear is whether any of the actual songs he worked on charted, went gold as singles, or otherwise became notable, or if he otherwise meets the criteria in WP:COMPOSER or another applicable WP:Notability category. I am very hopeful that this person has written or co-written one or preferably more than one notable song so we can close this as "keep". davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU DAVID! Ive just added three more third party references to three singles that have charted in Billboard. Will that do!?173.52.117.156 (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the admin who declined the speedy deletion of the article; I also tagged for COI. The reasoning, as suggested above by Technical 13 was pretty spot on: CSD#A7 is explicit as what does or doesn't qualify as a candidate. Here there is a credible assertion of notability (albeit not particularly great at the time of assessment), which exempts it from speedy deletion under A7. There is now time for the editor(s) to prove notability by adding better sources. Incidentally, when faced with an article that is borderline for speedy deletion, the approach I adopt is let it stand and face peer review at an XFD.

Whenever I decline speedy deletion, I always add 2 or 3 suggested courses of actions for people to follow, be it the nominator or the editors: PROD and/or AFD as two routes for deleting the article, plus Improve, as a reminder that Wikipedia isn't all about deleting articles. Hope that clarifies my decision. Stephen! ^Coming... 12:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the Billboard links that were added, but, as I have been recently reminded at Wikipedia talk:Notability, this shows popularity, not notability. Notability in Wikipedia means that authors and journalists have been writing specifically about the subject. I was advocating for a page about a video reviewer with over a million subscribers, but apparently if none of them were journalists or authors and wrote an article about it, it didn't count toward passing the notability test. So instead of direct chart results, an article discussing the subject and telling about the chart results would be ideal. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stephen, absolutely understood.. I understand there is a sense of community and good will here. I wasnt trying to pitt anyone against each other, I was simply hoping to focus the conversation away from the incessant demands for removal to what can specifically be done to improve it. Finally, thank God, the conversation seems to be shifting there. I've been working VERY hard to improve, added much more info, and hopefully at the end of the day this will all be okay.
Anne, please note the Billboard reference was specifically to address David's requests for evidence of charting singles. There are also numerous references that address me directly, which should qualify the requirements for WP:COMPOSER . The statements in the articles address me directly and are not me talking about myself or an advertisement.. 173.52.117.156 (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.117.156 (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you've been hit hard with advertisement concerns warnings before... Here is some material to read that may help you determine what Wikipedia considers (in)appropriate in those regards: WP:FANSITE, WP:ADV, WP:ELBLP, WP:PEACOCK, and WP:WEASEL. I'm sure there may be more, but I think that having read those you will have a fairly good grasp on what be considered "advertising" and if someone alleges that something you added is advertising, you will know where to point them that says otherwise. I hope you find this useful. Technical 13 (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now Im really confused...Why are you saying 'it seems ive been hit hard with advertising concerns before?' What is the problem now? Is there a specific line or section that seems like advertising here? Its four objective sentences, cited and sourced, and a discog.. help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.117.156 (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of your comments such as "I have six references, one of which being one of NY's biggest newspapers, acknowledging my notoriety and credits, another from Asia calling me an "18 year old music genious."" to mean that someone has given you a hard time saying that you can't have certain things that look advertisemental in your article. Heck, even my original CSD request says that it looks like an advertisement or fansite, and the reason I added that in the request is because the article only had a few sentences "about you" and then a long laundry list of achievements, which read like a billboard advertisement to me. What I am looking for on the aspect is more in the "about you" section that can be referenced to other sources. The list of policies above, was to let you know it is okay for your article to say you are "an 18 year old music genious" if you are quoting a reliable source. Make sure that you don't "only" include the good things that have been said in reviews or stories, but if a critic says something neutral or negative, you also note that "some" people don't agree and cite that. As a general rule, more relevant reliably sourced material equals better article and less question of notability. Read the pages I linked and it might make more sense. ;) Technical 13 (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You just cited yourself as evidence of your point. Not allowed here on Wiki;) hehe .. sorry couldn't resist. Id rather not include ANY opinions, news or otherwise. My intention was ALWAYS to just be cited for being a notable composer with a list of credits. Simple, short, to the point. No articles have ever written about me negatively, but still.... I feel no need to include the stuff about 'genius.'173.52.117.156 (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There you might be in for some disappointment, I'm afraid (I hope not, though). Remember, and article about you is NOT owned by you, and anything that is published about you from a reliable source can be used in the article (provided references are given). WP:PROUD is a good essay to read covering the downside to having an article about you. In short - keep your nose clean, and the article (provided it survives AFD) will probably record only the good things. Do anything wrong that is reported in the media, or get fired in a high-profile manner, and this article will be edited to reflect it. Stephen! ^Coming... 11:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that I should mention this since no-one else has and I hadn't even thought of it until I just read Stephen's post. You should keep in mind that although this article is about you and even though you have written the article, you have no claim to ownership of the article. Anyone that finds something about you the is notable/cite-able has the ability and the encouragement to add it to the article. I wasn't sure if it was clear that there is no ownership of articles on Wikipedia and wanted to make sure it became so if not. Technical 13 (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Guys.. I've recently added content sourced from an entire article written about the subject sourced from LI Herald in 2009. I BEG you to consider that this, along with the other references are enough to give this article a keep status.173.52.117.156 (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a little copy edit to the Discography section, and would like to see some more references there. I want to say that I'm impressed and the article is "starting" to look like an article. Keep working on it, you are getting closer. Technical 13 (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really appreciate the edits and I really appreciate the article is on its way. I am glad to source more in the discog, but please note that between the ASCAP link at the bottom (specifically recommended by Wiki) and the specific citations that HAVE been noted in the discog, every song mentioned is clearly verifiable at a reliable source. I can copy the link from Allmusic.com (again specifically recommended by Wiki) over and over again to every individual song, but its just gonna be the same Wiki recommended source verifying the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.117.156 (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when you have completed that; I'll take another look over it, confirm the sources, and if it looks good I'll simply withdraw my request for deletion on the basis that the article has improved to meet reasonable standards. When editing on User Talk or Article Talk pages, please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) when making your posts. I would also suggest that you consider creating an account for yourself. (This also applies to Wikipedia project/maintenance pages like this AfC as well.) Technical 13 (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Used discog.com and all music and ascap to cite almost all the songs.. I have to leave so couldnt get to every single one, but it would be really helpful if you could point out specific things that are still not satisfying you (and maybe take it upon yourself to fix them if you like!). If what I've done is satisfactory, it would be amazing to come home and see the page approved and nice and clean, with no issues. (COI doesnt seem to be a problem, but I welcome instruction on what needs to be adjusted to get rid of that note too. )173.52.117.156 (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasn't quite what I was looking for... You are using the same source over and over on each line which isn't really an improvement. Also, I note that there are still a number of "Clarifications needed" on the page... Work with the others and see if you can get those clarified... I'd like to see this article in good condition before I would feel comfortable withdrawing my request. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I dont understand exactly what needs clarification on the things you marked "clarification needed." What is unclear there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.117.156 (talk) 05:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional citations have been added so discog has many variable sources. The only issue is Im not sure what clarification I need to do. Those lines say that I wrote those songs, and cites it as well, so not sure what needs to be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.117.156 (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Unfortunately, those are tags that either David or Anne seem to have put there so I can not answer what clarification is needed. As to your questions that you deleted, no, I'm not trying to bait you or be a thorn in your side or whatnot. I'm know it is difficult, and all of my reasons for the things I'm asking for are intended as a good faith attempt to see your article improved so that you won't have to worry about someone else tagging it for deletion in a short amount of time. I'll take another look at it this evening and hopefully David/Anne can add some details about what clarification they needed. Happy editing!!! Technical 13 (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I plan on spending a few hours on this sometime this weekend. I'll do most of my work "offline" but I may put up an "inuse" flag from time to time. If it's up and I'm the one that put it there, please post a note on user talk:davidwr and I'll stop editing to avoid edit conflicts. If I don't take it down within 10 minutes, edit away - if I get an edit conflict and am not checking my talk page that's my own fault. :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks for all the help. I don't know how to get the picture up, if someone could help with that it would be awesome. Also, still not sure what the clarification needed tags are referring to, but I'd be glad to help with that if someone could tell me what to do.173.52.117.156 (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: The original author of the page has made significant improvements to the article and I'm "almost" convinced to withdraw the nomination. I feel that given a few more days, and a little more guidance, Eric can finish cleaning up this article enough for that.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Technical 13 (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm gonna try to figure out the picture uploader thing. As for the "clarification needed" comments, unless someone steps forward and talks about what they need clarified, I'm going to delete them. Its a discog, and the songs are cited and sourced. Technical, I DO appreciate the help but PLEASE if you could be more specific. I've added all available info, and besides uploading a picture, I don't know what else to do.Filterayok (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David James (American artist)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Likely autobio attempting to prove notability through association with other artists. No references support any associations or anything else in the article. | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at first I was taken in by sheer quantity of references but they are not acceptable. Deb (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whoever created the article mislabeled David James as an artist, after a more targeted search it can be found that he is a well-known and influential industry mix/master engineer and writer. the work is incomplete and needs some better reference sources, he has appeared in multiple in-print magazine articles. Jessica1214 (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above user's first edit was to her user page and then the article, although I don't think it is a huge issue as long as they aren't a sockpuppet. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure the closing administrator will take this into account when assessing the level of consensus.Deb (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, my attention was drawn to this article's nomination for deletion while I was searching for a reference for a different article. This person actually meets the criteria for notability, he was the mix/master engineer for various songs that made the U.S. Billboard charts and his work is all over national and international radio. I know it's verifiable in print because I had to write a research paper on him. I've been searching for internet articles but they seem scarce. Jessica1214 (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that MuzicNotez, the source of many of the "references", is actually an advertising agency. David James's photograph appears on their website as one of their clients.Deb (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- MuzicNotez.com was the source of only one reference, not many. The site is host to a magazine covering up-coming artists, where the article on David James is featured. It would be silly for them to include an article about him without a photograph. Jessica1214 (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - MuzicNotez the advertising agency also powers GlobalOnslaught.com. That pretty much leaves no independent references.Deb (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - wow, I didn't know that at all. We should delete those references in that case. It's so funny, the articles I used for my research paper are in scholarly journals that I can't link to on here because they require membership through a college to access. His complete biography is also included in a hardback book of well-known audio mixologists, which I can't seem to find online. I suppose if he gets deleted now, he'll resurface later by someone's hand. The crazy thing is, James is said to be somewhat of a 'studio-hermit' with an disdain for mass media so it's odd that he would create an article like this. I suspect one of his die-hard supporters is behind it, and that's probably why the article seems sketchy. Knowing what I know, I'm sure other audio engineering students are going to find it odd that he's not considered 'notable' on wikipedia of all places. I suppose 'notable' in the scholastic world and on the internet are two different things. Jessica1214 (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never used wikipedia up until now and I've been perusing through various wikis from music artists and the like... I have a new respect for artists who have wiki pages. The editors here really try hard to get people's wikis deleted. I even witnessed one fella engaging in a full-blown heated argument over the notability of an artist who was signed to Universal and had a Top 40 hit at the time. All I gotta say is 'I'm rootin' for DJ!' These days, one can be loved and known by millions, there are still Billions of people who would rather see them fail.Jessica1214 (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think with current things we're a bit harsher, but with older anything, it's easier to pass it through, from what I have noticed. I do agree that some people actively try to inhibit articles from being created, but I am certainly not one of them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jessica, if you saw the sheer amount of spam that is submitted to us, much of which is so blatant that it gets deleted without discussion, you would understand why we have become stricter. I'm glad someone has added a reference to a written source (Encyclopedia of Audio Mixologists - The Past and Future of Digital Recording) but I'm a bit baffled as I can't find any reference to this book on Amazon or even Google, and there is no reference to the publisher or date - for all we know it could just be one of those directories that you pay to get your name in. If anyone has information on this source, please add it to the article.Deb (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; while this is arguably one of the messiest articles I've ever seen, he would appear to pass WP:BLPN. The article requires work; I've made a start by re-arranging the article and removing all WP:PROMOtional content from the headings, but an expert in the field is needed.--Laun chba ller 21:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything to verify notability on this producer. There is one single by 2 Pistols that he produced but he was the producer, not the artist whose name the single was released under, so this does not meet notability. Also, the single only charted on the US Rap chart and US R&B chart, not the actual US national chart so the single does not confer notability on the artist anyway per se. Silverwood (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article creator was blocked for sockpuppetry. Many of the sources are highly suspect. Article attempts to confer notability on the subject through association with other artists. At the very least, clean out everything sourced by the dubious sources, which would essentially reduce the article to a stub. Safiel (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shed (video game)[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Shed (video game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Article about an Xbox Live indie game that simply describes the game's features and gives a link to where the reader can buy it. Prodded per WP:GNG for having had no secondary sources since 2008; article creator opposed deletion because "I don't believe this article should be deleted. It is still publicly available." McGeddon (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 15:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. There are no sources that I can find, and - given the subject - no further sources are likely to come up. Not thrilled with the spam aspect, either. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There does not seem to be much, if any, reliable sources covering this game. Satellizer el Bridget ^ツ 08:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a single reliable source available in coverage. Xbox Live Indie Games are rarely notable, usually a single dev's side project or something. No hits with Shed and the dev ("Richard Lucas") either. Delete for not passing the GNG. czar · · 03:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transun Travel Ltd.[edit]

