Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 August	4 August >

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Senior Army Career Counselor[edit]

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

Minor office in the Army, dealing with its internal personnel issues. Created by openly promotional editor adding articles on all related positions and topics. DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the reasons outlined by that notorious deletionist DGG. Also note that this is a parochial U.S. Army item, with no global linkage, parallels or impact asserted or sourced. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above: this is not likely to be a notable position. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice towards redirection. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Killing Zone (film)[edit]

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

I found nothing significant about this film. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment: What a pitiful stub. If the author had used this and this he might have created a better article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Those don't seem to be reliable. SL93 (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The first link is a blog hosted on Blogger and the second one is a blog hosted on Wordpress. SL93 (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - correct, but they might have inspired a better article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deron McBee (its star). Rotten Tomatoes lists no reviews. IMDb only gives the 2 already mentioned. Rovi has a one-sentence summary.[1] No evidence of significant coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:05, 24 July 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, Stifle (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator says. Fails WP:NF. --Artene50 (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The argument that this is unverifiable (WP:V) is convincing. A Google Books search provides few hits, and none to German language sources; the cited reference (McNab, Chris (2009). The SS: 1923–1945. Amber Books Ltd. ISBN 978-1906626495. p. 30) does not seem to be available among the contributors to this discussion. Can be resurrected if better sourcing becomes available. Sandstein 06:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SS-Obermann[edit]

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

Deutsch: Ich schlage diesen Artikel zu Löschung vor, da es zu keiner Zeit in der Schutzstaffel (SS) Nazideutschlands bis 1945 den SS-Rang oder die Rangbezeichnung “SS-Obermann“ oder “Obermann“ gegeben hat. Die Rangbeschreibung ist reine Phantasie.
English: I propose to delete this article, because the rank “SS-Obermann” or “Obermann” did never exist in the German Schutzstaffel (SS). It is purely a fantasy rank description.
Русский: Я предлагаю стирание текущой стадии, потому что свание “СС-Оберманн“ или “Оберманн“ никада не существовало в Немеций СС до 1945г. Обяснение ранга яавляеться чистой фантасией.
--HHaeckel (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Well, if kept, the article needs to be re-written. I suggested this to the article's author since he has more detailed RS material as to the matter. It is listed in some works, but not others. The problem is that the SS would have titles and ranks, such as Reichsführer-SS, which was originally a title and later during 1934, became the highest rank of the SS. SS-Obermann is defined as basically meaning, "senior trooper"; similar to how SS-Stabsscharführer was used, as a title. So, it needs re-written or deleted in its present form. Kierzek (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a lack of verifiability. Google scholar search shows three books that use the term, all in English. There is not one source that can show an original German document that uses the term. I think, it is possible that in a part of the overlapping, individual-centered organization of the SS some bureaucrat created that rank in the last two years of the war. But it is also possible that this term relays on an individual transcription fault, copied from one second-hand source to others. As this is not a core term to understand that organization and waging the risk of creating original fault articles I would delete it until someone can show up a reliable source. --Ben Ben (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- It probably should be deleted at this point; a footnote could be added to the Mann article, if need be as to the matter. Kierzek (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A3. postdlf (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Platform No. 1[edit]

