Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 April	8 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 keep. Rename discussion can take place elsewhere. (non-admin closure) TB randley 18:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian[edit]

There are so many problems with this article that I cannot see how it can be fixed. First, it consists only of links to other WP articles that almost all say something completely different from this list article. Just to give one example out of many I could quote, this article says "Nicasius, Quirinus, Scubiculus, and Pientia" and gives an exact date and a place for their martyrdom - October 11, 285, Gaul. When you click on the blue link on those names it takes you to article Nicasius, Quirinus, Scubiculus, and Pientia where the lead says "Their historicity is uncertain, and "no trustworthy historical reports of [them] exist." I have checked all the links in this article, not a single article linked to actually supports the flat assertions here that "so-and-so" was a "Christian martyr killed during the reign of Diocletian" at the place and on the day given, all of these are "traditions" or legends and in many cases,as in the one above, there are serious doubts as to whether there was actually such a person at all. I asked on WP:NPOVN if users felt that this article, and one other, were neutral and the consensus was "no". I asked on WP:RSN if it was OK for this article not to quote any source except to link to other WP articles that say something completely different to the statements here and the answer was "no". I didn't need to ask at WP:NORN if it was felt that it contains original research as anyone can see that it does - on the talk page user Cynwolfe asked on 1 August 2011 "where did you get the names? How did you determine that each of these individuals was a victim of the Diocletianic Persecution?" and got the answer "Um, I googled Diocletian, persecution, and list." [[1]]The very precise days of these supposed martyrdoms given in the article are taken by using their saints' days as the day of death, a highly dubious procedure to say the least. I cannot imagine how the year was arrived at except that somebody just made it up. The much better article Diocletianic Persecution says "Of the surviving martyrs' acts, only those of Agnes, Sebastian, Felix and Adauctus, and Marcellinus and Peter are even remotely historical", with a reference. So of these fifty or so names, there are six that may have some historical truth to them. Finally, as user Cynwolfe has noted during the discussions on WP:RSN, even the name of this article is no good, as it is a list of supposed martyrs, "and not a list of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian in boating accidents and boar hunts and street brawls. Or perhaps even executed for actual crimes".

I will stop now or this will turn into a wall of text that no one will read but if anyone wants any more information about how this article does not represent the questions of historicity it raises I will be glad to amplify.Smeat75 (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't see a consensus at WP:NPOVN that this article is not neutral. I have no problem with a name change - e.g. List of Christians martyred during the reign of Diocletian - but I don't see why every person (or date) on the list needs to be historical. Lots of lists of martyrs in reliable sources have traditional dates. St Anselm (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/refocus As I said on talk there, that this is a legendary list is a given. But so is the list of Greek goddesses. Being a legend does not imply not being included in Wikipedia, but it must be qualified as legend/tradition rather than historical. History2007 (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether they are historical or legendary figures is irrelevant--the ones who have been recognized as saints are notable--even if the notability isa s purely fictional characters. The articles on them give the evidence, and as long saswe keep this to those that have WP articles, it's as good as any other list. (I would agree with changing killed to martyred, which is what is actually meant) DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and define scope. I have no problem with a list of Christian martyrs, but "Christians killed" has to go. The current article fails to meet several criteria of WP:SAL. A standalone list is subject to the same standards of verifiability and OR as any other article. If content is challenged, it requires a citation. Synthesis is an aspect of OR; if the list includes figures who aren't recognized as martyrs by the Church, the inclusion of such figures advances a conclusion not present in the sources used to compile the main articles on each. To avoid synthesis, each figure needs to described as historical/legendary, or as accepted by the Church or just a part of the narrative tradition. The dates need to be identified as actual dates of death, or observances from a religious calendar. In regard to these points, I endorse most of what John Carter said here. A well written lead section, the guideline says, is of particular importance to stand-alone lists. The intro to this list is a summary from Diocletianic Persecution, which is defined as the period from 303 to 313. The list includes figures from the entirety of Diocletian's reign. The intro doesn't deal with specific issues of historicity, or what the criteria for inclusion are. WP:SLC: Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed …, membership criteria should be based on reliable sources. So while I don't necessarily support deletion, I also can't support keeping it in its current misguided state. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can see that there is not going to be consensus for deleting the article and hope that those who have commented here will help me "fix" it once this discussion is closed. I agree with History2007 and Cynwolfe, the problem is not that it lists legendary figures but that it does not distinguish between fact and fiction. I would also ask that people help me if they can on the article Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, which is very poor. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole series of POV-oriented persecution articles that are simply appalling. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a major rewrite. There are standard lists of martyrs, most Notably Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History (4th Century) and Fox's Book of Martyrs (1536), both of which have a chapter covering the time of Diocletian. Those two works should be the starting point, with addenda for additional martyrs if necessary. Listmeister (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep per StAnselm and DGG. I don't see what can't be fixed with ordinary editing. Whole books have been written with lists about this topic, and a list like this keeps all of the important information in one place, for which a category would not be as useful. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A lot could be done in terms of rewriting, renaming, refocusing etc., but I don't think deletion is one of those things. This article simply needs improvement (though I'm not convinced it needs a whole lot, a group of three or four editors could knock this out in an afternoon). MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 13 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. No argument or evidence advanced toward notability j⚛e decker ^talk 01:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Baréz-Brown[edit]

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

Another article written by a PR Agency about an individual of little note. Article is cited to writing by Barez-Brown and an interview of him in a British Airways magazine (Barez Brown talking about himself at length). His books appear to be non-notable too. Sionk (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I cannot see naything in the artilce making him separately notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indication of notability per WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Times and Guardian references cited are too vague to be of any use. Captain Conundrum (talk) 13:40, 8 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. No argument or evidence advanced toward notability j⚛e decker ^talk 01:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Chadha[edit]

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

Another article written by a PR Agency with little substance. Chadha has been interviewed for two FT pull-out supplements, has allegedly received a minor award from a Business Forum and co-authored a non-notable book. His academic work is cited to... his academic work. I have a strong feeling this article is all 'smoke and mirrors'. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The academic work is not notable and the book isn't even on Worldcat DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified as above. The academic is not even close to meeting the notability requirements for inclusion. Kabirat (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not yet notable per WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Captain Conundrum (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Still NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's not enough indication that the award bestowed upon this person was notable to meet WP:ANYBIO's award criteria. A lot of primary sources in the article. Mkdw ^talk 00:40, 15 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. There is nothing to merge because, as postdlf (t c) and Flatscan (t c) noted, there is no content in these articles that was not in the original source. No prejudice against a proper WP:SPLIT that actually expands upon the original content; at that point the original article should be nominated at AfD. —Darkwind (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All in the Family (season 1)[edit]

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

Also:

Duplicates the content found here. I can't see the point in having separate articles just to duplicate content found on another. This article also has less detail than the version linked previous. An almost identical situation was when the article Happy Days (season 1) was speedy deleted for the same thing. I think this one has been here for too long to be speedy deleted. Thanks JetBlast (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep The old version of List of All in the Family episodes predates the breaking out of all the detailed (such as it is) plot summaries, per the existing treatment for television episodes. The content isn't duplicative, it was broken out into the separate articles so that more information for plot, reception, etc. on each episode could be maintained in a single article on the show, without the single overarching article getting too big. The same thing has been done to many other FL-quality television series episodes, and represents the best consensus model of how to present information in multi-season shows. Jclemens (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- List of All in the Family episodes actually appears to have not only all of the information contained in the split-off season lists, but more information, such as noting guest stars. The episode summaries also appear to be different. Is the breaking out still a work in progress? postdlf (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it would still appear to be a work in progress, but I haven't participated in it. As a show, it was a bit before my time... Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - 10 Similar pages by the same user where deleted today. --JetBlast (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, or if that would be too long, then keep. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'Not good enough' is not a reason to delete. Listmeister (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of All in the Family episodes. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of these season lists were derived from the overall episode list, List of All in the Family episodes (pre-split). All in the Family (season 1) began as a direct copy (cross-page diff), and the others take their table formats and colors. The main change that User:StewieBaby05 made was cutting the summaries down to one sentence per episode. None of the splits conform to WP:Splitting#How to properly split an article or WP:Copying within Wikipedia, and all must be repaired if they are not deleted. Merging them back will create attribution dependency loops. Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 13 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 withdrawn nomination. Per WP:NOTE in regard to the subjects obvious notability, and per WP:SNOW regarding the clear consensus of the discussion. --Mathnerd 101 (talk | contribs) 02:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wind Music Awards[edit]

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

I have nominated Wind Music Awards for deletion for multiple reasons:

It is almost entirely spam, and is written using peacock words.
It does not cite any references.
It appears to be a contribution by a user with history of copy-and paste and test edits, as well as copyright violations.
There is an almost identical article on the Italian Wikipedia, and this article appears to be a machine translation of it.
It does not appear to be notable. --Mathnerd 101 (talk | contribs) 21:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep, lack of WP:BEFORE, hundreds of sources, eg Corriere della Sera [2] La Stampa [3] Il Giornale [4] Quotidiano.net [5] TGCOM [6] [7] La Repubblica [8] Excite [9] Libero [10] [11] [12] [13] Rockol [14] ... about the rest, I don't see how this little stub "is almost entirely spam, and is written using peacock words" (frankly, I don't see any of this), nor being a translation of an other language Wikipedia article is a problem. Cavarrone (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cavarrone. The mentioned sources are reliable and independent ones. The article is a stub but it shouldn't be called a spam. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article now cites sources; I've also improved the translation and wording. (ETA: I contributed fairly substantially to this article.) – 29611670.x (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ ~~Pretty strong keep~~ Withdrawn Nomination per above. The article certainly needs cleanup, but it does appear to be notable (I recently did a google search and I also got hundreds of hits). --Mathnerd 101 (talk | contribs) 23:05, 8 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. No argument or evidence argued for notability j⚛e decker ^talk 01:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe LaFratta[edit]

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

Not convinced this guy passes WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR, but it's full of BLP violations and/or promotional material (but not sure if it's enough to be speedy worthy), so if this guy is notable, I suggest TNTing this article and starting from scratch. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failure of WP:BASIC. I searched and searched.... Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's not enough info to support the article. Ducknish (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing but WP:CIRCULAR and ineffectual WP:BOMBARD. No real WP:RS to establish WP:AUTHOR or anything else. Qworty (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication this person meets WP:GNG, either for WP:AUTHOR or WP:CRIMINAL. Mkdw ^talk 00:46, 15 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. Noting that this discussion should be considered invalid if, and when, someone is appointed to this rank Courcelles 05:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arteshbod[edit]

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

It's the highest military rank in Iran, yet no one has it. I haven't seen any WP:RS using this term, and I believe from non-RS that it's just a General equivalent anyway (so at the most, a redirect). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is based on the way the article currently stands: with a pithy description and absolutely no references. A Google search doesn't reveal anything of relevance either. Unless references and a better description are provided, I recommend deletion. Kabirat (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to General. Arteshbod appears to be the Persian word for General. EricSerge (talk) 15:15, 13 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. At this point, the article fails WP:GNG, and there is no specialized criteria which applies. The argument about the Tagalog sources is important, and I would have no prejudice if the article is recreated based on multiple reliable sources, be it Tagalog, English, or Aleut, but as far as these sources have not been identified, the article has to be deleted. And if I had to close an article on the White House servant with the same level of sourcing, I would delete it as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Ejercito[edit]

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

No assertion of independent notability; only claim of importance is as father of notable children. Fails WP:BIO. GILO A&E⇑ 01:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find enough independent reliable sources. I found a Google Books search, and another one which turned up minimal coverage. The article is non-notable, and does fail WP:BIO. He is a non-notable government official with notable children. ~~JHUbal27 14:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nominator makes no mention of Tagalog sources, the probable main source. In any case passes WP:GNG by references in bios of various children and grandchildren. Notability evidently is inherited with American presidents, we have articles on Whitehouse servants, let alone presidents' fathers. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that most Philippine media, especially online, is in English. If there's a lack of sources in English, then it's already an indication of lack of notability. While we do have articles for parents of American presidents, that's because they themselves have been the subject of reliable coverage. Sure for being the parents of presidents, but still coverage about them. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing going against Mr. Ejercito is that his son became president almost 20 years after he died. Naturally, that means there would be significantly less sources that'll talk about him since he's dead, and there's little to talk about dead people's influences on the living when you compare to those who are alive. This is different from his widow, Mary Ejercito, who was alive on Estrada's entire term, and she was the reason the prosecutors went "easy" on him; she also benefits since she died at the time where news websites don't delete old pages so there's some sources that can be used. –H T D 17:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is mentioned in multiple sources. The deletion arguments just add to presentism in the encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 4 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited. The ref's provided in the article only provided biographical snippets rather on what he did as a person.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Passes neither WP:BIO nor WP:GNG because none of the coverage cited is significant within the scope of those guidelines. —Darkwind (talk) 00:57, 16 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 Son of Angels. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Prophet[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK, no sources of reviews, etc. Author Jerel Law does not have a biographical article on himself. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In mild defense, an earlier book in the series got some coverage; see here, Google finds another such article from The Huntersville Herald, but the link is dead. --Nat Gertler (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Son of Angels. There's just enough to where I would justify a weak keep for the series, so this would be a reasonable enough redirect to that article for now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect in concurrence with Tokyogirl79's wise reasoning. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Merge and Redirect Consolidation rather than deletion is the right solution to the confusion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except there's no merger needed, as the information here is already in the article we're seeking to redirect to. Looks like the synopsis was copied from there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:04, 11 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beaumaris Hotel, Sheringham[edit]

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

No credible notability claims, no significant source coverage. Fails WP:GNG. I am unable to turn up anything but passing mentions. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete by criterion A7: there is no indication of importance. (There are no doubt many two-star hotels in Sheringham, and many Edwardian buildings. The building looks unremarkable.)--A bit iffy (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need to draw the line somewhere. (Tho I recognize the inexactness of the designation, I think it's generally agreed that 4 start hotels are notable, & can be presumed to have references. I think it should equally be presumed that this is not the case for 2-star, except possibly in a region where there are almost no hotels. They could properly be mentioned in the article on the locality--perhaps a redirect is indicated. I've recently turned down some Prods of the nom's on three-start hotels, as warranting general discussion here, and I expect we'll see them at AfD . I'm not sure what I think about those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Delete -- Again I have reverted User:Stavros1 blanking of an article that he created. I consider the hotel of no architectural merit, so that I see no reason for not deleting it. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hotel not in a heritage building and a mere 21 rooms. we're not a hotel listing. LibStar (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish keep Seems to be related to golf. As hotels go it is weak notability but I wouldn't go as far as to say it should be deleted. [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Those links are just the passing, routine mentions that one would expect for a hotel (and some of the links appear not to bring up the hotel).--A bit iffy (talk) 19:19, 9 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. Courcelles 05:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Court Hotel, Cromer[edit]

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

No credible notability claims, no significant source coverage. Fails WP:GNG. I am unable to turn up anything but passing mentions. It was nominated for speedy, but the reviewing admin felt that 3 star hotel was enough to pass speedy and recommended AfD. Hence we are here. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We need to draw the line somewhere. (Tho I recognize the inexactness of the designation, I think it's generally agreed that 4 start hotels are notable, & can be presumed to have references. I think it should equally be presumed that this is not the case for 2-star, except possibly in a region where there are almost no hotels. They could properly be mentioned in the article on the locality--perhaps a redirect is indicated. I've recently turned down some Prods of the nom's on three-start hotels, as warranting general discussion here, and I expect we'll see them at AfD . I'm not sure what I think about those. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I have reverted the blanking by User:Stavros1 (who claims to have retired from WP). REtiring from WP, should not be followed by the removal of good contributions. This hotel appears to be of little architectural merit, so that I cannot support keeping it, unlike Manor Hotel. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One thing that would save this would be listed building status, but it appears not to have it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Yes DGG, we do need to draw a line with hotels. [25], [26], [27], [28] I've found but my gut feeling is that this doesn't cut the mustard, one look at the photo and the hotel on google street view should tell you, sorry Stravros. I'd support a Hotels in Cromer article with a brief summary, but it would have to include more notable hotels with architecture info and such as we're not a hotel guide.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikivoyage is thataway→... _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 18:42, 12 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. No argument advanced for notability j⚛e decker ^talk 01:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gwenton Sloley[edit]