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

Unremarkable company. The article has been written by someone with a conflict of interest. Bob Re-born (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Looks like a very minor travel operator to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No apparent notability DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has sited secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG LaCharles ( talk ) 10:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I took a look at the sources on the page and 1 2 3 and 4 are just passing mentions, 1 and 2 don’t seem to mention subject and 1 2 and 3 just tell of its new destinations. There are a couple of journal articles that I don't have access to but their abstracts don't mention the company. Using the sources in the page appropriately could possibly lead to an article on Tourism in Eastern Europe but I'm not seeing notability for this company based on them. J04n(talk page) 13:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't establish basis for notability.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cates[edit]

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

Non notable former minor league baseball player Spanneraol (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The question of this AfD is: does this subject satisfy GNG? Based on these sources, I say he does. [13][14][15][16][17][18] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 07:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Baseball players were period allowed? MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) - (Cakes) 09:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This presents an interesting case; Cates had a nice college career, but nothing spectacular, and as a pro he never got past AA ball. [19] As of the 2013 season he is a volunteer assistant at Florida State [20], generally the first step on the way to a coaching career. Nevertheless, he received quite a bit of coverage, mostly because he was the shortest player in baseball while he was playing, and one of the shortest ever (excepting Eddie Gaedel, of course]]). [21]. While the reason may seem a bit silly, he does pass WP:GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - On the one hand, a career minor leaguer. On the other hand, possible notability hook of having been the shortest player in NCAA Division 1 baseball at one point. No opinion. Carrite (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Okay, I do have an opinion now. THIS PIECE from the Hartford Courant indicates that the subject was also the shortest player in professional baseball for a time. While he fails the Special Guideline for baseball players, he does indeed pass the General Notability Guideline as the subject of multiple, independent, published pieces of coverage. Carrite (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cates' status was additionally documented by SPORTS ILLUSTRATED in 2005. Carrite (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does appear to meet WP:GNG, given the sources Carrite gave above. It's certainly not the strongest case for notability but I do think it's on the "keep" side of that line, close though it may be. - Sudo Ghost 06:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Oak Park Regional Housing Center. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Oak Parker[edit]

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

Magazine of housing community, no indication of WP:Notability. Contested prod. Suggest delete or merge to Oak Park Regional Housing Center. ... discospinster _talk 21:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 06:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd definitely say that a merge is the way to go since this is something that Oak Park Regional Housing Center does. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) - (Cakes) 09:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems sensible under the circumstances. Not sure it's a very likely search term but I see no substantive harm in keeping it in place. Stalwart111 11:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In principle, this is not my business as a closing administrator, but I also checked Russian sources and unfortunately could not find anything significant.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Temerev[edit]

