Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 April	9 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Please feel free to ask me to userfy the article to work on a possible merge. —Darkwind (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fordham University Commencement Speakers[edit]

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

The mere fact that many, if not all of these people, are notable, does not make the list itself worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia (see WP:LIST). None of the sources added seem to discuss the concept of a "Fordham University commencement speaker" in detail; rather, they just list speakers at a number of universities. Arguably, they're just routine coverage, since the same type of articles appear every year at the same time. At most, this topic deserves a sentence or two in Fordham University, unless, say, there's been some academic who's written specifically about commencement speakers who gives specific focus to those at FU. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A handful of commencement speeches are notable,[1] but not your everyday mid-level-university speeches. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge per nom. Probably a section with some of the more notable speakers would be fine. FWIW, I went to my brother's graduation back in the early 1990s, and I recall neither the speaker nor the speech. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 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. —Darkwind (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rupcare[edit]

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

I don't believe this is a candidate for speedy deletion, but it definitely seems overly promotional and I'm not sure how notable a website started four months ago is. —Ignatzmice ^talk _contribs 23:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability per WP:WEBSITE Adblock2 (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:WEBSITE. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Web Magazine There is lots of evidence for Rupcare.com as a Bengali language web magazine to stay on Wikipedia Rahmanononna (talk) 11:03, 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 and salt. —Darkwind (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chirag Shah[edit]

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

This is a promotional autobiography article created by User:ShahChirag (talk). It was speedily deleted twice per WP:G11 and WP:A7 and reposted again in an unchanged form using a new user name User:Neoinmatrix0903. Adblock2 (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: User:Neoinmatrix0903 is a confirmed sockpuppet of User:ShahChirag, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ShahChirag/Archive Adblock2 (talk) 00:22, 12 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 8. Snotbot t • c » 22:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h-index of 12 is insufficient for this highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. A careful WoS query (Author=(shah c*) Refined by: Organizations-Enhanced=(UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL OR RUTGERS STATE UNIVERSITY) Timespan=2000-01-01 - 2013-04-10. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI) followed by manual removal of Chintan Shah's papers (another "C Shah" at Rutgers) shows a citation list: 5, 3, 3, 3, 2...which is about what one expects for a junior faculty member. Uncontroversial delete – WP:SALT is probably appropriate, given the history. Agricola44 (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Qworty (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG policies. Diego (talk) 08:52, 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 keep. —Darkwind (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freehold and Howell Plank Road[edit]

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

In my opinion, fails WP:GNG Uberaccount (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of turnpikes in New Jersey. Dough 48 72 23:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of turnpikes in New Jersey without prejudice to expansion of this article as additional material becomes available. Alansohn (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable turnpike, squeaks past GNG. [2], [3]. Notability is not temporary, even when that notability was 120 years ago. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I imagine if WP was around in 1860 (along with the internet and electricity) and this went up for AfD, it would be a speedy keep with comments like "are you kidding? It's one of the main roads of the state!". As the Bushranger said, Notability is not temporary.--Oakshade (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We need to use a bit of common sense when evaluating historical topics, rather than expect them to have loads of sources readily available from a Google search. We have enough reliable sources already to be able to maintain a useful short article (and please let's not have the kneejerk reaction of a cry of "WP:USEFUL" - that essay doesn't apply here), and a major road established by state legislation will undoubtably have much more coverage in archives that are not readily available online. Oakshade sums up the situation well, except that I must point out that electricity has been around since about 10^–12 seconds after the Big Bang. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely correct. I should've said, "had electricity been successfully harnessed, regulated and mass distributed then... "--Oakshade (talk) 06:40, 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. —Darkwind (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talon (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable youtube film, absolutely no coverage, deproded for no reason with coi BOVINEBOY2008 20:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFILM. Uberaccount (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no coverage out there for this film that would be considered a RS. I have no true issue with this being userfied, though. I do want to suggest that if anyone does this, that they look into getting someone to check over it first to ensure it meets WP:NFILM before moving it back to the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per TOO SOON. Perhps after this one (perhaps) screens at the 2014 Sundance festival it will have the requisite coverage for inclusion. But not yet. Also, it appears the writer/director is 14 years old, so Sundance may only be his wish, not a prediction. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:42, 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 speedy keep. Obviously a bad-faith nomination; nominator is now blocked as a sock of Rich1982 which is a sock, apparently, of Scholarscentral. SNOW applies as well, despite the "delete" from Shoess. With apologies to that last editor, I'm closing this in part, then, to prevent further disruption from the next drawer full of socks.. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OMICS Publishing Group[edit]

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

Doesn't meet wikipedia standards.Article not necessary for this organisation Henrymark20 (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep -- nom is an obvious sock of Rich1982 (talk · contribs) and has no business editing at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Speedy keep Only reason for this nomination is that Henrymark20 and his sockpuppet/meatpuppet friends cannot push their preferred POV here. Enough sources to establish notability, disruptive nomination. --Randykitty (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad faith proposal. Clearly easily passes WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 19:51, 8 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 8. Snotbot t • c » 19:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As shown by the references in the article, this organization has been the subject of articles in Nature and the New York Times, both in depth, reliable sources. It passes general notability guidelines, per WP:GNG. The article does not seem promotional and while short, is well cited. A notable organization and no major article problems suggests keeping this article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only found two legitimate new articles, one shown here [4], and both extremely negative, on the company. Not enough to pass WP:GNG. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

??? Since when is the fact that (reliable!) references are negative a reason to delete an article? There's coverage in multiple reliable sources. It's in-depth. How can that lead to a "delete" !vote??? --Randykitty (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think you missed my main point; “…Only found two legitimate news articles”. With only two sources the article does not meet WP:GNG. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I replied to the sock below: "Nature, New York Times, Charleston Advisor": that makes three unassailable reliable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I’m not questioning the reliability of the source(s) just that there are only three and one is more a press release than an in-depth article. Hey, that’s why we have WP:AFD to handle differences of opinions like this one. Take care. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete If sufficient notability is there then editors should be more than double digit should not stuck to two or three frequent editors. So article should be removed Chicago1432 (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC) — Chicago1432 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Number of editors involved is NOT a valid reason for deletion.Theroadislong (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ As per the article edit history frequent editors are Nomoskedasticity and Randykitty and rare editor is Theroadislong are making the group negative. Propably these editors have conflict interest with other publishers. They are picking negative lines from the sources and not following neutrality and removing the imporant positive references. Wikipedia is source for all not only for conflict interest editors, so ~~delete~~.Chicago1432 (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC) (user has already !voted above)[reply]
Keep and improve. This is a key article on an important topic. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The mentions in reliable sources indicate a sufficient level of notability to be included in Wikipedia. Some work is needed to maintain neutrality though (for example, placing it in Category:Predatory open access journals is based on opinion and allegation). Peacock (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That category is at CFD and will likely be deleted. Apart from that, the article is NPOV as it stands now, which is not the same as neutral: most independently sourced information about this company is negative, so our article is negative, too. However, that's what the sources say and not a POV of the people editing it. The article does need continuous attention, though, to counteract POV -pushing socks that want to turn it into an ad for the company. Apart from all this, given that this is clearly a bad-faith nom and the only "delete" !votes being mostly from socks, I call for a speedy close of this disruptive AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete---

I disagree with randy kitty because

No third party references are stated in the article as per WP:BFAQ#DELETE, so this article can be deleted.

Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) WP:ORG guidelines (Only few secondary sources are refered)

Advertising the organisation rather than providing information about the organisation--Wikipedia:NPOV(Doesn't have notable information WP:FAILN)

This article doesn't satisfy WP:PRODUCT guidelines stating about services and this article seems to be an "Attack Page." attacking the organization ,as no discussion has been carried out at neutral point of view noticeboard.

Based on all the above reasons,this article can be deleted. Henrymark20 (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC) — Henrymark20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Are you joking? Nature, New York Times, Charleston Advisor: multiple independent third party references in reliable sources. Certainly not an advertisement, nor an attack page (I don't really fathom how anybody could in one paragraph claim both of these things about one and the same article). Please, take off your socks and walk away. --Randykitty (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Randy kitty..

Thank you for the reply on the talk page and sorry if I have frustrated you on the talk page..

I don’t understand what kind of joke did you find in the context..

I have few concerns about this article..Go through them and I expect an answer for all these concerns

1) Check, You have stated third party references as reliable.so can you please let me know why information related to OMICS Group published in pharma financial express has been deleted?

2) If you could please go through the NYT and Nature, there are both Positive and Negative statements about the Group, can you let me know why only negative is being highlighted and positive is being deleted all the time.

3) To my knowledge, the theme of the article published in NYT and nature should be picked rather than pasting the lines from the source. If lines are to be included both negative and positive lines should be included. Why did you skip this??

4) Please check these links http://www.nature.com/nnano/pricing/index.html

http://www.nature.com/srep/faqs/openaccess-faqs.html

http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/apcfaq/howmuch

www.omicsgroup.org/journals/instructionsforauthorsJAMK.php^{[predatory publisher]}

www.omicsonline.org/instructionsforauthorsPhysiol.php^{[predatory publisher]}

Every publishing group charges Article Processing Charges (APC) and it differs from subject to subject and country to country. So, can you explain me why only OMICS processing charges are being highlighted??More over in the nature article regarding $2700 APC it has been stated that they were unable to contact author. How can this be justified??

Randykitty, I expect an answer for all my concerns....Henrymark20 (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are matters for the article talk page, not for the AfD. Editors who are not sock puppets are welcome to discuss them there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:49, 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) 05:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omnia (band)[edit]

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

Maral Haggimoni reached out to OTRS asking for this article to be deleted because she does not want any reference to her participation in the band Omnia to come up when her name is Googled.
Procedural note: Maral was made aware that by requesting the deletion, her communication with OTRS would be made public as much as was necessary to fulfill her request for this to be nominated for deletion. She is also aware that the nomination is by no means a guarantee that the file will actually be deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket (OTRS access required)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. 20:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does the existence of an OTRS ticket rule out speedy keep for failure to supply a valid reason for deletion? This strikes me as close to frivolous. Google Search reveals plentiful reliable sources, mostly in German or Dutch. The existence of the request would appear to confirm that her entry here is factual. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally agree with you that from a policy standpoint this should be kept, but she asked for it to be nominated for deletion, and so I did that. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment...since her being in the band is unreferenced anyway can't we just remove her name from the list of previous members?Theroadislong (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I contemplated that answer, but in light of your below point, I don't think that it'd work - certainly not long term - and even if it did work it would be making something from factually accurate to factually inaccurate. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does Maral Haggimoni plan to do about the dozens of other websites and foreign Wikipedia articles that connect her to Omnia?Theroadislong (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can her reasoning be expanded upon? Is the connection to Omnia false? or something she now regrets? Seems a rather bizarre request. Theroadislong (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has File:Maral Haggi Moni.jpg, a photo of her signing autographs with the band. Her appearances with the band are a matter of public record.[5] We now have a reference for the fact that she is a former member. Not really interested in the story of the ugly breakup, or why she now finds her association with an apparently long running and successful act embarassing or inconvenient: but someone should gently break it to her that all that she's going to get out of these efforts is the Streisand effect. Already looking them up on Spotify. Wikipedia is not censored. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIf the article was about her alone then it might seem a reasonable request, but not for a band that she once performed with. Wikipedia is not censored.Theroadislong (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Procedurally, while I can understand this person's plight to a certain extent, the band itself is hardly to blame. A search on Google.de seems to indicate the subject is relatively notable and possibly meets WP:BAND, however I am not even considering the notability since I believe the deletion rationale to be invalid, without prejudice to the nominator. And removing the requester's name from the band is not an option either, since it's a fact that she was a member of the band. It's a lose-lose situation, and again I understand the motivation, but erasing one's presence from the Internet is sometimes simply not possible. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Does this by any remote chance have anything to do with Islamic terrorism / Sharia law / Blasphemy in Islam / Apostasy in Islam and credible threats to human lives? A deletion request from an experienced veteran with such a flimsy excuse for a reason suggests that there's a real reason we're not being told. This is entirely rampant speculation on my part as well: from the material presented in this AfD, it remains meritless. If this is the actual reason for any of this, AfD isn't really the right forum, either. I still say to speedy keep this, but I'll honor any administrative office action. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- When someone writes into OTRS asking for something to be placed up for deletion, I would rather place it up for deletion with the full knowledge that it's probably not going to get deleted than to unilaterally say no to the person writing in. That way, it undergoes the same due process as it would if the person writing in created an account and put it up for deletion themselves. As for the rest of your comment, I do not talk to anyone that is not an OTRS member about the details of OTRS tickets, period. That's not a "yes", that's not a "no", that's a "this isn't a question you should be asking, and I won't engage you on the issue". I'm sorry, but I take the confidentiality of the role very seriously. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't disagree, and I'm not criticizing you. But if it's anything of that nature, I'm not sure that a public deletion process isn't just making things worse. If this isn't something we should be discussing, it follows that we shouldn't be discussing it: and therefore, a public deletion dicussion does more harm than good. More importantly, human lives are more important than Wikipedia rules. If it's that important, just do something, invoke the usual office action protections, and let's close this AfD. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Band is probably notable although article needs better sourcing (preferably by Dutch speakers). The reason for deletion doesn't strike me as valid: it's one thing to delete an article on a person, since that's likely to be very high in search results, but if someone's involved with a notable band then it's reasonable to mention them briefly and proportionately. I understand OTRS people pass on these requests without judging the merits. But I don't see how we can help, or even if we should help. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would not lose any sleep if this article were deleted, as I think the case for notability is iffy at best. But that's not a question on the table. On point, the individual requesting deletion does not actually appear to be mentioned in the article at all, so maybe I'm missing something? If she wants the article deleted so that it does not mention her, but it doesn't actually mention her... what's the issue? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the mention of her along with numerous other previous members of the band, it was all unreferenced.Theroadislong (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article on a corporation should not and may not be removed based on a vague request of a former member. —Goudron (talk) 20:52, 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hamnett[edit]

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

Non-notable musician and academic (?). Page was created on 5 September 2009 by User:Mikeymd (suspected COI - see also below) and nominated for speedy deletion the same day. Speedy was declined by another editor on the grounds that Hamnett is "associated with notable acts".

In fact, none of the acts the article associates him with has a Wikipedia article,so notability of the acts is highly questionable, but regardless of their position, personal notability is not inherited in this way. There is nothing in the article to suggest that his work (for example, with The Lion King) is in any way notable; again, the shows he appeared in may be notable but this does not automatically transfer.