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

Unfortunately, though I've tried very hard to find reliable sources that talk about Gwenton Sloley, I can only find one news article in Camden New Journal. Sloley is an ex-gang member whose claim to fame is an appearance (in some capacity or another) in a BBC documentary and the authoring of a self-published autobiography. I wish all the best for his future community activities but he simply doesn't get near to Wikipedia's notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not yet notable per WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR, though he might be in a few years. Captain Conundrum (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I do not think that being shortlisted for the Orwell Prize is enought for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing in google books and lulu is a vanity press. SalHamton (talk) 22:14, 13 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) TB randley 18:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harold S. Koplewicz[edit]

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

Article violates BLP policy and subject is unencyclopedic Jacksonjones1972 (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 7. Snotbot t • c » 19:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof#C1 on GS cites. Inadequate nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Subject is not an academic, and is not a member of any faculty. Does not WP:Prof#C1 apply to academic notability? "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable."Jacksonjones1972 (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Prof covers people who publish research and so covers this subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Major and controversial research and clinician. There are some serious problems with the article, which has been subject to outrageous whitewashing by those who apparently represent the subject, and insertion of biased attack wording by those who are opposed to the method of medical treatment he promotes. But he is mainstream, tho on only one side of the question. If the article is kept, as it should be, I'm willing to take responsibility for editing it neutrally. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously notable, article can (and apparently will) be fixed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WoS concurs on WP:PROF #1, with the citation list: 296, 127, 107... Agricola44 (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per DGG. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:31, 9 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bananafish Magazine[edit]

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

This page is a stub, in addition to notability issues. BDP3300 (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there's a strong case for keeping either this or an article on its founder (known by the pseudonym Seymour Glass), for their cultural importance, even though this was in a largely pre-internet age and hence there's a shortage of online sources. The Wire, Britain's most important experimental/art music magazine calls it "influential"[29] and praises it[30]. It played an important role in Shut Up, Little Man![31][32][33][34][35]

Glass worked with critically acclaimed singer-songwriter Barbara Manning in Glands of External Secretion[36]. And his links to art-rock band Thinking Fellers Union Local 282.[37]

It's also cited in some Wikipedia articles as an expert on experimental music[38]. Fanzine coverage[39]. Here's a review of a CD given free with the magazine[40]. I also came across a claim that its contributors included Daniel Clowes [41] and possibly other notable underground cartoonists, but I'd like to confirm that. The article needs some more work to find sources. But also, being a stub is not a reason for deletion.

Note: there seems to be a more recent and unconnected literary magazine with the same name. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My major concern was with the notability issues. I probably could have been more specific initially with the reason for deletion. This article hasn't seen action for approximately 5 years, and that was another flag for me. You shot down the notability issues, however, and I think justified it pretty well. B 22:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BDP3300 (talk • contribs)

Comment i tried to find refs. not much. as an underground zine active mostly before the net, there may be little on the net to find. maybe theres an archive of the issues, or print commentary on it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI think that the article meets the requirements for notability. I also think that since it's pre-internet and sources are difficult the notability issue and the merits of the subject matter shows good purpose for keeping the article. {{User:Tews|Tews]] (talk) 07:55, 11 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 (A1) by RHaworth. Please nominate an article for speedy deletion if it meets any of the criteria for speedy deletion. (non-admin closure) Lugia2453 (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Willie the baby[edit]

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

The article is a stub, does not have any context and it does not meet many of Wikipedia's policies. Either a massive expansion is underway or else this article should be removed quickly. The Wikimon (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 7 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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was speedy delete (A7) by INeverCry. (non-admin closure) Lugia2453 (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Worlds Mania[edit]

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

Article does not support WP: Notabilty policy. It contains no reference and is a stub. It also lacks on WP: Neturality policy. The Wikimon (talk) 18:44, 7 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) • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~. I fail to see a credible assertion of notability for this person. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero RS coverage found in search. Just a gamer with a YouTube channel. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - non-notable, there are rather alot of people on youtube. Snappy (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7: Per Snappy. I've nominated the article for speedy deletion. In the future, The Wikimon, if an article meets the criteria for speedy deletion, nominate it for speedy deletion instead of making an Articles for Deletion discussion. Lugia2453 (talk) 00:47, 8 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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No argument presented for notability j⚛e decker ^talk 01:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Martinez[edit]

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

This is an all-too promotional article about a bass player whose notability is not proven. Besides the usual verbosity, there is nothing in here that suggests the man warrants an article--like solo albums that made waves, particular technical innovations that have been praised in the press, etc. There are claims of having participated on notable records, but those claims don't extend notability to all the musicians on such records. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom. From what I can find subject has been nothing more than a session player on the listed Grammy nominated and/or winning works. No other notability can be found. Article was apparently created by the subject, and at the moment it is also an unreferenced BLP. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per G11 and A7. also fails GNG. the tone of the article is not encyclopedic and is more like blatant advertising rather than an article. the article has no sources. it is not notable in any way shape or form. --72.65.238.157 (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:33, 9 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 Brodus Clay. —Darkwind (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Funkadactyls[edit]

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

The team has only been on TV for almost a year and has happened to do nothing of note. They have had no notable match or feud and 90% of the time they are not even wrestlers, they're cheerleaders/valets. Fails WP:GNG, there is no coverage by reliable sources showing they are notable by themselves separate for their client, Brodus Clay. See previous AfD examples at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Chickbusters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blondetourage. All the information is present in Brodus Clay, Naomi Knight and Ariane Andrew so there is no need for a separate article. However I would also support a redirect to Brodus Clay. STATic message me! 17:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment from administrator: Please don't make an argument about how long this team has been around, feuds or the merits of being a cheerleader, etc. as they are irrelevant. Such comments will be dismissed when this AFD is closed. Remember this AFD is about WP:Notability and this is WP:NOTAVOTE: Focus on how this article does or does not meet WP:GNG and/or WP:ENTERTAINER. Per this guideline, WP:SPORTCRIT does not apply. Toddst1 (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete per STAic. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They have been a tag team for more than a year on T.V. not to mention their time in FCW. They are currently in a feud with The Bella Twins which is resulting both teams making their Wrestlemania debut, the companys biggest ppv of the year, tonight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ8946 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Despite being a tag team for more than a year until they are notable the page should be redirect until the team become notable like The Beautiful People otherwise ask for a protection lock so that Admins or Rollback can only edit the page. --Miss X-Factor (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- If the page is keep, Its going to need a lot of editing to with sources and fixing problems. --Miss X-Factor (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Diva-Dirt a reliable source? --DJ8946 (talk • contribs)DJ8946 (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [and replace with redirect]- A speedy delete at that. The conversation at Talk:The Funkadactyls was just silly. There was no reason to revert the redirect. Feedback ^☎ 07:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see much of a notability problem. They've been around for a year, and are currently in a feud which has been going on for about a month. Being a cheerleader/valet doesn't automatically make you NN anyway especially when it's done for this long.LordMaldad2000 (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yesterday, the match in WM was canelled. I think that this change everything, because it was the main point, his appearance in a major event. As a team, they have a year as second characters, supporting Brodus Clay. I think that the Notability is for Brodus Clay, no for supporting characters. I think that redirect is the best option. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think that their WM match is relevant to the conversation anymore with WP:GNG being the focus. Their feuds, including the one that could've gone to Mania are out. Being valets (and they are part-time wrestlers, full-time valets) are also out of the conversation. I'm holding with Keep because I think that the subjects have received significant coverage, unlike the aforementioned Blondetourage and Chickbusters and that the sources currently in place do establish enough notability to cover WP:GNG concerns.LordMaldad2000 (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know they scrapped it. Live streamed. But anyways yes you may redirect because I don't want it to be deleted, but I ask that whenever they do something notable that I may add it onto the page, & then it can be redirect again.DJ8946 (talk)DJ8946 (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even when not an official name, other team names can just be added to the other names list on the infobox's bio, as if they were aliases. Hansen Sebastian 10:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: How is that a rational for a keep vote? The nomination has nothing to do with their name. It is about if the team is notable per WP:GNG. Which they clearly are not. STATic message me! 20:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete outside of the occasional match all that they are know for is cheering on Brodius Clay.--174.93.164.125 (talk) 03:01, 13 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. This discussion and closure should in no way be taken as a particular precedent that high school football teams are, or are not, notable in general. This particular team very clearly fails to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG, which are the applicable notability guidelines. —Darkwind (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Destrehan Fighting Wildcats football[edit]

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

Also nominating: Category:High school football teams in Louisiana

Fails GNG. High school football teams are non-notable. I am also nominating the related category for deletion. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there any Wikipedia policy that can be cited to that specifically states, "High school football teams are non-notable?" The article does have references, and there could probably be a decent argument made that it may meet WP:GNG. Just wondering. I suppose a merge to Destrehan High School could also be in order. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a totally unremarkable high school football team. ^King Jakob _C2 18:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I can find no policy that says that high school athletic programs are not notable, neither can I find one stating that they are. So I look at essays such as Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) for guidance. While certainly High school football is notable and Destrehan High School is notable, that does not mean that Destrehan Fighting Wildcats football would also be notable. I then look at our general notability guideline WP:GNG and compare that to the article at hand. I am not finding the type of coverage necessary to support notability for this particular high school football program in this particular encyclopedia. However, I do believe that there is a good deal of work done on this article that can be added to the Destrehan High School article--specifically, the images. That's a nice image gallery. I also wouldn't object to the sports records as well provided they were well sourced. If the editors supporting the article are very enthusiastic about supporting this particular article, I suggest that they try another wiki where it would be a better fit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This says it all: "While I can find no policy that says that high school athletic programs are not notable, neither can I find one stating that they are". This means an article can be written because it is not against wikipedia rules. This team has won multiple state championships and has been nationally ranked many times. There are high school football pages on wikipedia. One such page is, Rockhurst Hawklets football. If high schools are notable and high school football is notable then why are't high school football pages notable. High school football plays a very important part in American culture. Wikipedia is not addressing this aspect of American culture. It is long overdue that this is covered and pages are written concerning this topic.--User:spatms (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there is no policy against it does not, by inverse property, mean that it belongs on Wikipedia. This high school football team fails GNG, the most generalized of all notability concerns.
"This team has won multiple state championships" (so have tens of thousands of high school football programs, who cares?) "and has been nationally ranked many times" (vague; also being nationally ranked does not garner inherent notability).
"There are high school football pages on wikipedia. One such page is, Rockhurst Hawklets football." WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping an article from being deleted, and frankly each and every single high school football team article should be scrutinized. Rockhurst most likely should be deleted too, but that isn't the article up for deletion here, thus it's irrelevant.
"If high schools are notable and high school football is notable then why are't high school football pages notable." High schools are notable for their own reasons and the consensus was that they all muster GNG and have played important roles in shaping the American education system. High school football as a general topic is notable for its extensive coverage in the media. But neither high schools nor high school football thus necessitate a specific high school football team is notable; notability is not inherited.
"High school football plays a very important part in American culture." Yes it does, which is why the general topic is notable.
"Wikipedia is not addressing this aspect of American culture. It is long overdue that this is covered and pages are written concerning this topic." Wikipedia has not addressed many topics, high school football isn't being singled out. And, a large reason why there is little coverage on it here is because many of the articles written have been deleted or redirected per GNG, as is the case with Destrehan Fighting Wildcats football.

—Jrcla2 (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line. Either high school football pages are in or out. If we're going black and white, then let's go black and white. No Rockhurst Hawklets football, Destrehan Wildcats football or anyone else. Hopefully, someone involved in the decision knows about the topic. I'll let you, the omnipotent beings of wikipedia, make your decisions. --User:spatms (talk) 1:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't work that way. Notable organizations are in. Non-notable organizations are out. Please read up on notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The argument can be made there aren't any notable high school football teams in the United States because it's more of a regional or statewide subject. If so, we should never have high school football pages on wikipedia. For instance, I've never heard of Rockhurst Hawklets football, but I'm sure they're very well-known throughout Missouri and Kansas. Another example, Destrehan football is known as one of the top high school football programs in Louisiana. I'd like to use churches as an example without putting emotion into the discussion. There are a few churches known nationally, but many of the hundreds of churches already on wikipedia are known locally or regionally. When combined, these churches play a huge role in the United States. High School football should be seen as playing a big role in the United States. One page discussing high school football doesn't offer enough information regarding such a big topic. High school football team pages would add a great deal of information to the topic. Wikipedia doesn't have only one page discussing college football, so why one page discussing high school football. Both are non-professional levels of the same sport. As mentioned above, no high school program is notable if it has to stand out on it's own nationally. That is why I'm saying either allow them or don't because otherwise they shouldn't exist at all. I'm sure wikipedia rules have changed over time, maybe it's time to review this as a whole. To finally conclude my thoughts, if high school football pages are allowed, Destrehan football is notable and should be kept. I'm not even making this argument based on the many NFL players from the program. One example being "future" Hall of Famer Ed Reed. The program stands on its own merits regarding its football history if high school football pages are allowed. --User:spatms (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Baltimore City College football is a high school football program that's notable per WP:GNG. But by your rationale, this article should be blindly deleted if Destrehan's article gets deleted; that makes no sense. Every article on Wikipedia should be judged by its own merit and whether it passes general notability, they should not be lumped together by topic and have all either exist or not exist. You keep arguing for Destrehan's notability but have not provided the references necessary to back up that assertion. So far, it's all been an emotional appeal. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~(users are not allowed to !vote more than once) A list of players in the NFL was added to the Destrehan High School Football page. 7 NFL players have come from Destrehan High School. There is a chance that more Destrehan grads are drafted this year, as they have received draftable grades by the NFL. 7 NFL players are better than some universities in the U.S. They produced many more past and present divison 1 college players, which will be added to the site. Currently, players from Destrehan are playing for Tennessee, LSU and Ole Miss to name a few. This is the highest level of college football. The school has also won 5 state championships. Keep in mind, Louisiana as a state produces more NFL players per capita than any other state. This means it is that much harder to win a state championship due to such a high talent level throughout the state. In referencing Baltimore City College (high school) which is considered notable, Destrehan compares in this way. NFL Players: Destrehan 7, Baltimore 5, State championships: Destrehan 5, Baltimore 0. (From page-Baltimore college has won Baltimore City championships, but never a state championship.) State championships trump city championships. Longest winning streak: Destrehan: 30 games, Baltimore 29 games. Do not let page content discriminate against a page. Yes, Baltimore may offer more history on their page right now, but that doesn't make it notable and Destrehan isn't. The Destrehan page is new and more information will be added such as the before mentioned college players, history of coaches, yearly results etc... If the page is deleted, it doesn't have the chance to improve. It will take work, but more history can and will be added. The photo gallery has already received some kudos and the content is actually comparable to some Division 1-AA/FCS schools. See Southland Conference schools football pages. In conclusion, based on current content against college football team pages and if Baltimore City College (high school) football is notable, then in a head-to-head comparison, it proves that the Destrehan High School football page is also notable and should be kept. This arguement is based on stated facts and not emotion. Please keep an open mind. --User:spatms (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of state championships and NFL alumni a high school has can only be considered supporting reasons, at best, for notability, not the main reasons. Baltimore City Prep has 123 in-line references. The only references on Destrehan's page are either (a) lists of Louisiana high school football champions, (b) routine game recaps that have nothing to do with the program itself (WP:ROUTINE), or (c) broken links. Destrehan does not have multiple, independent sources about the football program. Head to head with Baltimore Prep it still doesn't pass WP:GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - When you nominated it for deletion your mind was already made up. Whatever I discuss or whatever is added to the page will not change things. As they say in rural areas, "the hay is already in the barn". That is fine. We shouldn’t all think the same. It’s not healthy. That being said, if we judge notability based strictly on the number of references, then you get Baltimore City College football. A non-relevant high school football team where someone gathered some yearbooks, the alumni association wrote a few books w/ a dash a media coverage thrown in and it became notable. It matters what teams produce on the field not what they have referenced. That is the essence of sport. What you do on the field is what matters. I understand this is an online encyclopedia, but please everyone, think real world also and not just as an academician. It is fairly obvious that the Baltimore City College football page wasn't written last month. It was allowed to remain and content was added over time. If yearbooks, alumni books and articles are what truly matter on Wikipedia, then give the Destrehan High School football page the same opportunity that was given to the Baltimore City college football page. You can’t gather 123 references in the few months the Destrehan article has been on Wikipedia. Do not kill it before it has time to grow. With regards to the subject and the page content, it should already be considered notable. Based on the accomplishments of the football team and page content itself, it is comparable, if not better than multiple head-to-head comparisons on Wikipedia. --User:spatms (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it actually matters what is produced in the media. Yeah, that's kind of strange. But we build our encyclopedia off of third party references and notability. I'd happily change my position if you could find some good third party references. I've gone and looked for them myself but have not found them.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:22, 13 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Warriors characters[edit]