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

I try and avoid nominating articles about artists for deletion, particularly when they may have coverage in non-English sources. But this article rings all sorts of alarm bells. It makes very little claim to notability and the statement that "His works can be found in collections throughout the world" could simply be a WP:PUFF phrase to mean he's sold work to people who live overseas. Looking at his work (particularly the one illustrated) his paintings seem quite unremarkable. His only activity of any note is to participate in an event at the Hermitage Museum. I've looked for substantial coverage online in English or Russian (Сергей Темерев) but nothing leaps out. Sionk (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 06:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone finds a source for His works can be found in collections throughout the world before the AfD is out of time. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) - (Cakes) 09:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 00:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naphcon-A[edit]

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

Doesn't assert notability with reliable sources; only cites the subject's webpage. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 02:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 02:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 02:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 02:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - At first glance, this would appear to be a keep. Seems like a fairly popular and noteworthy over-the-counter drug. Would agree with nom that the article could use a lot of work. NickCT (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are other combination drugs of this class, and a combination article on them would be more appropriate DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could also merge to Naphazoline, the active ingredient. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: GNG is one of the most important guidelines here and if it's breaking it and no-one can find sources to save it then what do we do? We send it down the river to deletion. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) - (Cakes) 09:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found 2 academic papers specifically about Naphcon-A:

DELL S, RUBIN J, ABELSON M, et al. EVALUATION OF NAPHCON-A AND INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUENTS BY PROVOCATIVE ANTIGEN CHALLENGE. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science [serial online]. n.d.;35(4):1292. Available from: Science Citation Index, Ipswich, MA. Accessed April 24, 2013.
LANTNER R, ESPIRITU B, TOBIN M. EFFECT OF NAPHCON-A ON HISTAMINE SKIN-TEST REACTIVITY. Journal Of Allergy And Clinical Immunology [serial online]. n.d.;91(1):364. Available from: Science Citation Index, Ipswich, MA. Accessed April 24, 2013.

If you do an academic search (I used EBSCO), there's a bunch of briefer references too.--Colapeninsula (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some more information to the article and a reference to the FDA information verifying almost all of what is said in the article. I consider the FDA information on a drug to be reliable source because the information has been vetted by the FDA, an independent party from the manufacturer. In addition to the in-depth FDA information, two in-depth reliable sources were found by Colapeninsula. There are also about 2,400 hits in Google books for '"Naphcon A" -wikipedia'; this is a widely referenced product. Multiple in-depth reliable sources show the topic to be notable per WP:GNG. The article itself could use more references and development, but has no major problems with spam or a non-neutral point of view. A notable topic and surmountable problems with the article, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, suggest that the article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yingo (website)[edit]

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

Makes assertions of notability, but article only mentions one source that has significant coverage - only claim to fame is a partnership with the Canadian Red Cross, but that is all. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 05:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only one of the given sources is valid; the other two include the official website url and a "404: Page not found" error page (or so it appears to me). The only valid source doesn't seem enough to establish notability. smtchahal^(talk) 08:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another electronic commerce website advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Associated Press. Also merge to Computer crime#Documented cases (non-admin closure) czar · · 15:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Press false tweet[edit]