A Google search reveals nothing to suggest notability. There are several links to directories (e.g. of music teachers) and personal web pages of the subject and Myspace etc.. Another link is to a webpage of a friend of his. As an academic, he is not notable; in fact, the university website shows he is an instrumental tutor", so not a tenured academic in any case. The only vaguely independent sources are from a local newspaper, but that is simply a press release and a listing in Murcia Today: both of these are basically ads for the Canterbury Christ Church University big band (no Wikipedia article), which are actually about the band, not him.

Incidentally, Mikeymd's only contribution to Wikipedia apart from creating this article, was in August 2007 when he added Michael Hamnett as a notable person in Failsworth (see: [6]. This was reverted as "vanity". Emeraude (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. No significnat claim of notabilty. RadioFan (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 15:56, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable subject that fails WP:MUSIC. Article also has no verifiable references either failing WP:RS] and WP:V. Charon123able (talk) 19:01, 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 no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confide[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BAND. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Have we looked online to find better sources? Bearian (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in just a few clicks, I found plenty of sources to prove their notability per WP:BAND: # 4, they toured nationally, and # 5, they recorded with major indie labels. I am not stating my opinion on whether they are any good; I'm just stating the fact that they are notable. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also passes WP:Band # 6 - a former member, Arin Ilejay, is as notable for his other musical work, and perhaps their lead singer could be considered notable on his own. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 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 IMI plc. WP:OUTCOMES is "common outcomes" not "guaranteed outcomes", and besides that, it is an essay, not a guideline or policy. There appears to be no verifiable information about Mr. Lamb beyond his date of birth and employment, which means he is insufficiently notable per WP:BIO. —Darkwind (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Lamb[edit]

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

The only two references on the article simply state that this person exists and do not offer any notability. I originally requested this be deleted via WP:PROD which was disputed with a claim that he is notable simply because of his position in his company. It is hard for me to believe that this wiki offers blanket auto-exemptions for allowing a page to exist with a lack of reliable resources, especially in regards to the biography of a living person. Technical 13 (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looking at the article it is easy to see why this nomination has been made. How can one be inherently notable simply because one is a CEO of a large corporation? Surely one must have some genuine inherent notability for one's self? Having asked those questions I have tilted against enough windmills of declared inherent notability to know how this is likely to be closed. I am, for the moment, neutral. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now had further time to comnsider. Per AllyD below and per nom, plus my own considerations that a person is not inherently notable because their job is notable, I opt to Delete this article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect – To IMI plc. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The comments above and from the edit summary indicate a reluctant view that the subject may attain an inherent notability by virtue of his job. However having sought and added a couple of references, I am not finding anything substantially better than passing quotations relative to his job; generally we would say that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. It seems to me that the available sources fall short of WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Happy to revise that view if anything that clearly meets these criteria is located. AllyD (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to IMI plc. Not independently notable, and doesn't seem to be much to say about him. Within the context of a company article, a CEO who's been in place for over 10 years (plus providing other services to the company) deserves a mention, but he's not inherently notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Chief executives of FTSE 100 companies seem to me to be inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Necrothesp states, FTSE 100 CEOs are inherently notable. There seems to be well-established WP policy for this:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Business_people_and_executives. IMI plc is a company with a £2 billion turnover and a £4 billion market capitalisation, and Martin Lamb has been CEO for 12 years. With a few exceptions, all FTSE 100 CEOs have articles. Yes, he does seem to have a relatively low profile, probably because IMI is a specialist engineering company that is not widely known as far as the general public are concerned, but he is sufficiently notable. Edwardx (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that is an essay, only, and has no status save as formalised opinion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to the merge/redirect idea. Notability requires verifiable evidence and notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities says enough to me to know he should not have his own page (at least not yet). Technical 13 (talk) 11:42, 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April Alisa Marquette[edit]

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

Non-notable author. Citations provided are to several blog sites (on one of which Marquette serves as a guest writer). No mentions of this author in any reliable source to be found. Books appear to be self-published, as the publisher April Rains Publications appears to have published books only by Marquette. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just far too soon for this author to have an entry. She has self-published, but neither she nor her works have received any attention from reliable sources. Plenty of blog hits, but none that would be usable as RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:31, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in independent reluiable sources. The sourcing in the article is problematic, and I am unable to find any better in my own searches. -- Whpq (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 06:54, 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scotty Arsenault[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)

Non-notable artists. References are to obscure fan-based art sites and posts on alt.fan.furry. No significant coverage in reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added Commander Kitty, Arsenault's webcomic creation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:AB. This appears to be an autobio (or made by a close friend), seeing as the artist is only notarized (or really just mentioned, it's simply his account) on Google Groups, DeviantArt, etc. ChaseAm (talk) 19:17, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it seems to be self-written and non-notable. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:33, 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. —Darkwind (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boeretroos[edit]

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

suggested for wiktionary. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason for marking the article for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpvosloo (talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone can prove to me that this is the Afrikaans term for Coffee rather than koffie, in which case I'd recommend a redirect. As far as I can tell this is a trademark or product name of some kind. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Boere troos is, I think, Afrikaans for "farmer's rest". This is apparently an idiomatic reference to coffee, but not the Afrikaans word for coffee, which, as FreeRangeFrog points out, is koffie. Cnilep (talk) 03:20, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that (A) the article is factually incorrect, (B) it cites no sources to establish notability, (C) there is no distinct concept to be discussed other than the word itself, and (D) no one has suggested any reason to keep the article, I say close this discussion and delete the article. Cnilep (talk) 01:20, 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 delete. —Darkwind (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge of the Underdog[edit]

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

Unsourced affair. No evidence it ever made the charts. Fails WP:NALBUMS The Banner talk 20:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability, google search comes up with retail websites and blog posts - BigPimpinBrah (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:49, 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. —Darkwind (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Villegas[edit]

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

I cannot find evidence that this person meets WP:NMUSIC. Her primary fame seems to arise from appearing in a video with Justin Beiber and maybe/maybe-not dating/kissing him. Her only release was on a non-notable label, and a free download. Now, maybe there are sources, and I just can't find them, but what I have found isn't promising. Even if we verified all of the videos she's allegedly been in, I still don't think that makes her notable, as just appearing in a commercial or a video, or even in a non-recurring role on a TV show isn't necessarily enough to meet WP:ENT. However, should good sources become available, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination.Qwyrxian (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: What elements of WP:MUSIC does this wannabe fulfill? No sources and a free download "mixtape" put up on the Internet a year and a half ago? Ten thousand "auteurs" a week manage that much on Youtube. Ravenswing 03:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Star767 21:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to what I've found on Google News, there are actually sources, but it maybe is you just couldn't find them, and there seem to be enough to meet the notability guidelines on Wikipedia. (EditorE (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