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

Unnecessary as a stand-alone article. All of the notable characters can, and are, discussed at the articles for the film and the video game. I hacked this down to the bare bones after it was bloated with in-universe details about minor characters. But, in this state, the article is superfluous. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:11, 7 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) • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per TheOldJacobite above. Wikipedia has too many useless "list of character" pages which firmly belong on fan sites. In the alternative, a single film and videogame does not warrant a "list of characters" page. - Fantr (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, will never be anything more than a plot resource, no character from the film is individually culturally significant or notable except potentially bottles-on-fingers-clanking guy, and its completely unnecessary for a single film with an attached game. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's hard to imagine how this can "never be anything more than a plot resource", because as it currently stands, it has almost no plot and recounts the voice actors--real world impact--who portrayed the characters. Furthermore, contra Darkwarriorblake is exactly wrong: because these characters appear in a notable videogame and a notable film, there is no single merge target for them. The nominator demonstrated that the serious issues could be fixed by the normal editing process. All of the above opinions are non-policy-based reasons for deletion, but the reason for retention is simple and direct: Character lists do not require individual notability, because the works (here there are two, many other lists have substantially more) from which they are taken are notable, and the list articles serve as redirect targets and/or to forestall individual articles on clearly non-notable fictional characters. Jclemens (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most films these days have a computer game spin-off featuring characters from the movie, but generally we don't have a separate character list for them or even need one, since obviously there is a huge overlap between the game and the film it is based on. It's not like the List of Star Wars characters which is essentially a character index to a huge array of characters across an expanded universe. The nominator addressed the most serious excesses of the article, but he is unable to address the main issue in that it largely replicates a list already found at two other articles. Betty Logan (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TOJ and Fantr. The list is redundant to the articles for the film and game. MarnetteD | Talk 22:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have often supported such lists, when they contain useful information supplementary to the main article. This one does not do. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think that this list of characters is underwhelming considered how small the so-called franchise is—the film and two video games, the latter apparently not very well-known. In my research of the topic, though, I found this book called Game On, Hollywood!: Essays on the Intersection of Video Games and Cinema with a relevant chapter: "Playing (in) the city: The Warriors and images of urban disorder". I'm not sure if there is anything else like that out there, but if there are additional references, I would not be opposed to an article The Warriors (franchise) that would have a "List of characters" section among other sections. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OMG! This is so, like, not a fansite! Our encyclopedia does not need a list of everything. Let's merge the character list into the film's page and let the video game article reference that (assuming they are both notable). Dusty|💬|You can help! 17:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GAMECRUFT on the video game side, WP:CASTLIST on the film side, and on both: an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of data (NOTIMDB, etc.). The useful parts of this list can be worked into the respective articles. czar · · 02:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overdoing it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:06, 15 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, particularly as it's a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Ball[edit]

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

The regional newspaper used to create this article does not contribute to establishing notability. The argument given here [42] is a classic WP:GOOGLEHITS argument. Does not meet GNG, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Western Producer is Canada's largest agricultural publication. I can add material from Canada's mainstream right-wing media. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Sun News: [43] [44] [45] Puget Sound Radio [46] Books : [47] [48] Canadian Press, Canada's largest news wire service: [49] National Post: [50] Ottawa Citizen: [51] Georgia Straight: [52] London (Canada) Free Press: [53] New York Times (behind paywall): Climate Scientist Sues Skeptic for Libel - NYTimes.com‎ New York Times - Feb 8, 2011 Andrew Weaver, a climate modeler at the University of Victoria, filed the lawsuit against Tim Ball, a former professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg ... I think this deals with the notability issue.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need independent sources known for their reliability, not opinion pieces, vanity press climate skeptic books which Ball helped write and other pieces he wrote. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stairway Press may publish right-wing stuff but it looks like it is not a vanity press. Here's their catalogue (click "booktore"). http://www.stairwaypress.com/bookstore/And the NYT piece is hardly an opinion piece, nor are most of the pieces I've cited. And even the opinion pieces have enough coverage of him to show notability. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at WP:RS. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Highest GS cite is 10. Way below required in highly cites field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The lack of cites also strains the credibility of unreliable self-published sources which claim he was the first in Canada in the field. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is notability. He has lots of it, from Canadian media and the New York Times. The reason I started the page was because I went to Wikipedia and wanted to find out about the guy after seeing a media piece. Notability is clearly established: Canadian newspapers, the New York Times, etc. I suspect some people just can't stand the idea of a page on this guy. Sure he may be full of sh@t, but he is well known.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The NYTimes references are enough. Spooky, it would help if you added them to the article, not just here. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had just started the article when it was put up for deletion. I don't want to invest the time if this guy is, effectively, barred from having a Wikipedia page. I think there's lots to work with in terms of developing what his platform is and examining criticism of it (and him, since there's a lot of debate about his credentials and scholarship.) But I think notability is established quite well, and that's the criteria. I think the Google Scholar count is a red herring, since Ball is obviously an activist using his PhD as a credential, rather than an academic scientist. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I'm not sure why a NYT Blog about a single event (being sued) would help with notability; that sounds like a WP:ONEEVENT justification. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)\[reply]

Obviously it was considered by the NYT to be notable enough for its world-wide readership. And it's one of many stories and pieces, including all those from the Canadian media, that suggest people have heard of this person. You really seem quite determined to keep Ball off Wikipedia. Presumably he is so not-notable that you have no idea who he is, never heard of him before you stumbled across the stub page mere minutes after it was posted and put it up for immediate deletion, yet seem aware of the criticisms raised against him (which should be dealt with in the article). You are are downplaying MS media articles and denigrating a very large amount of media coverage. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms raised agaisnt him? You want to have an entire article which is about Tim Ball being sued by someone else? Being sued by someone who's barely notable isn't a great demonstration of notability, it's a WP:ONEEVENT connection. You also can't write an article using a blog and this doesn't meet WP:BASIC. If you want to cover the lawsuit, cover that in Andrew J. Weaver, but it doesn't demonstrate the notability of Ball. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article went for deletion before under Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timothy_Ball. Firstly, it was successfully argued there that he wasn't notable as a professor. Secondly, the sources mentioned did not provide the significant coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were an awful lot of keeps there, and for very good reasons. I'm adding a whole lot more here. Here's a Globe and Mail piece on him (reproduced in a web site because the Globe archives are behind a paywall.) A full-page piece in Canada's leading national newspaper has got to count for something: http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html.

Here's something from Canwest wirre service, the in-house wire service of the dailies in most of the country's major cities: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=4399cb65-c847-4d63-ac8c-21c045ec90ed&k=50786

The Toronto Star, Canada's largest-circulation daily: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/425729241.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Apr+07%2C+2001&author=Peter+Calamai&pub=Toronto+Star&desc=Doubters+struggle+to+make+voices+heard+%3B+Not+all+scientists+believe+that+global+warming+is+occurring&pqatl=google

The Calgary Herald: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ZnhkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Hn8NAAAAIBAJ&pg=1277,2110073&dq=climate+tim-ball&hl=en

The New York Times (story this time): http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/06/30/30greenwire-scientists-tout-climate-skepticism-at-heartlan-70831.html

Aberdeen (Scotland) Press and Journal: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1500335/

Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,471264,00.html

London Ontario Free Press: http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2009/11/28/11960891-sun.html

Canada.com (website for Canada's major big-city newspaper chain, publishing story from print editions): http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=31184233-bbd5-4040-9054-8a6d6fb49068

The Windsor Star: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=mlU_AAAAIBAJ&sjid=tlIMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1023,1266761&dq=climate+tim-ball&hl=en

Los Angeles Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/30/nation/la-na-climate-noaa-20110630

El Salvador Times: http://www.elsalvador.com/mwedh/nota/nota_opinion.asp?idCat=6342&idArt=5443948

L'Express (Paris): http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/environnement/qui-sont-les-climato-sceptiques_931831.html

Westefalenpost (Germany): http://www.derwesten.de/wp/wp-info/al-gore-spricht-in-iserlohn-medien-unerwuenscht-id3622339.html

Arizona Daily Star (behind paywall): http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=ADSB&s_site=azstarnet&f_site=azstarnet&f_sitename=Arizona+Daily+Star%2C+The+%28AZ%29&p_multi=ADSB&p_theme=gannett&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=12CCDB944713A540&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

New York Post: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/all_the_prez_climategate_deniers_zYFrmzZLmD366k4Ln6zpON

Toronto Sun: http://www.torontosun.com/news/world/2009/11/29/11968031-sun.html

TAZ (Germany): http://www.taz.de/!44330/

Faux News (again): http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,450067,00.html

New york Sun: http://www.nysun.com/opinion/debating-global-warming/65274/

I hope this is enough. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citing material from a previous AfD where the article was deleted (and after review), where the coverage was already determined to be a series of passing mentions etc etc, is hardly a convincing way to start arguing, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not material from a previous Afd, it's stuff I just collected through Google Archives. Most of these articles are hardly "passing references". Spoonkymonkey (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You include a quote, but it's nothing that I said. I said passing mentions, and that's exactly what these give. The mention his name in a big list of others, or they mention him in passing, etc etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have a full-page story from the most important paper in Canada. We have a feature on him from Canada's largest circulation newspaper. We have him quoted in a story in the New York Times that reports on a conference in which he's a main speaker. He's talked about/mentioned/quoted in papers from three continents. He's interviewed and talked about on major TV networks in Canada and the US. He's quoted in German and El Salvadorian newspapers. He far and away meets notability criteria. Seriously, you're just starting to look like someone with an emotional investment. You can't possibly go through all that material and say that no one has taken notice of this person. It's beyond ludicrous. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional investment is not something I generally have while editing, that would require I know something about Tim Ball, show me the sources that provide the significant coverage so I know something about him; because so far as I can see they don't exist. So far no source has been shown that gives coverage (and your full page-story was a blog, not a news item). showing content he wrote doesn't contribute to notability, showing quotes of his doesn't add to notability etc etc. Look at the notability requirements. You need to meet WP:BASIC. The claim that an individual is more notable than others who have other articles is a common claim, but an erroneus one; it is unfalsifiable, but it is also irrelevant, just because other articles exist doesn't mean this one should (and it doesn't mean the others should either). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are no longer grasping at straws. You've your hands on, at best, a spider web. Quit throwing Wiki spells around. I read WP:BASIC and both the prominence of this person is his "field" and the sourcing more than qualify. I ask people to read WP:BASIC and the stories above and make up their mind, no matter whether they vehemently disagree with Ball or not. Simple as that.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope people click WP:BASIC and read the criteria, then carefully look over the stories above to see that Ball easily meets it. I think you are trusting that people will not actually click the links. The Globe and Mail "blog" has the Globe and Mail print story, which is behind a paywall. And you choose to ignore one huge pile of coverage. Why do all these publications quote him and write about him? Because he's gained notability expounding his point of view.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A one line mention does not count towards coverage. Read the requirements again; they have to be the subject of the article, or at the very least a significant chunk of it to count towards anything. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really think you can still argue, after going through all that press coverage and the books he's co-authored -- and I assume, on good faith, that you've done this -- that Ball is not notable. Half the people who have bios on Wikipedia have nowhere near this much media exposure.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can. I suggest you re-read policy about what is required. Passing mentions and non-independent sources don't contribute to WP:BASIC (which is what you are suggesting he meets). I don't care that you are misreading it, I am merely pointing this since it is the closing administrator that weighs up the quality of the arguments. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take it features on the guy in Canada's two most important papers and coverage in more than one New York Times article covering a conference at which he's the main speaker, along with all those other quotes and interviews in that very long list of links looks like "passing mentions" to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spoonkymonkey (talk • contribs)

Look, it's quite easy, and I have considerable experience at AfD so arguing that I don't know what I'm talking about isn't going to get you far: you need to show a source which discusses details about him in detail, and you need to show that WP:NPOV can be met too. So far you haven't shown sources we can actually use, except for saying he was sued. The lawsuit is already mentioned in another article, and notability isn't inherited from WP:ONEEVENT like that. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two:

The Toronto Star, Canada's largest-circulation daily: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/425729241.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Apr+07%2C+2001&author=Peter+Calamai&pub=Toronto+Star&desc=Doubters+struggle+to+make+voices+heard+%3B+Not+all+scientists+believe+that+global+warming+is+occurring&pqatl=google

A full-page, newspaper section front piece in Canada's leading national newspaper (reprinted on the author's blog so it's not behind a paywall): http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html.