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

Given that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and the increasing frequency of such password-based breaches, I don't think this is notable enough to have an article. It would be appropriate at Wikinews, and should be mentioned at Associated Press. Superm401 - Talk 03:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I read in some article or other about this that there have been several hacks of newspaper social media accounts; I wonder if an omnibus article should be made for them. One way or another, though I don't think this event has enduring notability; no permanent dip in the stock market, no permanent effects of any kind, really. NOTNEWS summarizes it quite well; it's not at all evident that this is an event worthy of an article, so we should wait unless and until it is. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a big deal. Nothing along the lines of "‪Dewey Defeats Truman‬," for example. A good example of WP:Recentism. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It is short enough that it could potentially be merged into Computer crime#Documented cases. Praemonitus (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Associated Press - That seems painfully obvious. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 04:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- I agree with Praemonitus -- merge it into Computer crime#Documented cases or a similar page. Do not delete the information and do not bury it in the Associated Press article. It is important, and deleting it would be a disservice to those who are studying or researching computer crime. 70.36.137.19 (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge WP:NOTNEWS and fails WP:NOTABILITY. The material could end up in Associated Press or some other article about hacked accounts.Crtew (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I wouldn't argue strongly with deletion but a merge seems like a good idea and has been well explained by those above. Whatever happens, I think this should probably be closed a bit early to avoid the obvious WP:NOTNEWS issues. Stalwart111 11:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, most likely into Associated Press. Ansh666 21:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Associated Press. I wish events like this one were rare enough to warrant their own articles. Andrew³²⁷ 16:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stay separate warrants separate article - was well covered in the media and it did effect traders which therefore has nothing to do with the AP--68.231.15.56 (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if you are one of the traders that got nailed you are not sure how this item is being downplayed here - my bet is that no editor whom has spoken so far is actually involved in stock trading and thus it is not within your personal interests area and therefore you are little concerned--68.231.15.56 (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check WP:NOTNEWS, the second point. In a couple years (months, even), few around the world (stock traders affected by this incident making up a small percentage of the world) will remember this. Ansh666 19:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to AP and computer crime, (with the redirect to "computer crime"), although not necessarily all in each, and with no objection to later removal. I agree that this could be done before the nominal closure of the AfD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main Associated Press article, or an article about hacking or related topics. Or delete. By itself this article is almost completely devoid of content. Breadblade (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Selling. L Faraone 00:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selling technique[edit]

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

No indication of Notability. Reads like an instruction manual rather than an encyclopedia article. No sources. Original research. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Selling. Plausible search term.—S Marshall T/C 23:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect either to selling or sales; those two seem to need to merge. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to selling per S Marshall. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and develop). To know about selling techniques is encyclopedic stuff not only for salespeople but also for all buyers and potential buyers. The selling article, and even more the sales article, give only an abstract / stratospheric view of the selling practices. Those practices obey a precise several step process, going - to simplify it - from sales presentation to closing, which consumers and citizens should be aware of. There is an obvious need of a specialized article on selling techniques so as 1) not to drown the topic within theoretical / academic selling or sales articles 2) to show the relation / gradation between the practical selling steps, some of them described more extensively within their own articles. Btw, I don't see any effort by deletion / redirect voters to give arguments for their stance.--Pgreenfinch (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Martirosyan[edit]

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

Article reeks of WP:COI. Only sources are from IMDB. Has external links of subjects website, facebook, IMDB and nothing else. No WP:RS, does not pass WP:N. No encyclopedic value at this time. Maybe after the "filmmaker" makes a well known film, or is featured at a major independent film festival. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article created by subject for promotional purposes. No good sources given and I could not find any online. There is an IMDB listing but no apparent notability. Silverwood (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to San Dieguito Union High School District. L Faraone 00:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel Valley Middle School[edit]

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

Non-notable middle school. Earlier this month I redirected the article to its parent school district per usual Wikipedia practice. However, someone has converted it back into an article, so I am bringing it to AfD for discussion. I actually favor a redirect to San Dieguito Union High School District. MelanieN (talk) 02:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per nom. That seems to be accepted practice. Ignatz mice•talk 05:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding consensus with regards to all but the most exceptional elementary schools. A small, friendly note to the creator explaining this decision might also be a good idea. Carrite (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 16:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Green Ghost[edit]