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

Keep and allow improvement through regular editing as it seems that EditorE is correct and (sorry) Star767 is incorrect. The WP:GNG is met through multiple independent sources speaking about this person in enough detail to support an article.[7][8] With respects to Ravenswing, notability is not temporary. With respects to nominator Qwyrxian (willing to withdraw if sources are offered), We look first to the GNG and if met, need not then decide what SNGs she might or might not fail. It is only when the GNG is failed that we then look to see if she might otherwise meet an SNG. If she failed both, then a deletion would be correct. But if found to meets either GNG or SNG, a keep is correct. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But please note that WP:GNG requires in-depth coverage, and I don't think we have that here. Furthermore, every report I saw is either just listing her as a back-up to some other star (not in-depth) or is a "who's dating who", which falls under the routine coverage exception. So unless someone can actually point out some specific articles that have in depth coverage, I cannot withdraw. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG does not call for "in depth"... it calls for "significant coverage"... which are not the same things per Wikipedia definition. IE: " "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." So while long, in-depth articles are nice to have, what IS a requirement toward establishing notability is that sources need to provide more-than-trivial information in order to qualify as SIGCOV. We have those and and encyclopedic article can be maintained. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm also thinking is that there's a lot of info on her on her website's bio that not being used in the article, so maybe there could be some more in-depth info that can be used here. (EditorE (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I've also found quite a few interviews of her. These are found I've found so far: [9][10][11][12][13] She goes indepth into her mixtape and album and how she writes her songs, and other info on her. I'm sure there's a lot of other interviews out there, but I hope this will contribute to the aritcle well. (EditorE (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Her website is not independent, and youtube is basically never a reliable source per WP:RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but these interviews are from Clevver TV, What's Trending and Cambio, which are still pretty reliable sources. (EditorE (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Jasmine Villegas (aka Jasmine V) deserves her own wikipedia page. She has several singles for sale at Amazon.com including "Didn't Mean It", "Paint A Smile", "All These Boys" and "Serious" ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eat777 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several reliable and independent sources have significant coverage of her kissing the Bieber and of her music. Edison (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Davey2010 Talk 00:34, 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 speedy keep as nomination by indefinitely blocked user with no subsequent contrary opinions. TerriersFan (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WE School[edit]

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

Non notable school, lacking any reliable sources. Only link is the school's website. Star767 18:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Delete Keep Running - Very Highly Ranked. Also known as Welingkar Institute of Management Development and ResearchSchools are kept regardless Davey2010
Keep - Schools are kept regardless Davey2010 Talk 00:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAs per User:Davey2010 Uncletomwood (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Disruptive edit by blocked or banned user: User:Mattisse. Best regards, Cindy(need help?) 08:22, 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 all. —Darkwind (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Dance[edit]

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

A non-notable compilation series. Only sources found include listings on online retailer sites Amazon, iTunes, and MySpace, but no independent reliable coverage on this series. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, or at the least merge to I Love Dance. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:47, 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 redirect to List of James Bond films#Critical reception and accolades. —Darkwind (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations & Wons in the James Bond film series[edit]

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

Apart from the rather painful article title and gaping lack of sources, the content of this page is merely a replication of List of James Bond films#Critical reception and accolades. - SchroCat (talk) 17:07, 8 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 8. Snotbot t • c » 17:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title has subsequently been altered from Nominations & Wons in the James Bond film series to List of accolades received by the James Bond film series. Although less painful, the title is now mismatched to the article, as it is "accolades received" is not correct. The central issue—that of the article being a repetition of a section of a Featured List—still remains. - SchroCat (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the Academy Awards and the BAFTA awards are industry awards not critic awards, the section, "critical reception", is not accurately named. I recommend the section in List of James Bond films be changed to "Accolades" or something along those lines. I have no problem with deletion of this article but if someone were to try to save this, it is now under a more appropriate name and one used by other similar lists of awards by film. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Critical reception" probably isn't the most appropriate name, but I think it's called that simply because the section has evolved from a critical reception section. However, I don't think it's the place of an AfD to rename sections in articles that are not even nominated. It would be better to start a discussion at that particular article. Betty Logan (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant section has now been renamed "Critical reception and accolades". - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wons? Me fail English? Unpossible! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is redundant to List of james bond films#Critical reception, which covers awards and nominations. Betty Logan (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wons? Thank you for the very good laugh. This new article is redundant. - Fantr (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete -- Per everyone else. -- Cassianto ^Talk 17:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of James Bond films#Critical reception and accolades since we have a valid article title now. (Plus, redirects are cheap.) I assume we are okay with the accolades fitting into just a section, but is it not at all possible that there could be a valid stand-alone list of the accolades down the road? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Erik. Somewhere down the road, there could be a valid stand-alone list of the accolades for these films, but that would have to be after more such accolades are received. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:59, 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 all. —Darkwind (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Vectis route 2[edit]

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

After the Deletion of Southern Vectis route 1 which was supported by consensus this is a bulk deletion to debate the remaining lists. These are Non-notable bus routes, The articles are sourced to a number of of sources which are either primary or tangential to the route as a whole neither of which establish notability per the General notability guidleines which require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Any key information can be inserted into the Southern Vectis article but doesn't need its own sprawling article with an unsourced/unsourceable history. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC) The other articles nominated under this reasoning are:[reply]

Others exist but will be done in another batch. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Anyone with sense would check the operators website, not WP! Davey2010 Talk 00:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL.--Charles (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As route 1 has been deleted it clearly shows us that this article is not notable. Also per Davey, Who seriously will look on WP for this except a few people interested in buses. Go to wikia if it must but it should not stay here. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 17:19, 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. —Darkwind (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Esben and the Witch discography[edit]

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

The band only has 2 LPs, 2 EPS, and 6 singles, so I don't see the point of their discography having its own article. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 17:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now I think it's good practice to see an article before you vote to delete it, and this is tagged as "in creation". If international releases, chart positions, etc, are included, there may be material for an article. Or there may not. Give it a few days, then re-assess. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete entirely duplicative of Esben and the Witch (band) and the band article is not inappropriately weighed down by the discography to require a spin out of that content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:26, 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. —Darkwind (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daz Dillon[edit]

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

Non-notable recording artist. Article is most likely an autobiography as the author's username is DazDillon.

There are many claims of importance in the article but none of them would satisfy WP:ARTIST or WP:BIO. Subject fails WP:GNG with no Google News search or Google News Archive search results.

Many of the claims here seem to be false. Author claims that subject has been covered by HipHopSince1987.com and XXL Magazine but both show no mention of him on their entire website (see here and here).

Given the seemingly false claims made in the article, it may qualify for G11 but I think it's better to give this subject due diligence so that the article can't be easily recreated with other false claims of importance. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete see Wikipedia:Notability (music) Dusty|💬|You can help! 18:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - no plausible claims to fame. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think there are several unsubstantiated claims of importance but I can see how one would dismiss those given that several of these claims are patently false. I wouldn't oppose a speedy deletion but I doubt that this problem will go away with a speedy deletion. Having an AfD to fall back on will make this more permanent. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable - may save time to "Salt" it as well - Arjayay (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. In addition to the lack of press coverage, the mixtape he released for free "for the fans" currently has 146 streams and 2 downloads -- see [14]. -- Foetusized (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - don't know why we're even giving it the time of day.Deb (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under CSD A7. It is NOT enough to make an assertion of notability to overcome CSD A7. It must be a CREDIBLE assertion of notability. The article makes no credible assertion of notability, either as to WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. It is plainly eligible for deletion under A7. Safiel (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can agree that there is no credible assertion of notability, but I'll go with a regular rather than speedy deletion to ensure we have something that sticks. There is absolutely no coverage whatsoever in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I feel like I need to point out that to qualify for A7 speedy deletion, an article must not make any claim of importance not notability. Those are two very different things. The article makes several claims of importance, such as having received significant coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources which could even be considered a claim of notability per WP:GNG. Look, as much as the next editor, I don't like when people come to Wikipedia and write promotional articles about themselves and include information that seems to be completely made up but some of you seem a little eager to pull the trigger. With a speedy, you stand to have the user come back and make an article here or at another location on Wikipedia while we stand to gain literally nothing when compared to an AfD. The only thing we lose with an AfD is a little bit of time and we gain a discussion that will allow for G4 deletions in the future when the author will most likely return. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:29, 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. —Darkwind (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Steedley[edit]