Either you're not actually looking at the linked material provided, or you are counting on people not bothering to do so.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've only glanced through it because you are setting the burden arbitrarily high by pasting walls, I like at a few, then stop. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pretty much for the reasons given by IRWolfie. The suggestion of notability seems to be only for being controversial, not for having anything notable to say. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they have "nothing notable to say". Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show that Tim Ball is notable for any reason other than being controversial, please do so. So far you have not. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely absurd, based on the links to media coverage Spoonkymonkey (talk)

The "media coverage" you link to is just that — the popular "media". The sample I looked at were all focused on climate change, and specifically the so-called "skeptical" view. As you cite nothing showing that he is notable for anything else, then his notability (as such) is, as I said before, only for being controversial. Perhaps you should note that just because you agree with him (?) does not make him notable, nor is any reason for waiving our requirement for notability. However, I do not intend to debate this with you. You are not persuasive; my delete stands. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's notable as an often-quoted ACC skeptic with a PhD who claims expertise on the climate change issue, and has succeeded in convincing some media and politicians -- particularly those on the ACC skeptic side of the debate -- that he has expertise on the issue. Finally, it's getting through. He doesn't have to be notable for anything else, unless high profile ACC skeptic is not part of the discourse. And if excluding material sourced from the popular media was the norm on Wikipedia, the site would be a 2000-word web page. The issue is notability. There's scads of media on the guy. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bull. The extreme exaggeration of your last statement shows you are not in serious discussion. If you want to have a serious discussion then you need to acknowledge that politicians and the popular "media" do not determine objective reality. And that (according to the article) Tim Ball is a historical geographer, whose PhD is in historical geography. And that the sole source for this entire three sentence article is a single web page whose url promotes a WP:FRINGE and non-neutral POV ("global-warming-biggest-deception-in-history"). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It take it you didn't do something difficult, like, say, clicking the link. If you had, you would have seen that the words "biggest deception in history" are in quotes in the headline of the story. If you had truly strained yourself and actually read the story -- and I know that's asking an awful lot, perhaps too much -- you would have seen that the headline writer is quoting Ball from a speech he gave, which is reported on at length in that publication. I wonder why it's too much to ask people to actually read the coverage instead of, as in this case, looking at a URL and considering that as "evidence". There's plenty of stuff in that very large amount of media coverage from three continents to do an entry. And, again, popular media is certainly useful for, and used for, for Wikipedia entries. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind you to be civil and leave off the gibes. The headline fairly reflects the gist of the story, and as that is the sole source for this article it is also a fair inference that the WP:FRINGE opinion expressed is the sole basis of your claimed notability. As you have not strained yourself to provide any other basis, or to understand the fundamental WP policies, you are just spinning your wheels. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take it features on the guy in Canada's two most important papers and coverage in more than one New York Times article, along with all those other quotes and interviews in that very long list of links looks like "Passing coverage". Plus

WP:FRINGE does not apply at all. Yes, he has a minority view, but it's hardly a fringe view when it gets that much coverage -- positive or not -- in mainstream media, and is taken seriously (rightly or wrongly) by policy makers in Canada and other countries with conservative governments.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deja vu? I coulda sworn a Tim Ball article stub was AFD (result delete) within the last two years. Regardless, non notable. Delete. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Or do you just want to tailor Wikipedia to your biases and ignore the idea that not all people share your complete devotion to the idea that ACC is "settled science"? I see that you are one of the notorious climate change cops who won't even acknowledge the fact that there are people who do not buy the IPCC consensus. I want Wikipedia to be a place where people can learn about all the players in the debate, and, no matter how hard you try to ignore the very substantial amount of coverage I've provided -- and was not offered in the last Afd -- your POV does not own Wikipedia.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop the rants about climate change and focus on making arguments from wikipedia policy and guidelines. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made those arguments. You've chosen to ignore them, lest facts get in the way of your prejudices.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a non-notable professor's gut opinions on climate qualify him for an article, but not the gut opinions of my non-notable local plumber? "Fake expert" media coverage? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. Use the large amount of material that I've posted to prove your argument. No one is interested in your opinion. Do some work.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noone is interested in doing your work for you, so stop with the attacks please. You pasted a load of shoddy sources, and its a lot of pointless work to shift through it. If you have some choice selections, paste those, but large pastes of poor quality sources is disruptive. I also suggest you read WP:RS. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Subject is a bit player in the climate change debate, even by Candadian standards. Perhaps not a "nobody", but far from being somebody of encyclopedic significance. He has received limited covereage locally and some attention in fringe and right-wing blogs and newsletters, but nothing except passing, trivial or tangential references in non-local reliable independent sources.

The NYT article mentioning him getting sued is a lonely blip on the radar of an otherwise unremarkable career, and is far too little to justify a free-standing article on. The rest of the sources provided do not add up to much in terms of establishing notability according to our guidelines, even if taken together. A textbook case of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POINTy wall of text

Seriously? Two New York Times pieces, full-page articles in major Canadian newspapers, tons of other coverage linking him to the formulation of Canadian government policy which includes pulling out of Kyoto. You ACC activists are really showing how Wikipedia has become your soapbox. It's gone from frustrating to comical. Here's the coverage again: A full-page, section cover story piece in Canada's leading national newspaper:: http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html.

Here's something from Canwest wirre service, the in-house wire service of the dailies in most of the country's major cities: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=4399cb65-c847-4d63-ac8c-21c045ec90ed&k=50786

The Toronto Star, Canada's largest-circulation daily: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/425729241.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Apr+07%2C+2001&author=Peter+Calamai&pub=Toronto+Star&desc=Doubters+struggle+to+make+voices+heard+%3B+Not+all+scientists+believe+that+global+warming+is+occurring&pqatl=google

The Calgary Herald: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ZnhkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Hn8NAAAAIBAJ&pg=1277,2110073&dq=climate+tim-ball&hl=en

The New York Times (story this time): http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/06/30/30greenwire-scientists-tout-climate-skepticism-at-heartlan-70831.html

Aberdeen (Scotland) Press and Journal: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1500335/

Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,471264,00.html

London Ontario Free Press: http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2009/11/28/11960891-sun.html

Canada.com (website for Canada's major big-city newspaper chain, publishing story from print editions): http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=31184233-bbd5-4040-9054-8a6d6fb49068

The Windsor Star: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=mlU_AAAAIBAJ&sjid=tlIMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1023,1266761&dq=climate+tim-ball&hl=en

Los Angeles Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/30/nation/la-na-climate-noaa-20110630

El Salvador Times: http://www.elsalvador.com/mwedh/nota/nota_opinion.asp?idCat=6342&idArt=5443948

L'Express (Paris): http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/environnement/qui-sont-les-climato-sceptiques_931831.html

Westefalenpost (Germany): http://www.derwesten.de/wp/wp-info/al-gore-spricht-in-iserlohn-medien-unerwuenscht-id3622339.html

Arizona Daily Star (behind paywall): http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=ADSB&s_site=azstarnet&f_site=azstarnet&f_sitename=Arizona+Daily+Star%2C+The+%28AZ%29&p_multi=ADSB&p_theme=gannett&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=12CCDB944713A540&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

New York Post: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/all_the_prez_climategate_deniers_zYFrmzZLmD366k4Ln6zpON

Toronto Sun: http://www.torontosun.com/news/world/2009/11/29/11968031-sun.html

TAZ (Germany): http://www.taz.de/!44330/

Faux News (again): http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,450067,00.html

New york Sun: http://www.nysun.com/opinion/debating-global-warming/65274/

Read WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Brief mentions do not equal substabntial coverage. All I see is brief mentions, and nothing resembling a feature article on Ball himself. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More WP:WIKISPELLS. Both the Globe piece and the Star article are feature stories about Ball. The Globe article examines his influence on Canadian policy. The NYT story is about a conference where Ball is a man speaker.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The star article is a brief one-sentence mention. The Globe article is in a "public interest" insert (Focus) that is not reliable for serious news material on either politics or science. It's more for entertainment, kind of like "Parade" in the States. Not serious enough to establish notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either you don't know what you're talking about or trying to pass a bald-faced lie off on people who don't know the Canadian media. The Globe section is a main news/features section, not some kind of advertorial, in the most respected paper in the country. The story was the Winner, 2006 citation from the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. The Star 'sentence' is an abstract of a pay to view article.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop pasting walls of unreliable sources and passing mentions. It doesn't help your case. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walls of text listing apparent sources

POINTy wall of text Seriously? Two New York Times pieces, full-page articles in major Canadian newspapers, tons of other coverage linking him to the formulation of Canadian government policy which includes pulling out of Kyoto. You ACC activists are really showing how Wikipedia has become your soapbox. It's gone from frustrating to comical. Here's the coverage again: A full-page, section cover story piece in Canada's leading national newspaper:: http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html. Here's something from Canwest wirre service, the in-house wire service of the dailies in most of the country's major cities: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=4399cb65-c847-4d63-ac8c-21c045ec90ed&k=50786 The Toronto Star, Canada's largest-circulation daily: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/425729241.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Apr+07%2C+2001&author=Peter+Calamai&pub=Toronto+Star&desc=Doubters+struggle+to+make+voices+heard+%3B+Not+all+scientists+believe+that+global+warming+is+occurring&pqatl=google The Calgary Herald: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ZnhkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Hn8NAAAAIBAJ&pg=1277,2110073&dq=climate+tim-ball&hl=en The New York Times (story this time): http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/06/30/30greenwire-scientists-tout-climate-skepticism-at-heartlan-70831.html Aberdeen (Scotland) Press and Journal: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1500335/ Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,471264,00.html London Ontario Free Press: http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2009/11/28/11960891-sun.html Canada.com (website for Canada's major big-city newspaper chain, publishing story from print editions): http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=31184233-bbd5-4040-9054-8a6d6fb49068 The Windsor Star: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=mlU_AAAAIBAJ&sjid=tlIMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1023,1266761&dq=climate+tim-ball&hl=en Los Angeles Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/30/nation/la-na-climate-noaa-20110630 El Salvador Times: http://www.elsalvador.com/mwedh/nota/nota_opinion.asp?idCat=6342&idArt=5443948 L'Express (Paris): http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/environnement/qui-sont-les-climato-sceptiques_931831.html Westefalenpost (Germany): http://www.derwesten.de/wp/wp-info/al-gore-spricht-in-iserlohn-medien-unerwuenscht-id3622339.html Arizona Daily Star (behind paywall): http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=ADSB&s_site=azstarnet&f_site=azstarnet&f_sitename=Arizona+Daily+Star%2C+The+%28AZ%29&p_multi=ADSB&p_theme=gannett&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=12CCDB944713A540&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM New York Post: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/all_the_prez_climategate_deniers_zYFrmzZLmD366k4Ln6zpON Toronto Sun: http://www.torontosun.com/news/world/2009/11/29/11968031-sun.html TAZ (Germany): http://www.taz.de/!44330/ Faux News (again): http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,450067,00.html New York Sun: http://www.nysun.com/opinion/debating-global-warming/65274/

The New York Times, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, Vancouver Sun and a slew of other papers are "unreliable sources?? Quit censoring my comments or i'll take this to arbcomm.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spoonkymonkey, you need to demonstrate there is significant coverage by picking 4 or 5 choice articles, not the walls of sources. you need to separate the wheat from the chaff, and actually read our policies about notability. And can you also work on your indentation, you are disrupting the flow of the discussions (I fixed it). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is supported by a single source and, despite that source, ends up failing WP:GNG, Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia:Notability (people). MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's switched sources, but same result. Spoonkymonkey: please do pay attention. You are NOT helping your cause. You really need to stop, and pay attention to what everyone is telling you. You are only frustrating your self, and annoying everyone else. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of URLs have been thrown around so far. I'm figuring that by now after nearly a week of vigorous debate, all the best possible sources that could be brought have been. I pulled all the URLs provided so far, removed the duplicates and placed them in the table below. I went to and read each one and provided my comment about the quality of the source for its usefulness in establishing notability for a WP:BLP. My !vote will follow.

URL	comment
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/30/nation/la-na-climate-noaa-20110630	Article about climate change, includes passing quote from Ball
http://books.google.ca/books?id=G197OA8Vd4sC&pg=PA353&dq=tim+ball+climatologist&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PKthUfymB8ji4APxhICIBg&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=tim%20ball%20climatologist&f=false	Google search for Tim Ball, brings up book Slaying the Sky Dragon with content written by ball, WP:PRIMARY for Ball's opinion about climate change
http://books.google.ca/books?id=XAW_uJeFXsUC&pg=PT62&dq=tim+ball+climatologist&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PKthUfymB8ji4APxhICIBg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ	Book How the Granola-Crunching, Tree-Hugging Thug Huggers Are Wrecking Our Country! hardly sounds like a WP:RS for a WP:BLP, includes a four-sentence mini-bio and 3 quotes about Ball's view on climate change
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=mlU_AAAAIBAJ&sjid=tlIMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1023,1266761&dq=climate+tim-ball&hl=en	1983 article about climate change, 2-sentence passing quote from Ball
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=TH5WAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QEENAAAAIBAJ&pg=2745,378586&dq=tim-ball&hl=en	1985 article about climatology featuring Ball's work
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ZnhkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Hn8NAAAAIBAJ&pg=1277,2110073&dq=climate+tim-ball&hl=en	1986 article about climatology featuring Ball's work
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=ADSB&s_site=azstarnet&f_site=azstarnet&f_sitename=Arizona+Daily+Star%2C+The+%28AZ%29&p_multi=ADSB&p_theme=gannett&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=12CCDB944713A540&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM	Climatology article, can't see Ball mentioned in snip
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/425729241.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Apr+07%2C+2001&author=Peter+Calamai&pub=Toronto+Star&desc=Doubters+struggle+to+make+voices+heard+%3B+Not+all+scientists+believe+that+global+warming+is+occurring&pqatl=google	Climatology article, Ball one of 3 scientists mentioned
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=fd3d274d-c481-409d-b3d5-6d6bb868ca9c	Letter to the editor, not a WP:RS for a BLP
http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=4cc39711-79fc-43ad-a2c0-73a1b4fe88a2&sponsor=	Small piece about Ball talking to the editorial staff of a newspaper
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=31184233-bbd5-4040-9054-8a6d6fb49068	Passing mention
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=4399cb65-c847-4d63-ac8c-21c045ec90ed&k=50786	Passing quotes by Ball
http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html	Half about Ball, half about the politics of climate change
http://www.derwesten.de/wp/wp-info/al-gore-spricht-in-iserlohn-medien-unerwuenscht-id3622339.html	Ball only mentioned in user comments, not WP:RS for WP:BLP
http://www.elsalvador.com/mwedh/nota/nota_opinion.asp?idCat=6342&idArt=5443948	One of many names mentioned in a list
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,450067,00.html	Hannity interview transcript, passing mention by interviewee
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,471264,00.html	Passing mention
http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/environnement/qui-sont-les-climato-sceptiques_931831.html	Passing mention
http://www.lfpress.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2010/02/12/12860016.html duplicated with http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2010/02/12/12859851.html	WP:NEWSBLOG column not really about ball but about reaction the news org received about an interview with Ball
http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2009/11/28/11960891-sun.html	Passing quote
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/all_the_prez_climategate_deniers_zYFrmzZLmD366k4Ln6zpON	Passing quote
http://www.nysun.com/opinion/debating-global-warming/65274/	Passing mention
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/06/30/30greenwire-scientists-tout-climate-skepticism-at-heartlan-70831.html	Passing quote
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1500335/	Passing quote
http://www.pugetsoundradio.com/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1353960630/	Chat forum, not a WP:RS
http://www.straight.com/article-67107/trust-us-were-media	?? not found
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/1426148735001	Interview with Ball, can't be used to establish notability
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/1673149388001	Interview with Ball, can't be used to establish notability
http://www.taz.de/!44330/	Passing quote
http://www.torontosun.com/news/world/2009/11/29/11968031-sun.html	Duplicate