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

Unsourced, probably non-notable. Much of the text is trivia or promotional p b p 20:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many books mentioning the game,[22],[23](her rarest game is a spooky, glow in the dark concotion from the 60's), [24][25], also The New Yorker got a mention, and it has a review at boardgamegeek (wich has a somewhat of a peer review process). Although the online avaiable sources are weak, this means it's likely that in 1965 there should be some more lengthy coverage to be found in the newspaper archives. This should be enough to keep a short stub, or at least to merge it into Ideal Toy Company or Marx toys. Diego (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There will likely be a few more days before this discussion closes. To the user Diego: perhaps you should take what you feel are reliable sources, add them to the article and then make a note here when you're finished. It might help the rest of us to provide more cogent input. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm noting that the game itself has less online coverage than I expected (with Cincinnati Magazine being about a private collection of board games), but the sources would make it easier to write about company Transogram itself (with articles like this and this). I suggest moving the article to Transogram to preserve the references and refocus the topic to cover the company. Diego (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could see the company itself technically becoming the new home for the given sources, especially if they developed other games as well. It needs attention, of course, from somebody who really likes games. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep while obviously not an eternal classic toy like a Slinky, there seems to be a reasonable amount of coverage (it's also reasonable to assume there may be sources from the 60s not easily available online). The fact that it was brought back after 30 years indicates a certain measure of enduring notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm with Starblind (Andrew) above - I think it probably just gets there and I can only imagine there are more offline sources to be found. Article needs a good clean-up though! Stalwart111 11:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a bad article but no cause for deletion. Agree it is a close one and that it needs attention. Plenty of sources available for anyone who wants to do it justice. Silverwood (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had a crack at a quick clean-up but it still needs more work. Stalwart111 22:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You guilted me into having a crack too. Linked to online sources where suitable but nothing especially substantial. I left the clunky section on game rules for someone else (I have never seen or played the game). There is one good offline source in the article and more would help. Silverwood (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. Is looking much better than when it was nom'd but could do with some more work. Stalwart111 23:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Fletcher[edit]

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

Article was nominated for speedy deletion but sysop declined. BLP has no references and notability is questionable. Only notable appearance is in a 1969 film that links to a dab that does not list the film among the possible meanings. Dusty|💬|You can help! 17:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, if improved. I'm not that knowledgeable about UK television, but apparently he played at least one lead role in a television series. However, not much has been written about him that's available online. I did disamb the Kes wikilink, and added a Google Books ref related to Kes, but that's all I've found that is even remotely substantial. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unless he played a major character in a soap over a long period, my impression isthat he is a minor actor, playing small roles and doing a lot of "resting". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Kes role was a major character in a very significant film. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He had major roles in Kes (film), which is an important film in British cinema history, sitcom Queenie's Castle and in Jack Rosenthal's well-remembered, acclaimed and award-winning TV play Another Sunday and Sweet F.A[26]. That meets WP:NACTOR. In addition he played smaller roles in important TV programs like Corrie and Play For Today which are well-covered in reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep this. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree this meets the criteria of "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows", including the historical significance of Kes noted Silverwood (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Wolf At Your Door Records[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, purely promotional listing, company has *no* web presence in independent sources. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails to meet WP:NCORP, as nom said. Ignatz mice•talk 05:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 00:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saving Aimee[edit]

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

Unremarkable band, with no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources either for the group, their releases or their UK tour. The claim that one single charted at #125 is a bit hard to verify as the Official UK singles chart only lists to 100. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Released only one album, one that didn't noticeably chart. Only working ref appears to have been from a self-produced press release. While there appear to be many ghits, the vast majority are for an unrelated musical of the same name. Might also need to include the apparently non-notable album with this AFD. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage identified in previous AfDs is sufficient to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 06:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This has been put to the test previously several times, and notability is not temporary. THIS from the large circulation music mag Kerrang! gets the band about 3/4 over the notability bar, it would seem. THIS from the St. Albans & Harpenden Review should be good for the other 1/4. THIS from Metro should be enough to satisfy those who look for at least 3 sources for a WP:GNG pass. There are other sources cited in the two previous deletion nominations (2007, 2009), both of which ended up as KEEP. So let's put this to rest, shall we? Carrite (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Kerrang 'article' is nothing more than promotional quicky of them talking about themselves (failing WP:BAND), the St. Albans article is a 'local boys make good' article that doesn't even mention them by name until the second paragraph. This leaves the Metro article which is nothing more than 'these guys are playing locally tonight' article. Not one critical review of the band or their output among them. Yes, I have looked at the previous AFDs and see the same passing-mention after passing-mention presented as reliable sources. The only thing these sources establish is that a band of that name exists. I have no idea how those previous AFDs were closed as Keeps. In my opinion a band with no notable output and nothing notable enough about their live shows to garner comment just doesn't pass the test. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with the above, notabilty is not temporary, but were they even notable back in the day? Well, apparently Milty and myself think not, from Wikipedia:NTEMP "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.", in this case read group instead of person, IMHO they had no notability back then (per Milty, a couple of mentions and "we are touring wow") and they are not an ongoing concern so this is like a memento mori. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This should probably be deleted as it fails the "spirit of the law" of notability. This is not a notable group. The single is obviously not notable as it did not make the national chart. The gigs and supporting acts are not notable (even David Brent can claim he shared the stage with Texas). The producer credits on the album are irrelevant. However, the technical "letter of the law" of notability would suggest it stays. The articles sound pretty trivial but there were enough and in significant enough publications to meet notability (if the NME, Kerrang and Metro can actually be evidenced). The playlist rotation on BBC Radio, though, if it can actually be evidenced in some way, does fully appear to meet notability criteria. Silverwood (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian EMR[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable website. No Google News results, and the only Books results are for the phrase "Canadian EMR" generically, almost entirely in non-healthcare contexts. The site has apparently won an award, but I don't believe it meets the NWEB criteria for a "well known" award. —Darkwind (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find significant coverage about this web site. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle McMullen[edit]