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

Non notable minor league baseball player. He played in independent baseball last year and is currently a free agent. Spanneraol (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see some coverage from the Salisbury Post, but not from any other publications. Thus, he falls short of GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 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 and salt. There are now several reliable sources cited in the article, but they are all trivial coverage within the definition of WP:BASIC (with the exception of the OC Register article), and even combined, do not establish notability here. —Darkwind (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somaya Reece[edit]

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

Frequently recreated article that has zero independent reliable sources and fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The past two AfDs have reached a consensus to delete the article; no independent reliable sources have been found since then and the article was last speedy deleted in January. VH1 is not an independent source for someone on a VH1 reality show. - Sudo Ghost 16:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Proposer's claim of zero sourcing is false. VH1 is a reliable source for the appearance of someone on a VH1 reality show. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "zero sourcing", I said zero independent reliable sources. Articles require independent sources, and VH1 is far from an independent source, so that doesn't do anything for the notability of the subject. - Sudo Ghost 18:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
VH1 is independent of Somaya Reece, despite her appearance on a show on the network. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In no way is VH1 independent of an individual on a VH1 reality show, especially when this is the reference in question. It exists solely to promote the show. The claim that this is an independent source is completely inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards on independent sources, so how exactly do you figure that this is an independent source? - Sudo Ghost 20:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Somaya Reece is not VH1. Somaya Reece is not the CEO, president, or other officer of VH1. Somaya Reece is not VH1's publicist. Etc. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Somaya Reece is not VH1" is a critical misunderstanding of independence; VH1 has a vested interest in the individual, and stands to gain by promoting the show and the individual's connection with VH1. An interest in a topic is vested where the source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic; VH1 has a conflict of interest, hardly independent. The individual's profile on VH1 is due to being on a VH1 reality show, hence it is not an independent source. When you say that "Somaya Reece is not VH1," what you're describing is WP:ABOUTSELF, not independence, at least not any definition of "independent source" that has ever been used on Wikipedia. - Sudo Ghost 20:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A borderline case, but the lack of solid, independent secondary sources cements my !vote. Gamaliel (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added six more cites. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of which are trivial coverage, barely mentioning her name in passing while the articles discuss other subjects; articles require significant coverage, those sources don't have it. - Sudo Ghost 15:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised at your assessment of those sources, since they don't meet your desired conclusion. However, they do show the subject's notability, and you must have missed the Orange County Register and Fresno Bee articles, which are about this topic in particular (so your claim of "all" is objectively false). -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw those references, they do not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Those are local puffery pieces that add nothing to notability whatsoever; local "feel-good" news about an after school program does not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia, especially since that is not what this subject is supposedly known for by any means. It does not behoove you to comment about "desired conclusion", since you have argued to keep the article in all four AfDs, and have been the first person to comment on the past three AfDs, using rationales that have no basis in any Wikipedia policy or guideline whatsoever. This appears to be nothing more than bombardment in an attempt to make the article seem notable. If the subject's claim to notability is Love & Hip Hop but does not have actual notability herself, then it makes sense to redirect the subject to that article, as has been done with other individuals that appeared on that show, but it doesn't warrant a separate article. - Sudo Ghost 16:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I behooves me to do so; I have argued for each time, and disagreed with but respected the consensus that resulted from those. It does not behoove you to continue to assume bad faith on the parts of the editors who re-create and expand the article, just because you have decided that any of the sources used are trivial, puffery, or otherwise. If this discussion results in a delete, and later another editors recreates the article, and later it is AfDed again, I predict that I will !vote to keep again, and will do so first if no one has done so before I find the AfD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to WP:AAGF; accusing others of assuming bad faith where there is none does not help you in the least. - Sudo Ghost 17:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Biographical information will always have a lack of sources, as the only source that will always be copied is the first-hand accounts of the person who is the subject. Citing that the reference sources do not maintain Wikipedia's standard doesn't hold much weight. The dates, body of work, and other information is at least reference-able, and it is limited to the information available in the public domain, without intruding upon the privacy and rights of the individual. Save reference arguments for science, factual postings, and the like. This is biographic and public-work related, and as such it meets all the criteria, if facts disagree with the material, find a source that is more reliable, and reference it better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.132.66 (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical articles on Wikipedia have a requirement for notability, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. You're saying that the article is verifiable, but that's not the same as notability. - Sudo Ghost 18:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Because this is a very well formatted article, my initial thought was Keep. But then I looked at it, and this is really just a non-notable struggling artist. Her film credits are junk, her television credits are non-notable except for a VH1 reality show. All sources are primary, either from Somaya Reece's own websites or VH1's Love & Hip Hop website; everything else is just blogs. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 02:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times , the Orange County Register, the Fresno Bee, the St. Louis American, Watertown Daily Times, and The Hollywood Reporter are not primary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are also not significant coverage, as per the discussion above. - Sudo Ghost 21:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are also sufficient for notability, as per the discussion above. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are you referring to? I see no comment that would support anything of the sort; you're response to the explanation as to why those were insufficient was to throw around accusations of bad faith without addressing the content whatsoever. Those are trivial mentions that do not establish the notability of the subject; brief name-dropping on an article about another subject entirely does not contribute towards notability. - Sudo Ghost 20:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are talking about the show, not her. And several of these sources would be considered trades and therefore not notable coverage. The show she is on is significant, not Reece herself. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 23:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are talking about her on the show. Several of these sources are not considered trades and therefor notable coverage. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From Wikipedia:Notability: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Multiple independent sources which separately do not have depth of coverage are so combined here. "Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities: Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." That would hold true here as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither one of which has happened on this article. A "cult" following would need reliable sources showing that there is a cult following, there are none whatsoever. You quoted WP:BIO, btw, not WP:Notability, and you omitted a relevant portion of that sentence about trivial coverage; there are not enough independent sources to show any notability. A local after-school program "feel good" news piece and a few extremely trivial mentions do not create notability. - Sudo Ghost 20:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I am not trying to change your mind. I am presenting the opposing view for other readers and the closing admin. I am working on keeping an article that benefits the encyclopedia's readership. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sceptical about reality folk and their mp3 releases, but passing Wikipedia:Notability effectively demonstrated by JHunterJ. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With what sources is notability shown? - Sudo Ghost 06:33, 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 Speedy delete per criterion G1: patent nonsense. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of supreme relativity[edit]

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

I don't know a lot of physics, but I do know that an article about a theory that has no book hits whatsoever, and is sourced to a single document, is probably original research and does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. No prejudice to withdrawing this AFD if someone can provide evidence to the contrary. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of notability. No reliable sources given, nothing found on Google or WoK under this title. The article doesn't make any actual statement that could be used to find sources on the concept independent of the title. — HHHIPPO 17:14, 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TBA World Tour[edit]

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

A listing of confirmed concert dates does not make the tour itself notable. Fails WP:CONCERT. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete tours must receive significant coverage in independent sources to show notability and here not even the name is known. Hekerui (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt This article title should not exist in any form; if you're going to create a tentative world tour article, at least put some effort in and name the artist (oh, and actually give it sources too, of course). Nate • (chatter) 02:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCONCERT. Gong show 21:19, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entropy and the environment[edit]