Zad68 02:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We're looking for multiple independent secondary sources providing in-depth coverage on the subject (in this case, Mr. Ball himself), and the sources don't quite bring it. The sources almost but not quite rise to the standard, so he's a high fail, but still a fail. His is an interesting and notable voice in the climate change debate because he's a~~well-trained and credentialed climatologist~~ scientist updated Zad68 17:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC) who has a view opposing scientific consensus, but there's not enough sourcing about Ball the person to warrant a WP:BLP. I can see including mention of him in one of our climate change articles but there's not enough sourcing to fill out a proper BLP. Zad68 02:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I struck through "well-trained and credentialed climatologist" and replaced with "scientist" because it does appear that he holds no degree in climatology or the like. Given his career path, if he held such a degree it'd be stated plainly here and it's not. Zad68 17:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re WP:WIKISPELLS - If something appears to be magic to someone, it's only because that person does not yet understand it. Zad68 03:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page is being vandalized and proposed sources are being hiddne from sight to sway AFD. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spoonkymonkey: Please note the box on the page: this is the wrong place and use of {{help}}. Note that the actual vandalism that was on the page was removed by this edit by another editor (which you could have done yourself). Your comment re "proposed sources" is presumably regarding the collapsing of the "pointy walls of text" you keep inserting. Please, please, please understand: those walls of text are not helping you. They are pointless (not really relevant), and are swaying the AfD in that they annoy everyone else. I strongly suggest you do as the template itself says: remove it. Removing your and my comment is also okay. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the erroneous template, it was useless. Zad68 02:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spoonkymonkey, you have pasted four walls of sources in this AfD. I only hatted two of them. The other two are still unhatted. The closing admin can verify that the hatted sources aren't new. While we are here, it's good to point out that many of these sources are unreliable as they eat up the fake credentials (his PhD is in geography not climatology) and claims about being the first climatologist in Canada [54][55]. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I went through and pulled out every URL of all the sources offered and placed them in the table above, plain for everyone to see. Nothing is hidden at this point. Zad68 17:10, 14 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. The sole "keep" comment, referring to an error made in the nomination, does not actually give a reason for the article to be kept. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Digoo[edit]

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

I can't find that the subject of this article exists. I tried a few Google searches and couldn't find anything. A Google Maps search for "Digoo" near Kashmir produces no hits. The only reference that was listed in the article seems to point to a blank page at an existing website. I can't say that this is a hoax because it's not particularly surprising that references wouldn't exist in English but I can't find any indication of notability and the only indication of importance that I can see is essentially the use of the word castle. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that when I nominated this article for deletion, I misread the subject to be a "castle" instead of a "caste". I have reevaluated the article and still feel that it should be deleted. I have given my reasoning below. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is about a caste, not a castle. I still can't find any sources on it myself, but other people should make a note of that when looking for them. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well... that's embarrassing. I'll reassess my nomination sometime today. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe article is about a caste...,mistakes happen.. its okay,but you need to withdraw the nomination? Uncletomwood (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What reason would you give for keeping it? "Nominator said castle instead of caste" is not a valid reason. --Atlantima (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Atlantima pointed out, that's not a good reason to keep and you haven't cited any source or inclusion guideline that would indicate that this article should be kept. All you've done is pointed out a mistake. See my reasoning for delete below. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Kashmiri Muslims. Existence has not been proven, let alone notability. Google returns no relevant results besides mirrors of this article. --Atlantima (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - It's be pointed out already that I made a mistake when I read "castle" instead of "caste" which are obviously two very different things. Still, a Google search produces a few results that show that it's a last name but I nothing about a caste. A Google News search and Google News Archive search produce no hits at all. A Google Books search produces one person on Facebook with that last name (don't ask my why the hell Facebook is showing up on Google Books). A Google Scholar search also produces no hits at all. I'm not opposed to a merge because it's certainly possible that there's a language barrier making it difficult to find information about this caste but given that the only thing I can find is a few cases where people have Digoo as a last name, I'm leaning towards delete. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without reliable sources, there isn't even anything which could be merged. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:06, 13 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 both. Hut 8.5 19:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hichem Aoulmi[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - as they both fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Playing in a youth-international tournament is not enough to bestow notability - long-standing consensus and common sense confirm it. Giant Snowman 15:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AC FAF appears to be a professional team in Algeria and these players are part of a major international game. I think that we want to delete these is because of how euro-centric the media around sports often is (in the realm of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias), Sadads (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AC FAF are not in the top or second division in Algeria, which are the two that are fully pro, to say nothing of the fact that neither of them appear to have played for the club yet. The nomination has nothing to do with eurocentrism and everything do with the creation being premature. A European with this resume (i.e. youth, but no senior international caps, and no senior club appearances) would be deleted without question. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - no indication that either of these players has played at a senior level for a national team, nor for a club in a full-professional league. Being part of an international youth squad is not an indication of sufficient notability, as has been demonstrated on numerous occasions in the past. C 679 10:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, quite clearly neither player meets WP:NFOOTBALL yet. Articles can be recreated easily enough later should either of them make it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:37, 15 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Mahmoud[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for similar reasons. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - as they fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Playing in a youth-international tournament is not enough to bestow notability - long-standing consensus and common sense confirm it. Giant Snowman 15:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no indication that any of these individuals have played international football at senior level, played professional club football, or been the subject of significant coverage. C 679 20:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - per nom. Spiderone 10:01, 11 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) Mediran (t • c) 01:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Tea Party (political party)[edit]

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

This is an article about an online-only "political party" that existed for a few years. It has a decent-sized references section, but only two of them are about the organization itself and not self-published, only one of those is from something mainstream, and that one is a dead link. It was previously deleted at AFD but recreation was allowed per a DRV decision. I can't see for the life of me any way this passes a standard of notability. B (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For me, a rule of thumb indicator for the notability of tiny U.S. political parties is whether or not they have had a presidential candidate on the ballot. In 2008, this party's candidate was on the ballot in three states. The Associated Press distributed a fairly lengthy article about the party in 2008, which the Miami Herald ran. That link went dead, as the nominator noted. I found the same story live on the Seattle Times website, and have replaced the reference. The deletion debate in early 2008 is no longer relevant, because the party actually got on the ballot in those three states after that deletion debate, as was the publication of the Associated Press story. So, my conclusion is that the party was tiny, is defunct, but is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the party ran a ballot-qualified ticket in several states in 2008.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I favor the lowest of bars for political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections. This is the sort of material that should be in a comprehensive encyclopedia, plain and simple. We should treat them like rivers, highways, high schools, and professional athletes. As Cullen notes above, this party not only of confirmed existence, it placed a presidential candidate on several state ballots — that's plenty for me. It's a GNG pass to boot. Carrite (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Verified existence, ran a ballot-qualifed candidate in a presidential election, and received enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand why some may think they're not notable, since it's a tiny internet-only party and almost everything written about them is self-generated. If not for the fact that they had a presidential candidate on the ballot in several states in 2008, I'd agree with deletion. However, under the circumstances, I think they are notable enough to be included. HillbillyGoat (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the founder of the Boston Tea Party, I'm obviously biased, but I do think it meets the notability threshold insofar as the party did place a presidential slate on several 2008 ballots. Another notability factor, not included in the current version of the article, is that the BTP was, so far as I've been able to determine, the first political party to hold a complete national convention -- gavel to gavel with bylaws and program plank votes, internal elections, etc. in 2006, and then again in 2008 with all that plus nominations for public office -- entirely on the Internet. An organization called "the Disability Party" apparently had a "convention" online in 2004, but that "convention" seems to have consisted entirely of an email ballot for nomination of a presidential slate that appeared on no ballots. Thomas L. Knapp (talk) 22:57, 12 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. Courcelles 05:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nakhlistan Ki Talash[edit]

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

Not a notable book. See WP:NBOOK for criteria. ♦ Tentinator ♦ 15:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't seem to get the existing source on the page to work and found one mention in a ToI article, but that's about the extent of what I could find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:39, 9 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. Delete all ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Arnaud Boussougou[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for similar reasons. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - as they fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Playing in a youth-international tournament is not enough to bestow notability - long-standing consensus and common sense confirm it. Giant Snowman 15:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - many of these players play on reputable teams in a professional sense and even division one teams and they are competing in a major international tournament, thus making them notable. Sadads (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Gabonese top flight is not fully professional (see WP:FPL), and playing for youth international team, in a tournament or otherwise, is explicitly excluded as a source of notability at WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no indication that any of these players has played at a senior level for a national team, nor for a club in a full-professional league. Being part of an international youth squad is not an indication of sufficient notability, as has been demonstrated on numerous occasions in the past. C 679 10:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all fail the applicable notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:32, 8 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 Colorado Springs, Colorado. Courcelles 05:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Colorado Springs[edit]

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

This article is simply a travel guide. It is also highly promotional and not written in a neutral tone. I would suggest merging or redirecting. ~~JHUbal27 00:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This article is a part of the larger article, and redirect and merger would typically be discussed on the talk pages of the affected articles. The nomination cites WP:NPOV and two WP:NOT issues, but then concludes with a "suggestion", leaving an AfD deletion argument as an exercise for the reader. The more I look at the article, the more I have to conclude that this article falls into the category of "worthless". There has been no attempt for the six years of the article history to WP:V source the content. The first sentence does not define the topic, reducing the sense that the topic is getting an academic treatment. A talk page comment from 2007 astutely states, "it should be expanded to include more information on the economic impact of tourism, not just the attractions." The article is written by people trying to improve the encyclopedia, one unsourced assertion at a time. WP:V doesn't literally require the existence of sources, it requires verifiability, so the statement, "The beautiful natural scenery attracts a lot of tourism in Colorado Springs..." doesn't necessarily require a citation. But without a citation, readers have reason to think "according to whom?" Those pictures add greatly to the article, but are they specific to the topic, or are they hanging on a WP:COATRACK? Why are there seven musical organizations listed here? IMO, the material about the history of sanitariums, instead of being interesting reading, is an annoying reminder that without inline citations, the material is a personal blog whose reliability can only be verified with a complete rewrite. I don't see a need to delete the edit history. Unscintillating (talk) 03:19, 6 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, Spinning Spark 15:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Colorado Springs, do not delete page, without prejudice to reversal by any editor if this content can be verified. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Colorado Springs. Clearly notable material, but doesn't probably merit its own article. Steven Walling • talk 03:35, 15 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. WP:SNOW. Did not evaluate the copyright concern, but those should be evaluated in the unlikely case this is ever considered for restoration j⚛e decker ^talk 01:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starcraft2 Achievements[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Starcraft2 Achievements" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

This is a textbook case of WP:GAMEGUIDE. It doesn't fall under any speedy deletion criteria, and deletion is contested by the author, so it is a case for AfD. I think it is an obvious delete, though - perhaps we can make it a WP:SNOW delete? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've speedy-deleted what looked like a duplicate at Starcraft2 Achievements (Technically that one was created first, but this one has made it as far as AfD) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "detailed coverage of specific point values [and] achievements... is also considered inappropriate." Just for the record, this is an unattributed copy of [56], which happens to be CC-BY-SA. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability for a standalone article, rather pointless and not encyclopedic QuiteUnusual (talk) 22:22, 8 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) • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good information for a StarCraft wiki. Doesn't belong here. Sperril (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is not the right place for this. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per other comments. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not just delete... Is there any valid Speedy delete rationale? If there isn't, Snow delete per nominator. Seriously, what is this? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Speedily, as copyvio.) This topic is WP:GAMECRUFT and not independently notable for its own encyclopedia article. Wikia is a better venue for this content. czar · · 01:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, especially if it's a copyvio. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:08, 15 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wallis Debourou[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for similar reasons. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - as they fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Playing in a youth-international tournament is not enough to bestow notability - long-standing consensus and common sense confirm it. Giant Snowman 15:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - many of these players play on reputable teams in a professional sense (for example Mogas_90_FC) and they are competing in a major international tournament, thus making them notable. Sadads (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Beninese top flight is not fully professional (see WP:FPL), and playing for youth international team, in a tournament or otherwise, is explicitly excluded as a source of notability at WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no indication that any of these players has played at a senior level for a national team, nor for a club in a full-professional league. Being part of an international youth squad is not an indication of sufficient notability, as has been demonstrated on numerous occasions in the past. C 679 09:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all they do not meet the notability requirements for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:44, 9 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 all. Hut 8.5 19:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ekiri Litekia[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for similar reasons. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - as they fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Playing in a youth-international tournament is not enough to bestow notability - long-standing consensus and common sense confirm it. Giant Snowman 15:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no indication that any of these players has played at a senior level for a national team, nor for a club in a fully-professional league. Being part of an international youth squad is not an indication of sufficient notability, as has been demonstrated on numerous occasions in the past. C 679 10:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being in a youth championship does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:46, 9 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 nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sébastien Migné[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a football manager who fails WP:GNG and who has not managed a senior national team or a club in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL as he has played in the Ligue 2 and Coupe de France, per this. Article needs expanding, updating and improving to bring up to GNG, which shouldn't be a problem based on a quick Google/News search. Giant Snowman 14:53, 7 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Gay Travel Guide for Tops and Bottoms[edit]

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

I do not see anything here that indicate notability . It seems to be in almost no libraries , though I recognize its a book that many libraries would not collect. DGG ( talk ) 13:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Delete On the one hand it looks like a Wikipedia page could be a way to advertise the book. On the other hand, the page itself is harmless. We have a lot of server space. This isn't presenting disinformation, and it's not likely that the page will abuse anybody or anything. The concern is that there are no reviews of the book or commentary on the book by reliable sources. The article at this point cannot be more than a simple assertion that "this book exists and here's what the cover looks like". By our rules, an article that cannot be more than a mere stub should be deleted. If some third party reviews come to light, I would switch my vote. Jehochman ^Talk 13:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've found some other articles about the book, but I was unable to find any reviews that were in sources I could say is completely reliable. I've added six sources to the article, one of which was previously down in the EL section. Three of them talk about the book's release and run a very thin line between trivial and in-depth depending on how you want to see this. The other three talk about Linkedin dropping the book's ad from their site. This is sort of inbetween as far as I'm concerned and notability or the lack thereof could be argued in either direction. It's not enough for me to give a resounding keep, but it's enough to where I wouldn't argue if it's kept. However, we shouldn't keep things because it wouldn't do any harm. We have to establish that it's notable first. Server space isn't really the issue here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there aren't reviews, third party commentary would also be useful. For instance, if there is news about LinkedIn ditching ads for the book, that might contribute to notability. Jehochman ^Talk 18:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional piece. Carrite (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was easily able to find two (2) more sources not yet included in the article, including one in Portuguese language, indicating this topic has generated some secondary source coverage interest in multiple languages:
- "LinkedIn Yanks Ad for Gay Travel Book". Gayapolis News. Gayapolis, Inc.; www.gayapolis.com. 2 September 2011. Retrieved 8 April 2013.
- SentidoG (7 September 2011). "LinkedIn retira aviso publicitario de guía de turismo gay". ENewspaper (in Portuguese). www.enewspaper.mx; alternate link. Retrieved 8 April 2013. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Commercial/promotional. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The book has notability because Linkedin pulling ads about the book is truly noteworthy. If you look at the wiki-contributors who have gone in and edited this article, they have removed enough elements to make the article not sound like a promotional piece and review on it’s merits. The Wiki-LGBT community has listed the book in their sub-catagories “of interest to the LGBT community on several fronts”Tews 7:40, 11 April,2013 (UTC)
Keep -- With all the editing changes (including adding more noteworthy references) done by Cirt and Tokyogirl, the article meets the qualifications to remain on Wikipedia. Not all books are library worthy, so I would feel that it would be biased to base a book only on the merits if libraries buy it. I don't think that was the intent of the publisher to place this type of book in libraries. LGBT Censorship is noteworthy and this book is a perfect example of it and Linkedin story has given merit to LGBT sensorship and this book being a prime example of it. Therefore this article should remain on wikipedia.Desaderal 19:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional and not notable. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin A number of reliable sources have been added to the article since it was nommed. 64.40.54.118 (talk) 06:58, 15 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 Keep. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reported haunting of Alcatraz[edit]