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

I just declined a PROD for this article. she has some limited notability, but not so little as to be a clear deletion w/o some discussion. article of course is poorly written, not a criteria for deletion. the argument for keep may be around the uniqueness of the story. I am really not sure, but suspect she isnt notable enough. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sure if there is such a thing as WP:NOTTRUECRIME, but there needs to be. Or call it WP:BLP1E. Or call it "not an encyclopedia-worthy topic." Carrite (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If she is not convicted yet, she doesnt even qualify as a noted criminal, and being a suspect in a crime is not reason enough for an article, unless their status as a suspect is so overwhelmingly notable, like Richard Jewell.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PERP. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRIME - A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article - →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete; the subject of this AfD has received significant coverage in multiple non-primary reliable sources, and thus passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. That being said the subject received this significant coverage based on the event which is a crime, therefore it can be argued that the subject falls under WP:BLP1E, and it would be the event not the individual which is notable. Furthermore, the subject of the AfD, is a biography article and thus maybe judged for notability by WP:PERP, which the subject does not appear to pass. Therefore, as the subject has passed GNG, but fails PERP there are two potential outcomes that abide with the guidelines. 1)Redirect and rename so that the article is about the event, or 2)Delete the article. I am of the present opinion that deletion is the best option at this time. If the event receives continuing in-depth coverage I can understand recreation of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tixati[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. I discussed this article with its author on their talk page, they weren't able to address my concerns. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original discussion is here: User_talk:Jec#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Tixati. I have tried, to the extent of my possibilities, to address Lukeno's "concerns":

the subject matter is notable: Tixati appears to be a completely original implementation of BitTorrent, not based on an existing codebase, with a rather remarkable set of features, notably a complete implementation of both a UDP transport, and one of the three existing implementations of BEP-32; to my untrained eyes, this would appear to satisfy WP:NSOFT;
at least one of the article's references fully satisfies WP:GNG: I will let you consult Wikipedia's TorrentFreak page, which raves quite eloquently about the high reliability of said publication. Jec (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to you before, it may be notable within BitTorrent circles, but it definitely doesn't pass Wiki guidelines as there's no real coverage (bar one place, which I dispute the reliability/independence of, the aforementioned TorrentFreak) in any WP:RS of those technical features. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 06:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NB: RS/N is and has been okay with TorrentFreak in limited capacities. czar · · 01:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I took a good look and I'm only finding relatively usable reviews from About.com and TorrentFreak, but (per NSOFT), reviews alone don't prove notability. I tried to find refs that show how Tixati became a "top torrent software package" in mere months. I tried to find proof of its popularity, "completely original implementation of BitTorrent," notable innovations, etc. There's nothing about this software (currently) that proves notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. czar · · 01:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://articles.latimes.com/2003/aug/16/local/me-bios16

[1] ttp://articles.latimes.com/2003/aug/16/local/me-bios16

[1]