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

Original research Bhny (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Assertions of the Earth being a closed thermodynamic system (patently wrong as sunlight adds energy to the Earth environment) and waste heat being the cause of global warming (dubious because a nearly constant 89 petawatts of incoming solar radiation dwarfs anything man can produce) are controversial. More importantly, there are no sources quoted in the article to back up these assertions, nor have I seen such sources in the mainstream scientific press. Hence this looks like original research and a bit of synthesis. Removing the OR and synth from the article would leave nothing left, hence delete. --Mark viking (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An incurable rubbish stacked on the false idea that “the entropy of the environment constantly increasing”, while in reality every planet in an open system and invariably releases the entropy to the outer space via thermal radiation. P.S. just typed this text, but was distracted so Gene93k came ahead. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and WP:SYN. --BDD (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and OSYN. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: Unsourced and unsourcable OR and synth. Actually, it sheer drivel and blither, with zero encyclopedic value. Can be deleted in its entirety, as there is nothing worth saving or merging elsewhere. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing salvageable. Garamond Lethet c 20:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be a sincere effort on the part of a legitimate subject matter expert, but a clear violation of WP:OR. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:10, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Frederick Bourne[edit]

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

Resume copy or auto/close associate biography without any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Tagged for almost a month without improvement. The-Pope (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:PROF. I note that prod could have been used, as the previous prod was a BLP-prod. Ray^Talk 01:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability per WP:GNG Adblock2 (talk) 03:46, 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 speedy delete G12 —David Eppstein (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Aravind Malagatti[edit]

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

This is apparently an article about the author himself and reads more like a CV. Should be shifted to user namespace The Wikimon (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is possibly notable. It's difficult to tell (he is a full professor and is in his fifties). However, as it stands the article needs deleting. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Per WP:G12. The article's text is obviously taken from dalitindia.in/author.HTML. Here is the duplicate report. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom Davey2010 Talk 00:36, 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. While PWilkinson (t c)'s points have merit, no sources have been provided to prove that he meets any of the WP:PROF criteria. —Darkwind (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bülent Gökay[edit]

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

Virtually no information; notability not established. Article started by a connected party $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 10:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page has no information whatsoever. Does not pet WP: Notability. The Wikimon (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE TB randley 14:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page suggests no evidence of notability per WP:ACADEMIC Adblock2 (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless Globalfautline (mentioned in the article) is somehow special, this article should go; if it is special, then that should be the page, not this man. Unfortunately, this page doesn't add much. Sophiahounslow (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No information that would establish notability. Kabirat (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics). MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Stubbing a fairly long article and then stating "virtually no information" as the primary reason for deletion is probably not to be recommended as a course of action - although stubbing, in this case, was admittedly almost completely unavoidable as the original article was an unwikified resume probably copy and pasted (by someone with obvious COI) from somewhere else. As to the subject's notability - I'm completely undecided. A professor at a middle-ranking English university has a good, but far from certain, chance of meeting WP:PROF on one or more criteria. Though, looking at the likely ones - British professorships are sufficiently less common than, for instance, American ones that the possibility of WP:PROF#5 should be considered, but they are sometimes awarded for administrative responsibilities one or two levels below what could justify WP:PROF#6, and this looks quite possible in this case. Otherwise, the subject has what looks like quite a long and respectable publication record, mostly in English but partly in Turkish, some of which looks probably well-cited considering his areas of research. The problem, made more difficult by the rather random order of the GScholar results, is judging whether he meets WP:PROF#1 - chances are, I think, that he doesn't quite, but I'm really not sure. PWilkinson (talk) 12:20, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn following article improvement without any dissenting !votes. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taco Bus[edit]

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

This article is almost written as an advertisement and because the restaurant chain is local, thus I don't think it is notable per WP:N --Z L Media 10:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible keep Taco Bus is an instution in the Tampa area. I trimmed the promotional content. If this is deleted then Gray's Papaya in New York should be deleted, Spago in LA, Pizzeria Uno from Chicago etc. This is one of the most well known eateries in the area. Candleabracadabra (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article has been cleaned up to look less like an advertisement. Thank you --Z L Media 12:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To nominator: are you requesting to withdraw this nomination? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am because the creator of the article did reorganize the article to look less like an advertisement to the restaurant chain, which was why I nominated the article. I withdraw my nomination --Z L Media 18:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but the article needs a lot of clean up; it's quite sloppy. Dusty|💬|You can help! 18:13, 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Kaynan[edit]

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

I couldn't find evidence that he meets WP:NMUSIC Boleyn (talk) 09:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with this page, I can't see how this guitarist is significant enough to warrant this page. Therefore I'm afraid I vote for 'delete'.Sophiahounslow (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I too an unable to find any third party coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely fails notability guidelines for musicians and does not have reliable sources. We cannot keep it. Dusty|💬|You can help! 18:12, 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 speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gjirafa Search Engine[edit]

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

Fails the notability guidelines. The website received no coverage from reliable sources Lakokat 08:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Should be deleted under A7. Moreover an Alexa rank of 8,367,924 fails WP:ORG --Ushau97 (talk) 10:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lakokat, the detailed mentioned in the article are ofcourse came from the right sources. you can check out the details on the websites facebook page. or you can mail the owner of the website itself [email protected]. contributing wikipedia doesnt make you a geek. i cant personally show you the owner of the site. if you want to investigate it then do it. 13:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ushau97, nowhere in the above mentioned policy it says an article can be posted according to alexa ranking. it is a regional website. it is mentioned in the article itself, "Albanian Web Search Engine" so the websites popularity will be mostly in albania (in just one month it is 4,717th popular website) and small amout of people outside albania. so what i mean is when you narrow down a website to certain aspects it really have importance, you are not seeing it through the right angle. it is just in the starting stage, let it grow..!! 13:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, as both unambiguous promotion (WP:CSD#G11) and a copyright infringement (WP:CSD#G12)

Certified Security Compliance Specialist (CSCS)[edit]

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

Article does not provide any context and is highly confusing to read through. Article needs to be restructured if it can be retained... The Wikimon (talk) 08:28, 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. —Darkwind (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Falcon[edit]

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

As this was deprod'd I'm nominating it for deletion. This does not pass notability from what I can determine. No main draws on the WTA tour. No Fed Cup, no victories in $50,000+ tournaments, etc. She is not notable per wiki sports and wiki project tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons stated. Dusty|💬|You can help! 17:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was the #1 ranked player in college tennis. I'm sure it doesn't matter, but it should. User:spatms (User talk:spatms) 23:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis is littered with great college players that went nowhere. Megan started playing pro tournaments in 2001, and in 11 years won a grand total of zero tournaments. That's singles and doubles combined. No matter how lowly a tournament. Winning a tiny $10,000 ITF tournament STILL does not qualify a player for notability, and she hasn't even won a $10,000 tournament. Being ranked in the top 3 in juniors or winning one of the junior Majors will qualify her... nope, she hasn't done that either and her best jr ranking was No. 59. Tennis project is pretty lenient in it's notability guidelines...many editors here feel it's too lenient. I just don't see where Megan Falcon is even close and she hasn't played an event since the middle of 2012. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, I'm sure it doesn't matter, but it should. Wikipedia needs to be more inclusive for college players.User:spatms (User talk:spatms) 17:52, 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 delete. —Darkwind (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert W. Cabell[edit]

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

I couldn't find evidence that he is (yet) notable. See WP:TOOSOON, WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creator's response to notability concerns, posted on Talk:Robert W. Cabell: I don't know exactly about Cabell's success as an author of novels but some of his plays / musicals are played on stage in Europe. That's why I think that notability is given:

Cabell’s musical „Z - The Masked Musical“ was initially released as CD with Pop Icon Deborah Gibson, Ruben Gomez, Roberto Blades, Marc Kudisch, Christiane Noll and others. The stage production premiered at ACE.