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

This is the recreation of an article deleted mere days ago. It is an enlarged mish-mash of synthesis and misattribution of reliable sources ammalgamated with unreliable accounts of fringe views, ghost hunters and paranormalists. Kudos to the authors for trying really hard to make this look like an article, but the topic itself is inherently non-notable. At most the sources document that Alcatraz has a spooky atmosphere. Spooky does not equal haunted. An alternative to deletion would be to move the article to a neutral, non-weasel word title, such as Alcatraz legends and refocus accordingly. That would be a different, and possibly acceptable, article. Jehochman ^Talk 13:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pointy nomination based on an invalid WP:FRINGE theory. Article was originally deleted without me being informed of the AFD and the consensus to delete was not apparent as had been claimed. Alcatraz has been cited in numerous reliable publications as allegedly one of the world's most haunted locations, it passes GNG with flying colours.. It is such a subject that it has at least 3 books dedicated solely to Haunted Alcatraz and countless books documenting it as being notable for ghosts. A search on a major newspaper archive picked up 2747 articles for it in newspapers, magazines and journals. JSTOR sources document something known as the "Alcatraz effect" in relation to psychology and also well document the Native American superstition to the island. As an encyclopedia it is not our job to decide whether ghosts exist or not but to reflect in summary what has been widely documented already. This is such a subject and the article is entirely written in a way which says "reputed" and and "alleged" and in no way tries to claim it as fact. We widely accept articles which document theories, folklore and superstition. It is clearly a notable subject and one which I think will provide a lot of interest to many editors. As for "enlarged mish-mash of synthesis", most of wikipedia is written that way finding scraps from various sources and if you check all of the sources you'll see no original research or problems with verification. This is a respectable entry for such a subject and better already than most of our articles on similar topics and I'm sure I'm not the only one who can see this.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not pointy to request deletion of an article recreated mere days after it was deleted, with all the same flaws, only in greater volume. Native American superstition is not necessarily "haunted". You appear to be overlaying your prefered interpretation of something that cannot be falsified by science. Rather than saying "haunted" would you be willing to move this to "legends" and let the sources speak for themselves, rather than attempting to synthesize what they say into support for your own opinion? Jehochman ^Talk 13:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point. Legends of Alcatraz I'd accept (and have moved, hope this is OK with the nom) and the island has a long history of superstition. It would definitely be made more encyclopedic if somebody could find those JSTOR sources and expand it with that. But the article in no way tries to claim ghosts exist. But a lot of people have reported and made claims about it in a lot of sources so documenting it in my opinion makes it notable. I believe I've done so neutrally using terms like "alleged" and "reputed" to write it without ever making it anything more than claims. I think you'd be surprised how many people would come here looking for information on it and would be interested in reading it. I have said that the National Park service have dismissed it as ridiculous, it's not as if we're treating the actual haunting as fact. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to document legends that are notable. I recommend not calling everything haunted because each legend may have it's own flavor. Check this link: http://www.travelchannel.com/tv-shows/legends-of-alcatraz. Jehochman ^Talk 13:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are lots of WP:RS that are part of the superstitious beliefs of tourists. I rather doubt there will be reliable evidence of spectral presence in the prison. But we are not triers of the veracity of the claims, even if some might characterize it as a fringe theory. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for the same reasons above by 7&6=thirteen. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep Many legends are highly notable, and this is one of them. Multiple books, movies, articles written about this specific issue. 14:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep - Keep. There are many RS on the notable legends of Alcatraz. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. There are many notable legends, many sources. At least three books, Ghostly Alcatraz Island (2010), Ghosts of Alcatraz (2008) and Haunted Alcatraz (1998) are devoted to the subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just bought Ghosts of Alcatraz by Kathryn Vercillo. Look forward to reading it!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I voted "Merge" in the previous AfD, but given the addition of new sources and the renaming to Legends of Alcatraz, I can now agree that the topic is sufficiently encyclopedic to be the subject of its own article. One suggestion I would offer though is to expand the article's discussion beyond accounts of paranormal phenomena to cover other genres of notable legends surrounding Alcatraz (e.g. perhaps legends surrounding notable escape attempts?). --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Start posting your deletion banners on these mythology articles and see how far you get. This article is certainly within that scope. -- Cassianto ^Talk 16:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep on this, as per the above. - SchroCat (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with closing this now that the article has been moved and improved. Whoever is uninvolved and good at the mechanics of deletion discussions can take care of it. Jehochman ^Talk 18:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 7 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. —Darkwind (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Joseph Greene[edit]

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

Nonnotable author, but manages to pass speedy.

The books are in almost no libraries: his most widely held book is in 16 libraries I recognize it's s specialized genre, but it's a pretty large specialized genre.

I do not think the other material mentioned shows notability either. My own guess is that the most likely notability will be because of the censorship controversy about This High School has Closets The article talk p. asserts that WP is hostile to LGBT material, so I think it would be fairer to have a community discussion than to judge by myself DGG ( talk ) 13:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is essentially a ghost-written autobiography, as the only contributors (not counting deletion notices) are the subject of the article and ~~his publicist~~ an associate. The only "reference" that says anything substantial about the author is a self-submitted bio. All others say nothing more than the subject has written published books. Searches reveal no interviews, no awards, no notable achievements, nothing that meets WP:AUTHOR guidelines. Sexual orientation, no matter how often it is mentioned, doesn't help the subject meet WP:GNG. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 14:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Worldcat does not have the full comprehensive list of libraries that carry Mr. Greene’s works. I did check with the publicist and there are considerably more than 16 libraries that carry the book worldwide. So, there is an inaccuracy in your rebuttal.

Please source unsubstantiated personal attacks WP: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion under wikiettiquette - Please source the accusation that the publicist has an account with wikipedia and has made an entry, I just got off the phone with Robert Christofle (publicist at Icon Empire Press) and he says he does not have an account with Wikipedia.
The statement about ghost writers and self bio again is inaccurate and reflects more of editing down the article instead of deletion. My sources were Amazon.com and Goodreads.com for a majority of the information.
Mr. Greene was a finalist in the Lamda Literary Awards and I will make this change to the article for awards nomination.
The statement about not meeting WP:Author is inaccurate and I will quote that entry requirement:A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]I have met this criteria by multiple notable entries about the author by siting: PrideSource, The Georgia Straight , PFLAG: Canada In fact, the article has met the subcatagory of “substantial” entry because the Georgia Straight article carries the Author in the title of the article and focuses on the author as subject matter in the story.I will go further and submit the Canadian Library Association article about censorship and Mr. Greene which is not listed online. However, it will bolster the WP:Author criteria and I will add more information about his in the article.
My philosophy was to put a lot in and have contributors edit out those items that they felt didn’t apply. I find that there is “lack of accuracy” in the comments made However, I have addressed the points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tews (talk • contribs) 18:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. The comment accompanying this diff along with the tone of the original article led me to believe there was a professional relationship and that the subject of the article is editing the article. I suppose a publicist would be unlikely to 'forget a book' with writing the article. However, if there are so many reliable sources available then please add them to the article. I have been unable to find them, but that doesn't mean they aren't out there. As the article stands at the moment, there is no evidence that the subject meets the basic notability criteria. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In following your request to continue to find reliable sources. I came across Mr. Greene's complaint filed with the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council accusing CKYE-FM and the Harjinder Thind Show of biased against the LGBT community. Mr. Greene has been on-going in fighting against homophobia both in his works and in his actions. I do believe this should shows depth in making Mr. Greene noteworthy and that this article should not be removed. However, I do support your right to make editorial changes that you feel are necessary.Tews | talk —Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article appears to be of an author of many novels and who has some accolades for those novels. All the novels appear in search results and are available. Reviewing WP:AUTHOR guidelines it is plausible that this person meets criteria set out. The fact that the books are not available in libraries is irrelevant as there are a number of authors that would not be found in libraries but are still published and relevant authors. Obsidious81 (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the author is a prolific writer of novels and works and meets the criteria under WP:AUTHOR. He and his works have received secondary source coverage from multiple different references. — Cirt (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have read Mr Greene's wiki entry and it adhered to the guideline set out by Wikipedia. I found the information on his entry to be unbiased and insightful about the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.187.13 (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Robert Joseph Greene is a member of the Canadian Authors Association and has professional status within the organization. The Canadian Authors Association is a membership-based writers' association founded in 1921 by Stephen Leacock and other noted authors. As the current National President of the association, I can attest that we support the inclusion of Mr. Greene's entry.Mattbin (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although additional references are certainly still needed here, there are enough reliable sources to cover off the basic question of whether he meets a notability criterion or not. Any subjective debate about whether he passes WP:AUTHOR cleanly enough for your own individual satisfaction is a moot point, furthermore, as WP:AUTHOR is explicitly defined as an additional criterion to help determine the notability of authors in the case of any doubt — WP:BASIC, an earlier section of the very same guideline, clarifies that if a person passes that criterion, they can still be kept even if they completely fail WP:AUTHOR (and, again, it's debatable at best whether this guy actually fails the more specific guideline.) So yes, some improvement is still warranted, but keep. Bearcat (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sourcing here is pretty weak and in my mind does not establish notability. Yes, this person exists, yes, this person has written some novels (which, I'll freely admit, takes a lot of time and dedication), and yes, this person has made some complaints to various regulatory authorities. But there is no in-depth coverage of this person in third-party sources as far as I can see. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or WP:USERFY upon creator request. The current state of the article does not support any notability, but there "may" be more out there that could support it. Technical 13 (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, at least two (likely more) direct coverage in articles on newspapers, and several mentions elsewhere. Diego (talk) 20:36, 15 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. If someoen really thinks we need a redirect here, feel free. Courcelles 05:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juice County[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable neologism. - Mr X 12:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 12:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Orange County, California, but we may not even be able to put a line in the OC article unless a source can be found. some use on internet, but low level, slangy, not very common.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even Urban Dictionary has OC as a slang definition of this term.[57] --Oakshade (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Google search finds a fair amount of use in company names and such. Unless this is a problem; this company seems to be claiming that they have trademarked "Juice County". If that's a problem, then delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would prefer delete, as it seems hardly like a plausible redirect, but I would settle for a redirect also. Safiel (talk) 22:34, 10 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. Wizardman 18:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Buffalo State Bengals football team[edit]

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

See first nomination. Non-notable sports season, per WP:ROUTINE and WP:CFBSEASON. Edge3 (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per failed first nomination. What is this, "If At First You Don't Succeed, Try, Try Again?" Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus was reached on the first nomination, and the closing admin allowed renomination. Edge3 (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edge is correct. There's nothing wrong with re-opening the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one source. I'd be good with merging to 2008 New Jersey Athletic Conference football season or another collaborative article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnotable and unsuccessful (1-9) season. Per Paul McDonald, creating a conference season by year is an acceptable option. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:33, 12 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. While there are an equal number of "votes", the deletion ones make much stronger arguments, with one noting notability issues and the other noting lack of referencing to create that notability. The keep ones, meanwhile, are essentially "because there was an afd" and "just tag it instead", which are not compelling reasons to keep the article. Wizardman 18:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2007 St. Norbert Green Knights football team[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2007 St. Norbert Green Knights football team (2nd nomination)

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

See first nomination. Non-notable sports season, per WP:ROUTINE and WP:CFBSEASON. Edge3 (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per failed first nomination. What is this, "If At First You Don't Succeed, Try, Try Again?" Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus was reached on the first nomination, and the closing admin allowed renomination. Edge3 (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Edge is correct. There is no problem in bringing up the AFD again for further discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I like the enthusiasm, but I don't like the incompleteness of the article. With only one source, I think the encyclopedia would be better served by merging to the a conference season article where more sources can be combined. Beef up the article and I'll change my position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs maintenance tagging like Template:Expand article if you think that it's that bad. I disagree with Paul's comment about merging into a conference article being the appropriate avenue. If merged, the content would be more appropriate in the St. Norbert Green Knights football article. Royal broil 01:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Change my mind, I'm easy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:33, 8 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. Courcelles 05:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaania[edit]

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

Article does not meet Notability Standards The Wikimon (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references and sources. Article does not meet notability criteria.--Milesandkilometrestogo (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not even pass WP:GNG, much less any appropriate guidelines for ethnic groups. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:11, 13 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. Courcelles 05:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British army combat smock sizes[edit]

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

Notability not established for over a year, just two "references" (one just says "The British Soldier In The 20th Century") Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic on the one hand; fails GNG on the other. Carrite (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "The British Soldier In The 20th Century" is a series of books about British uniforms, e.g. Airborne Uniforms. There are many publications of this sort as military modellers are as obsessive about accuracy as Wikipedia editors. The article just needs some spit and polish per WP:IMPERFECT. Warden (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The OR tag is probably wrong, since it appears to cite a book as source. But I doubt this is a notable enough subject to need a WP article. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite; this is seriously obscure and not notable. In my experience books written for modelers about the appearance and nature of military uniforms do not provide any information about the sizes this clothing was issued in (as this is irrelevant to the modelers' need), and waving at a book on Amazon without demonstrating that it actually provides detail on this topic is not useful. The only sources which typically cover this kind of topic are military-issued manuals which are written for use by quartermasters and (to a lesser extent) serving soldiers. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator didn't seem to understand the reference to The British Soldier In The 20th Century and so I explained it. That is not just one but a large series of books. The page in question is not just about the sizing but also the pattern, material and other aspects of the various combat smocks. This is exactly the sort of material which you'd expect such books to contain and the fact they are so numerous demonstrates the notability of the topic. The title of article seems to be what the delete !voters here are getting hung up on but that's just a detail which may easily be addressed by move or merger. There seems to be no good reason why we wouldn't want to consolidate this with articles like Smock Windproof DPM, Denison Smock, Battle Dress, British Army uniform, &c. Our editing policy is to build in this way rather than to carelessly discard. Warden (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That reference is only being used to support a statement about the existence and general design of a type of smock, which isn't really the main subject of the article. Nick-D (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - far too specific an article about a non-notable topic. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 12:25, 9 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. —Darkwind (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speed metal[edit]

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

Genre that is almost universally known as another way of saying thrash metal. Article fails to establish difference between the two and lacks sources. It has for over a decade now. The whole article is just a mess. I call the big one bitey 09:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Speed metal and Thrash metal are two different genres of heavy metal music. Even the thrash metal article acknowledges that: "Thrash metal is more aggressive compared to its relative, speed metal" and "Speed, pacing and time-changes also define thrash metal." Wikipedia even has a whole listing of speed metal bands. Is there some crossover between thrash & speed metal? Sure, but just because the speed metal article needs some serious editing to improve it doesn't mean that it should be deleted now. Show us all how much you know about metal music and improve the article instead. Guy1890 (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has three reliable sources, Allmusic, BBC and VH1, and all of them are perfectly acceptable into making its subject notable. An article that lacks sources doesn't mean that it can be deleted, because there are reliable sources out there. Also, like Guy said, it's better to improve the article rather than lose all the information together. Minima © (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thrash metal and speed metal are too similar to have separate articles ergo violating WP:CONTENTFORK.
Keep, article has reliable sources that define it apart from thrash metal. While there is a lot of crossover in North America between the two genres, in Europe and Japan they tend to be more distinct, at any rate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:52, 15 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 Incomplete longevity claims#Past. Article history deleted. —Darkwind (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Rahman Abu Baka[edit]

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

Notability not clear. According to legal sources, aged 105 when he died, and oldest person in Malaysia. Family claim he was 117 - unverified. By the verified sources, he is not the record-holder for Malaysia - Wook Kundor is currently 107 or 108. Whichever way, it seems he fails notability per WP:1E, although there is some coverage. Boleyn (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG with coverage. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I added his name to Incomplete_longevity_claims#Past. It should also be noted that the name is apparently a misspelling, the sources from the article show his name as Abdul Rahman Abu Bakar. --Revolución talk 09:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, you haven't revealed your "Delete" rationale... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete living to be 105 is not in and of itself notable. There are no other claims of notability. At best this is one event, and one event is not enough to make an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being old is not a claim to notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Has anyone contemplated redirecting? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's something always worth thinking over. What do you propose as a possible redirect target? Boleyn (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete_longevity_claims#Past would be a good candidate. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:35, 13 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 Jessie Ware. Courcelles 05:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine (Jessie Ware and Sampha song)[edit]

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

Non-notable musical release. No evidence of in-depth coverage, awards or charting. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jessie Ware. Way below the level of information that would justify a standalone article, but a few details added to the Jessie Ware article would be beneificial. --Michig (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 7 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. I would be happy to userfy one or both of the articles upon request, if anyone believes there is any merge-worthy content. —Darkwind (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Team SmackDown and Team Raw[edit]

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

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

These seem like cruft to me. The excessive trivial week-by-week results here are unencyclopedic while the pertinent information is in the corresponding Draft, PPV and Brand articles. I don't see any reason for keeping them. Feedback ^☎ 05:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alliance to End Hulkamania these were all teams that were just thrown together for a month of existence. Every Suvivor Series team in history should have a page by this criteria. Only, this team was brought back every year with different members, different opponents, etc. These articles are very hard to understand because everything changes with each passing section. These are a tough read for me, and must be incomprehensible for those who have no knowledge about the subject.LordMaldad2000 (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge them together, maybe? There's been a long and notable (though intermittent) feud of sorts between the brands, including major storylines, PPVs and a video game series. I think we should have something on the general angle, but an article for each team seems wrong. And I'm not seeing the point of including the drafts. Just something about the history of the various teams named Team RAW and Team SmackDown and their "brand supremacy" battles. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read a bit more of Team SmackDown (it is tough). I'm not in favour of doing like here, and listing every match between a RAW guy and a SmackDown guy, or implying that the entire RAW brand is known as "Team RAW", year-round. Just tag team matches where the teams are billed as such. Or where there's an explicitly acknowledged "team leader" who faces the other leader in a singles match for some sort of "bragging rights". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per LordMaldad2000. This isn't a team, it0s a series of weekly matches without a common storyline or connection. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:29, 12 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. I'd be happy to userfy if someone wants to take on the task of a merge. —Darkwind (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Team McMahon[edit]

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

This page is completely misguided. This isn't a stable. This is just Vince and Shane allying themselves with different people at different times. Imagine if someone wrote an article about a stable called CeNation and listed every single person John Cena has ever allied with. This just doesn't make much sense. Reading this article has given me a headache. Feedback ^☎ 05:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with McMahon family - The article definitely needs some work, much of their pairing/feuding is omitted until about 2006, but I do think that they are a long standing team that are notable although perhaps not outside of their family article. Ideally, this article should look something like Los Guerreros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordMaldad2000 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like Feedback says, this isn't a stable. The article has a few sources, but the whole premise is original research, starting from "is an appropriate general reference to...". Has anyone else ever called it appropriate? And yes, it is very hard to read. Even if polished, it'd still be a turd. If any significant events are missing from the McMahon Family article or the relevant McMahon's article, merge those. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with McMahon family, per LordMaldad2000 --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:26, 12 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 deleted (G11) by User:Jimfbleak (non-admin closure). Vulcan's Forge (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2014 YOG licensed products[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a store. ViperSnake151 Talk 05:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. It could potentially be speedyable by way of G11 as being fairly promotional in nature. I don't think that the original editor was here to promote a specific store or to deliberately create a spam page, but that's how it comes across. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:13, 7 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. Courcelles 05:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apostolic Messianic movement[edit]

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

Tagged as confusing since 2009. A religion or religious movement started in 1995. Zero hits for "Apostolic Messianic movement" in google scholar and two hits for it in google books that are both from Wikipedia. A google book search for "Apostolic Messianic" turns up 45 hits with the only relevant hits being sourced to books that reproduce Wikipedia material. SalHamton (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This appears to be a Pentecostal splinter group. Without clear evidence as to it having a large number of adherents, I cannot believe it is really notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also tried searching for the founder, Gary Reckart, and couldn't find anything either. If it was a denomination, I would probably think differently, but without formal membership, the number of adherents is very suspect, and theologically it hasn't made a ripple. St Anselm (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without significant coverage from independent sources, there is no way to know the reality of this movement's influence. For all we know, it could just be a church with a dozen worshippers in Idaho. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 13 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rodovid[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable website. It's been more than three years since the last discussion and the article still does not meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB. It lacks independent secondary reliable sources since most of them have conflict of interest with the subject. The only source "independent" (see google translation), is only about genealogy websites, which only briefly mentions the website. The Ukranian article is also mostly based on sources with conflict of interest. Most of the sources about Rodovid (Родовид) actually refer to "Родовид Банк" (Rodovid Bank) or genealogy (Радавод is genealogy in Ukrainian language), which are not related to the website at all. Canstandya (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Canstandya (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Canstandya (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well known within its field. Brief mentions in Pravda and Ancestry magazine, regularly mentioned in the context of open genealogy. Remains one of the top open collaborative family tree sites online, and one of the few operating in multiple languages. Citing a website for statistics about its own contents is not generally a COI; particularly when the site is a publicly archived wiki all of whose data can be mined via archive.org. – SJ + 19:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As to general notability: Rodovid has continued to grow as quickly as the other free online genealogy sites since the 2009 discussion: at 500,000+ records across 21 languages, it is the most popular multilingual site and in second place for total user activity. – SJ + 19:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SJ. Ukrained2012 (talk) 16:18, 15 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) 03:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SJ. Diego (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SJ. Edge3 (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Several sources are from the website itself or from the depeloper of the website and we are not being honest with our readers when we do not identify that the sources have conflict of interest per Wikipedia:Third-party sources#Non-independent sources. The subject does not seem to be notable per lack of independent reliable secondary sources to support notability. The independent ones only mention the subject and do not support what they were supposed to support. For instance: [58] has been used to support the sentence "as of 2012 it had active communities in 21 languages.", but the source is from 2009 and does not mention the number 21. [59] has been used to support the sentence "Rodovid had over 500,000 total records for individuals and families across all languages, including over 200,000 in Russian, making it the second largest free genealogy service online, and the largest in any language other than English.", but the source only mentions that the website exists, it does not support the claim of notability. It is not possible to stabilish notability since the sources with the claims of notability have conflict of interest with the subject and per Wikipedia:Third-party sources#Non-independent sources "Non-independent sources may not be used to establish notability." (and some of the sources with COI do not even support what they were supposed to, see Comment #2 below). The fact it is archived on Archive.org cannot stabilish notability, since Archive.org only archives the information provided by the website itself (Rodovid) and also archives data from several non notable wikias, websites, etc (for instance [60] and [61]). Algébrico (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment #1 it is very weird that Rodovid's statistics page is very vague and do not show the exact numbers of "persons" or "families". It is a Wiki-edited page, it is not even an automatic page created by a software that counts the number of articles (the ones who provide the numbers are the users of the platform). In any case, it is not that important since it is not an independent source anyway. Algébrico (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment #2 None of the sources actually mention it is "the second largest free genealogy service online, and the largest in any language other than English". It seems to be some kind of WP:OR. Algébrico (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a shame to lose this article, given that it is one of only a few free-content genealogy websites out there. however, I can't see how it meets the requirement for "multiple non-trivial published works" given that only the ancestry magazine article appears to be non-trivial. The site itself also appears to be in decline. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can keep it if we ignore all rules, given that most of us think doing so improves Wikipedia. Diego (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- shouldn't there be a rule that notability requirements are somewhat reduced for things that are reflectively similar to Wikipedia, e.g. other wikis, free software (because of history of Wikipedia), etc. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:32, 8 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 Redirected. If someone wants to fix it up, they can. But it won't fix itself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Indonesian Premier Division[edit]

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

Deprodded for no reason. Appears to be borderline A1 — so little content. Not sure if notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I deprodded it because it looked like something that would be encyclopedic and the hoax qualms weren't specified. But it strikes me as borderline - David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this is kept, it needs renaming, because this is not about the IPD, but in fact is about the similarly named Liga Indonesia Premier Division (Indonesian naming logic...) I'm not really sure how it's supposed to be A1 worthy - it's not even close to that. I'm pretty sure it's not a hoax, but it definitely needs some referencing. It needs the attention of an Indonesian-speaking expert, because to someone using Google Translate on Indonesian sources, it's almost impossible to tell the two leagues apart. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article needs a revamp and more information, not deletion. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:20, 2 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) 03:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets notability requirements for season articles, just needs attention from someone with knowledge of the subject Spiderone 09:59, 11 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) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Plumlee[edit]

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

fails WP:NBASKETBALL and I argue that he fails WP:NCOLLATH as well as WP:NSPORTS for high school athletes. Marshall Plumlee's notability is based on his passing WP:GNG for having two WP notable basketball player brothers, for being a notable, in a non-WP sense, college basketball recruit, and for forecasting that he may someday be a WP notable basketball player. Aside from coming from a famous basketball family, his most notable achievement is being a high school McDonalds all-American, but this alone doesn't let him pass WP notability for high school athletes. Mayumashu (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I looked through 55,800 results on google it looks like it passes WP:GNG and WP:NHSPHSATH to me. Theworm777 (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes GNG. He has the requisite RS coverage; that is all that he needs.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have a very high bar for college athletes, his coverage fails WP:ROUTINE for these purposes and WP:NOTINHERITED because so much of it is due to his brothers. J04n(talk page) 20:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J04n. I believe that the GNG bar -- the one alluded to in the keep !votes -- is no lower or higher for a college athlete than for any other bio. I also think that NOTINHERITED is meant to protect against situations such as Jimmy Carter's brother Billy Carter, where a relative of a notable person did nothing of note other than drink beer. But oh wait ... we do have an article on Billy Carter. Anyway, such is not the case here ... Plumlee has a great deal of coverage with regard to his basketball accomplishments as well as his being a brother of other notable basketball players; the two are intertwined, and the RS coverage is IMHO sufficiently high. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I must disagree about the significant coverage, it is routine coverage, similar to anyone who plays for a major college basketball team like Duke. J04n(talk page) 21:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyone who plays for a major college basketball team?" What percentage of college basketball players were McDonalds All Americans? Players at major college basketball teams who were McDonalds All Americans tend to attract a good deal of RS coverage, and so it is here ... it is greater coverage than one would tend to see with a college player at a major college who is not a McDonalds All American. But it is the coverage, not that he is an All American, that I focus on.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:28, 6 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) 03:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - in reality, I don't think this guy is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article (especially since we can't agree that players in the Greek top league aren't "likely notable"), but he does (barely) pass GNG. GNG is kind of a joke IMO, but its what we have. Rikster2 (talk) 15:04, 13 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. WaggersTALK 14:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monos City[edit]

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

PROD contested with no rationale for contesting given. Anyway, I fail to find any reliable sources, so the series appears to be non-notable. Zappa O Mati 03:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 as obvious hoax. Wikipedia is not for stuff you just make up. - Dravecky (talk) 11:40, 8 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. The broad consensus here is that this organisation, while not major by any stretch of the imagination, does just about satisfy our notability guidelines through sufficient coverage - it's not a big organisation, and the corresponding coverage seems similarly small in scale - but most participants seem to feel it's enough. I'll commend the nominator on putting a lot of thought into this discussion but ultimately the consensus doesn't support removing it. ~ mazca ^talk 09:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North Louisiana Historical Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/North Louisiana Historical Association (North Louisiana History nomination)

North Louisiana History[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Extreme energy (term)[edit]

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

With some doubts, after looking the history of this article and doing web searches, I think that this article fails WP:GNG and probably should be transferred to Wiktionary. It was originally created as extreme energy and after discussion at the talk page it was merged into the Michael Klare article. Three month later it was re-created using different capitalization (Extreme Energy) and was then moved to its current title. The term has some mentioning in mainstream media but almost always the term is associated with its inventor Michael Klare. It has little bit more usage by non-mainstream sources usually use in the context like "Extreme Energy Summit" of "Extreme Energy Initiative". However, these events/forums seems also fail WP:GNG. No search hits by Google Scholar. As the term is in general a synonym for unconventional resources/unconventional oil (as described by the original author) and is related to the professor Klare, I think the term should be mentioned in these articles and also it should be included in Wiktionary, but it does not deserve a separate article. Beagel (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The term is a non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM. A Wiktionary entry may be useful, but It does not merit an encyclopedia article. - Mr X 17:54, 30 March 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!} 03:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topics mentioned in the article are certainly important, but the expression itself belongs in a dictionary not an encyclopedia. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or rework this page is providing a useful function - explaining a term. Perhaps there is a better way to explain what this term means, but until there is something better (ie a better explanation arising from, say, a google search), I say keep.Sophiahounslow (talk) 10:31, 9 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manor Hotel, Mundesley[edit]

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

No credible notability claims, no significant source coverage. Fails WP:GNG. I am unable to turn up anything but passing mentions. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- I found the article had been blanked (out of process) except the AFD tag, and have reverted that, so that we can see what was there. Blanking an article that you di not like is not acceptable. The culpit User:Stavros1 claims to have retiured from WP, which another user (on his talk page laments). The architect has a short article, which suggests that his buildings are notable, but as we only have a very short stub of an article, it is difficult to tell. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listing by Nicolas Pevsner is not a strong claim to notability and no other evidence is offred. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable architectural feature of Mundelsey, and its restaurant seems to have good coverage too. Has coverage in reliable sources [63], [64], [65], [66], [[67], [68], [69], [70]♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are at least three books WP:RS mentioned in the article that note this. Dr. Blofeld indicates there's more out there, and I am sure it will be put into the article in due course. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"advertisement". Country Life. Vol. 137. Country Life, Limited. 1965. p. 95. Retrieved April 9, 2013.
Pevsner, Sir Nikolaus; Wilson, Bill (2002). Norfolk 2: North-West and South. Yale University Press. p. 149. ISBN 978-0-300-09657-6. Retrieved April 9, 2013.
Westley, P.C. (1951). The Spectator. Vol. 186. pp. 672, 736, 850. Retrieved April 9, 2013.
Dunford, Martin; Lee, Phil (2012). The Rough Guide to Norfolk and Suffolk. Rough Guides, Limited. Retrieved April 9, 2013.
Hotels and Restaurants of Britain. Vol. 58–59. 1986. pp. 289, 332. Retrieved April 9, 2013.
Yearbook. Royal Automobile Club (Great Britain). 1916. Retrieved April 9, 2013.
Brereton, Peter (June 1, 1982). Through Britain on country roads. Retrieved April 9, 2013.
AA Hotel Guide. Retrieved April 9, 2013.
7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please differentiate between passing mentions and significant independent coverage. For instance, the link you provide to the Royal Automobile Club listings are just that - the name appears on a listing of hundreds. That is not significant coverage. Overwhelming the discussion with non-significant coverage links does not help to reach consensus on if there is actually significant reliable source coverage which is required for notability, as opposed to counting the number of passing mentions that are turned up with a quick search. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to bet that if you looked through the local archives of newspapers in Norfolk you'd find detailed full articles about this hotel. This picks up 44 newspaper articles (but I don't have a subscription to access), and I doubt any of those are even local Norfolk newspapers.