In 2013 there will be two productions of „Z - The Musical of Zorro“ in Germany. The first at Clingenburg Festspiele expects more than 20.000 visitors during six weeks.

Another production will be in Glasgow in 2014.

Cabell's „Wilde and Divine“ will be produced in Paris in winter 2013 with famous actress Marina Vlady.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the subject is notable primarily for future events (as the author of the page suggests) then the page should be created in the future. Dusty|💬|You can help! 18:10, 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. —Darkwind (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Tour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The tour has not ever been officially called "Paradise Tour", not by Del Rey or her label and the article cites no sources. teammathi (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article can get better and I don't know if Paradise Tour is the real name, but it's an official tour filling huge arenas throughout Europe, I think it deserves to stay.--94.36.46.186 (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The setlist and personnel section has no references failing WP:RS and WP:V. Add to that the fact that the setlist and personnel aren't factual until at least the tour has began (which is hasn't) so likely fails WP:CRYSTAL regardless of any sources relating to her current setlist or backing band. These sections should be deleted. The introduction (also unreferenced) tells us little that isn't already mentioned on Lana Del Rey except for the fact that are 41 shows and 2 legs (the second leg doesn't actually exist yet). As above the title of the article is erroneous. The tour is referred to as her "2013 European Tour" on her website. Her website is also the only reference used throughout the article. Charon123able (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Paradise (Lana Del Rey album). An article having "no sources" is not a reason for deletion. Please read [[WP:BEFORE}] prior to nominating an article for deletion. A few sources I found, without looking hard. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.... I just declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paradise Tour... certainly doesn't belong in the mainspace. We'll have the full story... at 11! 19:41, 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 delete. —Darkwind (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upstate Carolina Medical Center[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. not all medical centers are notable. sources i found mainly confirm its existence not indept coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG, has not received significant coverage from independent reliable sources; Google News Archive finds only routine local mentions. Not historic, only 25 years old. --MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 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 Speedily delete all, as blatant hoaxes. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 LN Tennis Open[edit]

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

Further to my nomination of "2013 ITF Tennis Open" at AfD earlier, I have now come across "LN Tennis Open", likewise, what seems to be an intricately-built hoax. Again, there is no tennis tournament called the "LN Tennis Open", there was no event this year, nor was there in 2011 or 2012. This link, a search from the ITF website's calendar, shows that there were no tennis tournaments in Kraków, Poland, since 1 January 2011, nor are there any planned for the remainder of this year. There certainly weren't or aren't any $100,000 tournaments at all in Poland. Again, the players have no record of having taken part in a professional ITF-sanctioned tournament in Poland in March, and the users Leshnavoka (talk · contribs) and Elenkova (talk · contribs) seem to be related in creating this hoax in its intricacy and its related articles, which, as in the other AfD, I am co-nominating:

LN Tennis Open (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2013 LN Tennis Open – Singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2013 LN Tennis Open – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2012 LN Tennis Open (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2012 LN Tennis Open – Singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2012 LN Tennis Open – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2011 LN Tennis Open (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2011 LN Tennis Open – Singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The best bit is, someone has actually gone to quite the trouble of creating these articles, and it is purely fiction. These tournaments didn't take place. Jared Preston (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete all as hoaxes: the fact that there's no mention of these so-called tournaments anywhere else (including on players' articles, usually) says enough. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Speedy Delete per nominator and Lukeno94. User:Pishotche and User:109.103.164.64 are also involved in these hoaxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asilv (talk • contribs) 09:54, 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 redirect to K League U-18 Challenge League. Anything that is worth merging can be done so from the history, as long as the content is attributed appropriately. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2011 High School Club Challenge League[edit]

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

Contested PROD, concern was "No indication this high school football league season is anywhere near notability requirements." PROD removed with the assertion the page needs references not deletion, but without addressing the lack of notability. This nomination covers a total of four articles, for which I believe identical deletion criteria apply. C 679 05:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three related articles listed below per nomination:

C 679 05:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 05:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all to K League U-18 Challenge League, no evidence of independent notability. Giant Snowman 19:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all: Basically what Snowman said. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all: Doesn't meet notability requirements. Basically no media coverage, even in Korean (search for "High School Club Challenge League", translated into Korean by visiting the associated Korean Wikipedia article). Richard Ye^talk 07:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to parent article K League U-18 Challenge League, as there is no need to make WP:SPINOFFS and these season-articles does not pass the general notability guideline. I also don't think it is much to merge into the parent article. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:09, 18 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. Consensus is relatively clear here that that the subject of the article is sufficiently notable and therefore should be kept, but could use a bit of TLC. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dev Ross[edit]

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

Non-notable screenwriter lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Awards appear to be local (with the exception of the Humanitas Award) and non consequential in nature. Support for awards is based on Zoominfo, non-independent data. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' Dev is an Emmy, Humanitas, and PBS ACT Award, so awards are "national", not local. Programs were for Disney, PBS, ABC, etc., please review the sites, again, as they were all national. I've added the Emmy reference, but it keeps crashing, that's why I didn't add it to begin with. I'm a genealogist, so I'm VERY particular about my sources. Yes, info is based on Zoominfo, as I cannot scan in Dev's college transcript, but the Zoominfo was not entered by Dev, it was entered by other sources, indicating Dev was the director and on the Executive Board, so the information was "independent".

I have included many more links and would appreciate you removing your deletion notice. People who worked for Dev at Disney have their own page and Dev is mentioned throughout Wiki, as she is simply by Googling her name, so she is not "non consequential". If you know who "Darkwing Duck", "Land Before Time", "The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh" or even "Monsters High" are, then you know who Dev Ross is. She is the woman who gave the characters the thoughts that the actors could voice...in some cases, she is the voice. If you or anyone you know watched animation on Disney, ABC, PBS, or an affiliate in the 1990's, most likely, they were watching something Dev was involved with.

Like almost all Wiki pages, this one is a work in progress. As time permits, as I receive more information, as people who are aficionados come forth with more information, I expect the page to grow. I listed this as a "stub". In edits by others, this got lost. Before you saw it, other information, including some of my valuable links, were also deleted, and since they were secondary and tertiary, I'm not sure why. I have spent more time working with administrators than I have working on this article. It was meant to link all of the Dev information together that is already on Wiki so that people can find it in one place and then know who the woman is, as she changed how the children of that era think and imagine, thereby, how their lives will be. I didn't put how Dev has raised over 30 foster kids and has 2 emus as I've only "heard" about that. Maybe someday I'll actually find out!

Your kind action to remove your deletion protest would be much appreciated. Thank you! Smacorder (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm having trouble verifying the Emmy wins and nominations. The current references are unacceptable. IMDb only lists one (joint) nomination to go with the Humanitas.[15] Clarityfiend (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. I have repeatedly placed the reference to the "emmy.com website, but it has been removed, as the link is broken. I will continue to try and have the webmaster fix the site. Anything else I have tried to use as reference has been also deleted as not substantial enough for verification, including Wiki pages that have already been approved. Without the actual site for the Emmy's, everything else is someone else's reporting. I am working on this significant detail. Unfortunately, they do not televise the awards for animation writers, so YouTube footage or similar media is out. Smacorder (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - 'Response'. I have added more links to other verifying sources for additional awards. The Daytime Emmy website is still not responding. Smacorder (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. The references are still execrable (now there's a word I don't use every day). Have you read WP:Reliable sources? The alleged win for TNRC PRESENTS doesn't agree with IMDb, which says that she was only nominated, along with ten of her fellow workers. Similarly, she is not named by IMDb in the The Return of Jafar nomination. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Response. I'm working on the TNRC for the IMDb entry to update it. Since working on this article, my computer took a drink of water and I've been off-line. I did update the Wiki Article with the name of the Series which Ms. Ross received the award. Here is the IMDb link that shows her on The Return of Jafar writers. I hope that helps!Smacorder (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's close, but I think this is a keep. This article needs some love, but even in its current state I think this is appropriate Wikipedia content. The subject is an award winning writer (Emmy, ACT, Annie, Humanitas) verifiable by third party sources. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 02:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs cleanup and a bit of a dusting off, but the subject is clearly notable enough, given the awards won. --Jayron32 03:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winning the Humanitas Prize for screenwriting is a strong claim of notability. Barbara Walters said "What the Nobel Prize is to literature and the Pulitzer Prize is to journalism, the Humanitas Prize has become for American television." This is not just an honor, she also won $10,000. This person's career both as a screenwriter and as a children's book author is long and distinguished. The article needs work and the references need to be formatted better, but Ross is notable in my judgment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm convinced that the subject's awards are sufficiently verifiable, especially the Humanitas Prize which is alone enough. The Winnie the Pooh show did indeed win the Emmy in 1989 [16], and Dev Ross was credited with writing in 1988, and thus getting the Emmy makes sense. Not solid proof, but it is strong enough for the article to be spared deletion while a more reliable reference (Daytime Emmy's website is indeed down) is found. Richard Ye^talk 07:59, 18 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bawa Bairagi[edit]

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

This article is awful, clearly. But the bigger problem is that its subject cannot easily be discerned. It is possible that the ostensible subject is Bairagi, which may be a backward caste according to this document (which istn't a reference for anything, given that it's a primary document). Google searches for "Bawa Bairagi" deliver nothing, nor for the other terms which are supposed synonyms (denied by the just-mentioned PDF). Note that the article was originally Bawa, which is not a redirect. In short, I cannot see evidence that this is actually a subject, though I'll gladly be proven wrong. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Its a badly written article about a non notable subject and there is lot of original research and not backed by good sources.Uncletomwood (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be written by a newbie unfamiliar with...well, any sort of policies on anything. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 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 Speedily delete all, as blatant hoaxes. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 ITF Tennis Open[edit]

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

Quite simply, this seems to be an intricate hoax. The "2013 ITF Tennis Open" does not exist. None of the players who are supposed to have taken part in this tennis tournament have a record of having doing so in their ITF profiles. Even conducting a search for all tennis tournaments for the calendar year 2013 in Ukraine on the ITF website shows that there is one single tournament this year, a $75,000 event in Donetsk in the summer. When I first came across this article, I was going to request a speedy deletion as a blatant hoax, but maybe there is some sort of explanation for this from the author. Jared Preston (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of procedure, I am co-nominating:

ITF Tennis Open (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2013 ITF Tennis Open – Singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2013 ITF Tennis Open – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

which just shows the length of this hoax. All without a single source which could help verify that this tennis tournament might have taken place. Jared Preston (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ha ha, no comment necessary. "Held annually since 2013" says enough even if it weren't a hoax (but it seems that it is). MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence that this tournament exists. Asilv (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See also related MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cartof. Asilv (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Four qualifiers in the semifinal stage? Highly unlikely. That alone would have drawn some tennis gossip if true and also my attention to speedy nominate it myself. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 09:48, 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 speedy delete (CSD G3). --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shant Arzoumanian[edit]

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

Contested speedy deletion of a rather obvious hoax. Alansohn (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. Nobody by this name ever played in the NBA, as far as I can tell, much less had the acclaimed basketball career described in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, vandalism. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, hoax. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, a funny hoax but still a hoax. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 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. J04n(talk page) 15:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amel Nadarevič[edit]

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

wp:gng Dusty|💬|You can help! 00:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Nomination does not address WP:NSOCCER. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Short reprieve followed by review: this article was just created yesterday, perhaps the creator (who appears to be a noob) is able to provide sources supporting notability but is too green to do so in a timely fashion. I suggest that the creator be contacted, instructed regarding notability policy and then see if three or four days is a long enough period to bring something more substantial. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if it was created yesterday, there's no evidence he meets WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY, either on Wiki, or in a Google search. It's also an unreferenced BLP. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per above. Sideways713 (talk) 14:35, 17 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--Ymblanter (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karun Kumar[edit]

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

PROD contested for no reason. The reason for proposed deletion was that there were no sources claiming that Kumar has actually played in the I-League. He has played for I-League clubs but that was when they were in the I-League 2nd Division. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Malayasian league is a fully-pro league.In the video mentioned there it says he has played in Malayasian league Debojyoti (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True but when he was in Malaysia his club played in the Malaysian Premier League which today is still not considered a fully-professional league. Therefore his time in Malaysia is not notable. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Was signed for a Malaysian club but did he even play? Giant Snowman 19:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if proof can be found that he has actually played in a professional match, then I will withdraw Spiderone 10:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Sideways713 (talk) 11:31, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslav Pilipovič[edit]

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

wp:gng Dusty|💬|You can help! 00:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The nomination doesn't address whether or not the subject is notable per WP:NSOCCER. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hadn't run across WP:NSOCCER or even WP:NFOOTBALL before but now that I have I see that no, this person fails [[WP::NSOCCER]].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusty relic (talk • contribs) 21:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Sideways713 (talk) 11:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this article passes. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Govvy (talk) 19:57, 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 speedily deleted by User:Yunshui under criterion G12 (copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DermaBlade[edit]

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

Another article by a PR Agency, this one a non-notable trademarked surgical blade. Judging by the URL's in the article (now surgically removed), it was also designed to promote a private cosmetic surgery company. The Dermablade has received some attention in Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology but the other sources are about the surgical procedure, not DermaBlade. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing the media coverage required. The existing refs don't provide detailed coverage: there are are 3 refs in the article to one short paragraph in the book Dermatological Surgery, and the Primary Care Dermatology Society newsletter doesn't have details. The article reads like a press release. If there was an article on the manufacturer, Personna, we might be able to merge there, but not sure if they're notable either. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for copyright it's almost a straight paste of the article "Surgical pearl: a flexible scalpel for shave excision of skin lesions", from the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. Captain Conundrum (talk) 11:06, 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, notability has not been demonstrated--Ymblanter (talk) 05:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Campbell Clegg[edit]

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

One of a group of men hanged in the American Revolution. Two of the existing references appear to be about the group, not him specifically; I can't tell about the third; and the fourth appears to be merely a collection of "offical rolls". Wikipedia is not a memorial. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to have sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet the coverage required under WP:GNG. EricSerge (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The political trial and hanging are notable under WP rules, the biography of this individual does not seem to be. If the author of the piece would like to have another go at it, including biographical detail within an article on the trial and needs help with inline footnoting or has any questions about Wikipedia's rather arcane sourcing rules, please do not hesitate to drop me a line, either off-wiki at [email protected] or by leaving a message on my talk page. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 00:49, 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.

^ http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_srch_drd_B008EGDO00?ie=UTF8&field-keywords=Jasmine%20Villegas&index=digital-music&search-type=ss

[1] ttp://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_srch_drd_B008EGDO00?ie=UTF8&field-keywords=Jasmine%20Villegas&index=digital-music&search-type=ss

[1]