Here's some articles I found from the Norwich Evening News which constitute substantial coverage., but as I say, the wealth of material will be offline in their archives:

[71], [72], [73]

♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- for its architectural significance as being one of the oldest buildings in that particular part of Norfolk. Who is it benefiting by deleting significant Grade II listed buildings off of WP? -- Cassianto ^Talk 20:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it is quite relevant to read over WP:ORGDEPTH where it states, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability...Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as....the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories...routine restaurant reviews...passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization...The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." Based upon those notability criteria the bulk of the sources you have provided are not considered in depth coverage to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Adding content such as, "She said "One of their most popular attractions is the Sunday carvery, which is £8.95 for one course. There is a choice of three meats, which always includes beef, plus Yorkshire puddings, gravy and an array of vegetables which you can pile as high as you like." She also noted its vegetarian dishes such as local goats’ cheese and sundried tomato tart and said that the restaurant's vegetables were "almost too numerous to recount"." really does not sound or appear encyclopedic, and does not seem to be in the spirit of reporting on notable organizations. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have no experience of hotel and restaurant writing. It is a quote from a food critic describing what she thought was the most notable aspects of dining there. Perfectly acceptable, we embrace reviews like this for restaurants. Th quote was probably best breaking up part in prose part in quote which I've now done, but plastering silly tags over it arguing that the article is too overly detailed and then having the audacity to warn me about it by templating me, really is not doing you any favours. This article doesn't stand a chance of being deleted, trust me. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable architectural feature of Mundesley.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To summarize what we have so far, the primary claim to notability is that it is an architectural feature of the town it is located in and that it was designed by John Bond Pearce. There is no cited reference to support the claim of it being a unique architectural feature. The cited reference saying it was designed by John Bond Pearce does not mention such a fact - although even if it did notability is not inherited. The other claims for notability include that its restaurant specializes in fish dishes such as Cromer Crab and local Sea Bass, and that the restaurant has a Sunday carvery, which has a choice of three meats and a lot of vegetables. Of these it seems being an architectural feature is the best chance of establishing notability, so if anyone can provide significant reliable source coverage which establishes that without adding WP:SYNTH or WP:OR I would be happy to switch to keep, if not, then it seems like delete still. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes GNG on a number of points. - SchroCat (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can find no evidence whatsoever that this is a listed building, despite the claims above. If English Heritage do not consider it notable enough to list then I'm not sure why we should. And "one of the oldest buildings in that particular part of Norfolk"? A building dating from 1900? Please! This is England, not America! Mundesley has a Grade II listed brick kiln a century older than the hotel! I'm not expressing a preference to keep or delete, as I don't generally like deleting articles on historic buildings that some may consider significant, but let's try to avoid making bogus claims. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Listing[edit]

This may help Please see Page 21 of [74] of this PDF Character Appraisal and Management Proposals, Section 6.3: Key unlisted buildings This Document states :- It is proposed that the following buildings be considered for inclusion on a ‘local list’ which should be formally adopted by the Council in accordance with Local Development Framework policy. Manor Hotel, Beach Road– by J B Pearce late 1890s, apparently developed from an earlier manor house. Commissioned by Bullards Brewery.

Locally listed buildings are not generally considered to be notable. After all, English Heritage lists many thousands of buildings on its national list (and we don't automatically consider Grade II listed buildings - i.e. the majority - to be notable even on that list). If they don't consider it notable enough for a national listing then its notability is borderline at the very best. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 15 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. —Darkwind (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minsho Ozawa[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:N's requirement of nontrivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources. The only coverage I could find in either English or Japanese was several iterations of his obituary (which mention little more than his death and that he was Japan's oldest man) and a handful of other trivial references. Long-standing precedent is that simply being the oldest person in a country is not sufficient to meet the general notability guidelines and sustain an article, thus the extent of coverage (or lack thereof) is the issue here. Normally a redirect to a list might work, but he wasn't even a supercentenarian, so I'm not certain where he would be redirected to. Canadian Paul 19:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 1 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) 01:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a WP:BIO1E case, and the person has not received a sufficient level of in-depth coverage to justify a self-standing biographical article like this. --DAJF (talk) 06:34, 7 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. —Darkwind (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kohachi Shigetaka[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:N's requirement of nontrivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources. The only coverage I could find in either English or Japanese was several iterations of his obituary (which mention little more than his death and that he was Japan's oldest man) and a handful of other trivial references. Long-standing precedent is that simply being the oldest person in a country is not sufficient to meet the general notability guidelines and sustain an article, thus the extent of coverage (or lack thereof) is the issue here. Canadian Paul 19:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 1 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) 01:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a WP:BIO1E case, and the person has not received a sufficient level of in-depth coverage to justify a self-standing biographical article like this. --DAJF (talk) 06:31, 7 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 quorum. —Darkwind (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Leeze[edit]

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

Dosen't appear to meet WP:NACTOR. Actor is best known for playing what is, as far as I can tell, a minor character. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, played a major role in a primetime, five nights a week, soap opera on terrestrial TV for five years and was a regular face in major British television shows for 25 years. If he's not notable then no TV actors are. Keresaspa (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 20:30, 31 March 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) 01:36, 7 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Directors of Bollywood Movies and Top Actors of Bollywood[edit]

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

Original researchy, Povvy list of 5 Bollywood directors that the author likes. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I added Top Actors of Bollywood to this discussion as I think both should be considered together. Article has the same problems. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:00, 2 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) 01:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. It may be interesting and these may be good directors and actors, but fails no encyclopediac scope/inclusion-criteria, just a cherry-picked list from some source and a cherry-picked set of credentials for each entry. DMacks (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per nom. You can't just pop up with a list of people, you need to have some sort of criteria. A better article might be Bollywood directors who have won a particularly prestigious award - see, for example, articles such as Academy Award for Best Director, which features an extensive (and complete) list of winners and nominees. I don't know what the equivalent here would be, but such a list would have a clear criteria for inclusion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:46, 9 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. I would be happy to userfy upon request for a possible merge. —Darkwind (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crayon Shin-Chan: Arashi wo Yobu Enji[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Crayon Shin-Chan: Arashi wo Yobu Enji" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

No reliable sources, no real non-game guide content, nothing to indicate much notability Jac16888 ^Talk 10:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the franchise's main article. There's nothing that makes this game independently notable outside of this connection. Ducknish (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case then should I just combine all the shinchan videogame articles into one? If not then what else? (If there's anything I CAN do. I'm not going to try to object this. I'm not even sure if I should put this comment here or not.) Magicperson6969 (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Talk[reply]

There is something you can do: you can find reliable 3rd party references should any exist, and real world information as opposed to game guide information should any exist and you can rewrite it to be less of a game guide in general--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should we discuss this in the talk page? Or is it okay to discuss this here? (I'm still fairly new to wikipedia) Magicperson6969 (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well discuss it here - it's very simple really, without real sources the article cannot remain--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to have received sufficient in-depth third-party coverage to establish notability and justify a self-standing article like this. --DAJF (talk) 01:19, 29 March 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:40, 31 March 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) 01:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all video games articles into a list is a good idea, as a WP:SPLIT of the already too large Crayon Shin-chan. Situational coverage [75], [76] shows certain notability of the series of games as a whole. Diego (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm conflicted because my gut tells me Japanese print sources exist, but after all my searching and coming up dry (and the status of the main article and the inactivity of this AfD), reality tells me they're not going to show up. I'd be in favor of a Crayon Shin-chan video games article in theory, but the sourcing just doesn't exist—it's either too thin and from GamesRadar or non-existent. The others are going to end up in AfD. For what it's worth, the ja and fr articles also have no sources. As of now, these cheap video game spin-offs aren't independently passing the GNG and should be deleted. If a savior with print sources comes along, she can always recover whatever little was once written. czar · · 03:23, 15 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 the band article, redirect album articles to it.. No real arguments have been raised that support keeping the individual album articles, though they make fair search terms and will do no harm as redirects. Reasonable editors seem to differ on exactly whether the band itself classes as notable, but because it's made up of more than one independently notable member there isn't an unambiguously correct redirect target, and the article at least serves as a hub connecting the various band members, which will likely aid readers. ~ mazca ^talk 09:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Artension[edit]

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

Artension is a non-notable band, and its 7 albums are also non-notable.

All of these 8 pages are unreferenced, and a google search throws up nothing except an entry on AllMusic.com and one on metal-rchives.com. The only review of either band or album is the 78-word note on Allmusic.com, which falls a long way short of the significant coverage required under WP:GNG.

I haven't identified any other criterion of WP:MUSIC which any of these pages meet, other than a possible WP:NBAND#6: "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles". There are articles on the band's 5 current members, but of those only Mike Terrana comes close to having any independent notability. The other 4 are either unreferenced (Staffelbach) or fall short of GNG (Kuprij, DiGiorgio & West). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Keep (or AT A MINIMUM redirect to Mike Terrana)- If there are at least two notable musicians, then the band article should be kept. If not, then the musician articles should be taken to AfD. Do I smell the start of a mass exodus of articles coming on??? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Did you read the nomination? Did you read WP:NBAND#6?
The criterion is independent notability (i.e. per WP:GNG). Mike Terrana appears to meet WP:GNG, but none of the others do. The articles may or may not be AFDed, but the existence of a Wikipedia page is not evidence of the topic's notability.
Also, I note that you didn't comment on the albums. Do you want to offer some defence of those 7 unreferenced and non-notable albums? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I said IF are at least two notable musicians, then the band article should be kept. If there is only one, then the band article can be redirected to that musician, whoever that may be. I neither agree nor disagree with the albums being deleted, so long as all appropriate material is merged losslessly. BTW, when will you merge Hero? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NBAND#5 Duncan3dc (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. What exactly is the evidence that any of this meets WP:NBAND#5? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two of their last three albums (New Discovery & Future World) were released on Frontiers Records — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncan3dc (talk • contribs) 17:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:11, 31 March 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) 01:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly weak keep. Kuprij also appears to be notable enough ([77]), and the band's releases suggest that this is a subject that we should have an article on. The available sources are not ideal though. --Michig (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete album pages. The albums are non-notable according to WP:NALBUMS and should be deleted accordingly. Comment. I still question the notability of the band. The article doesn't match up very well with WP:V or WP:RS either, though I recognize that's not part of the notability argument. Charon123able (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Band does not meet WP:Music notability guidelines. Redirect band page to Vitalij Kuprij who is notable, delete album pages as non-notable. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all pages to Vitalij Kuprij where they are all mentioned and are possible search terms. Agree that stand alone notabilty has not been reached. J04n(talk page) 23:23, 16 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 self-information. —Darkwind (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information content[edit]

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

I can't find anywhere where this is defined as such. Often it's used synonymously with self-information; see [78] for example. I think this article is just confusing and unnecessary. InverseHypercube (talk) 09:33, 31 March 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) 01:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to self-information. I ave been unable to find any references which equate information content with the semantics of a language. MacKay's book, referenced by the nom, is mainstream and uses that term as a synonym for self-information (or surprisal). IIRC, the Chomsky approach to linguistics uses information content in the same way. Given the evidence for the synonym in the reference, a redirect to self-information is reasonable. --Mark viking (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with the redirect. InverseHypercube (talk) 07:11, 7 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 Manafest discography. —Darkwind (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mislead Youth[edit]

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

this EP does not appear to be notable Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Manafest/Manafest discography - those two should really be merged or the discography expanded with more details. This doesn't merit an article but more details in the discography wouldn't hurt ~~and this would be a valid redirect~~. The spelling here is wrong - 'Misled Youth' would be a valid redirect, this wouldn't. --Michig (talk) 06:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 03:09, 31 March 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) 01:32, 7 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 both. —Darkwind (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Cities Burn EP (2002)[edit]

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

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

Stub articles on two EPs by the band As Cities Burn, which fail WP:NALBUM. Both articles are wholly unreferenced, and the band's article offers no sign of any significant coverage; the apparently long list of refs there includes links to myspace blogs, twitter and Facebook. There is no point in redirecting, because the disambiguated titles are not plausible search terms ... and since the material is wholly unreferenced, there is nothing to merge. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the second one to As Cities Burn - the tracklisting is easily verified. I couldn't confirm the details on the first one, but if it was actually a commercial release, I see no reason not to merge. --Michig (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 03:08, 31 March 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) 01:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These EPs are non-notable. Without any significant coverage and little insignificant coverage, the information is pointless to merge. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:51, 10 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. I would be happy to userfy the page on request, if anyone wants to merge the track listing. —Darkwind (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come Now Sleep[edit]

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

Non-notable album, which fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. The artricle has remained wholly unreferenced since its creation in 2007, and the album appears to have been distributed largely through myspace. I did find two short reviews, at JesusFreakHideout and [79], but neither looks like a reliable source. Since there is no WP:RS-referenced material, there is nothing to merge, and the album is already listed in the band's article As Cities Burn. The title should be redirected to the band's page.. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to As Cities Burn. The tracklisting is easily verifiable and could be accommodated there. There isn't much else here. --Michig (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 03:07, 31 March 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) 01:30, 7 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. I decided against closing as merge because there are no reliable sources verifying the material in the article. If anyone wants this userfied so they can source and merge the material, I'd be happy to do so. —Darkwind (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gore Slut[edit]

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

Non-notable musical group. Only reference appears to be the personal website of one of the members. No evidence of charting or awards. (I previously PROD'd this article with this rationale, but it was undeleted, so I'm bringing it to AfD). Stuartyeates (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to (at at least summarize in) Rudy Trouvé. Marginally notable but can be adequately covered in that article, I think. --Michig (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea, but unfortuantely that article also lacks evidence of notability. The two references are the artists website and their record label. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a poor article, but as you will be aware, that doesn't mean that he isn't notable, and there are plenty of GNews and GBooks sources that can be used to improve that article. --Michig (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 03:06, 31 March 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) 01:29, 7 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. —Darkwind (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Maydays[edit]

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

Non-notable performing group, fails WP:N and WP:GNG. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources nor any notable mentions in Google News. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep. The Maydays are among the most prominent improv groups in England. I've discussed this with The Maydays off Wikipedia, and I've gone through the page sourcing everything that it says. Not all of these sources are independent or WP:RS but I certainly think they've got enough independent press over the years to pass the WP:GNG (FringeGuru, FringeReview, Chortle, Latest 7, Evening Standard). AndyJones (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 03:05, 31 March 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) 01:28, 7 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. Not currently sourced, and no specific sources were added during the discusion. I would be happy to userfy this on request so it can be sourced and recreated. —Darkwind (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chemda[edit]

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

Non-notable podcast host and musician. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:SINGER. GrapedApe (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep. Good deal of secondary source coverage in searches on Google News Archives for this person, along with searches for "Keith Malley". — Cirt (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that there are sources that merely mention Chemda, but mere mentions fail WP:GNG's requirement of "Significant coverage" that "address[es] the subject directly in detail." Care to enlighten us about which sources you think represent significant coverage?--GrapedApe (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 03:04, 31 March 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) 01:28, 7 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, could be recreated only if based on multiple reliable sources--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raghunath Saran[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. One article and being a physician to the president of India does not make a Wikipedia article. L Faraone 01:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable physician; all I could find about him was a few passing mentions in books about some of his contemporaries (for example, a biography of Nehru which included a reprint of a letter to him). Most of the information in the article is unverified and a lot of it is original research (editorialising, first-person tales of interactions with him, comments made by friends of the article's author, etc.). --MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 9 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. Michig (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asmire balke[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:N (no reliable sources or coverage), barely meets WP:NSPORTS. Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 00:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:ATHLETE. Qworty (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:30, 8 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. Michig (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Diva Army[edit]

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

Short lived stable in a indy promotion without notable action. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 31 March 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:ATHLETE. Qworty (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, everything that can be said to be wrong about wrestling articles, non-notable subject that could be covered in a line in the individual articles but is painstakenly detailed here almost down to what colors they wore in their brief time together. The fact that it's horribly written is not why I say delete but it certainly does not help it's cause. MPJ -US 10:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and practically in every other way possible.LordMaldad2000 (talk) 03:05, 11 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.