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

This is a strange one. An article on this subject was first created on 14 April 2011. It was taken to AFD in May 2012, which led to a decision to incubate the article. Unscintillating (talk · contribs) initiated a discussion about the incubated article at Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Platform No. 1. No one else contributed any input, but the "result" of the "discussion" involved creating a page in mainspace "to mark mainspace with a Portal template". The resulting page is obviously not a normal article, and as a result it was nominated for speedy deletion under the "no content" criterion. I declined the speedy because this clearly isn't the typical "no content" situation. Really I'm not sure what it is. Unscintillating has also posted about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Incubator Portal review, but even looking at their comments there, I can't make sense of what they are trying to do. So I'm bringing this to AFD for discussion so the community can provide input on whether this sort of "marker" is something that should be permitted in mainspace. RL0919 (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you knew that there was a discussion at the Village Pump, how will a 2nd discussion here help Wikipedia? Unscintillating (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to your "Speedy close" comments below. --RL0919 (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sppedy delete - no content. We do not need for every article that is "incubated" from articles for deletion, a note in the main namespace. Wikipedia is for articles, not notes that sometime in the future an article perhaps might be created here if references can be found and the editor can be bothered do write the article properly which he should have done in the first place. WP:TROUT Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this doesn't seem like a useful thing to do, but as far as I know this is something novel. (If it has been done before, someone please point to the precedent.) Speedy deletion is for things where it is already established that the community broadly agrees on deleting them. Something novel needs to be discussed first. If the discussion is overwhelmingly for deletion, then we'll know for the future. --RL0919 (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close This seems to have hit a nerve, there have already been two speedy-deletion tags, a prod, and now this AfD, but there is no urgency here, the worst that will happen is that we will attract new Malayalam editors. There is no argument for deletion, and the nominator mentions April 14 but doesn't seem to realize that the article was created in 2011, and the AfD was in 2012. This is already being discussed at WP:Village pump (policy)#Incubator Portal review. Unscintillating (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about the date; I did overlook the year. I've fixed that now so no one will be misled reading the nomination statement. As for the rest, no one but you has "discussed" anything about this anywhere, and this is the standard venue for discussing whether a page in mainspace should be deleted. If there is no need to delete it, then participants in the discussion can make that clear. --RL0919 (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - this article qualifies as both A1 and A3. There is no substantive content, and even if you take a sentence affirming the negative to be substantive content, there is no context whatsoever. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Basalisk is involved in the Omar Todd history that is part of the discussion at the Village Pump, in fact, I undid one of his/her edits to prepare to create the discussion at the village pump. Unscintillating (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

obvious speedy delete I would do this myself if I were not heavily involved in the discussion of closing the incubator. This is 'clearly an A3, no content, and the creation of it is decidely pointy. The user who created this needs to accept the reality that they are polishing the brass on the Titanic, and none of these bizarre attempts to expand this failed project are going to have the magical effect they apparently think they will. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious speedy delete per A1/A3 and above. Ansh6 6 6 20:50, 3 August 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. postdlf (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Bell Memorial Museum[edit]

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

There does not seem to be any real evidence for notability of this museum, except the minor award. A prod by another editor was declined. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is substantial news coverage of this museum, years apart, already cited in the article. And it's listed in multiple travel guides as an unusual Melbourne tourist attraction. [2][3] This strikes me as a typical example of an odd but notable tourist attraction, worded in a reasonably nonpromotional manner, and not the sort of thing whose deletion would improve the encyclopedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Florida Today, 50 Fabulous Places to Retire in America, and An Uncommon Guide to Florida. SL93 (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Winner of the prestigious Magruder award. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 01:18, 4 August 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. postdlf (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal Dutt Kulkarni[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lfdder (talk) 10:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete - Not finding much about this subject from internet searches. There are two GBooks hits [4], one which appears to be a passing mention in the snippet view [5] and one that is a work authored by the subject [6]. There's one Google Scholar hit [7], which leads to this WorldCat entry [8]. Per internet searches, the subject may not meet WP:BASIC for a Wikipedia article. That said, this is a "leaning" delete, because keeping systemic bias in mind, it's possible that Indian sources may cover this subject in more detail. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:15, 27 July 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, Courcelles 17:22, 3 August 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 Soft delete. With no objections, I am treating this as an expired PROD so undeletion may be requested at WP:REFUND without formality. Stifle (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Four Minutes Being Cool[edit]

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

No indication of the subject's importance and certainly no support for notability found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - While there aren't too many Bing hits, the Italian version seems to have a much more substantial article. I'm not sure how reliable the sources are, however. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:42, 26 July 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, Courcelles 17:18, 3 August 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. Secret ^account 03:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Na Palm[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 03:08, 18 July 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 July 18. Snotbot t • c » 04:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Besides this article, coverage appears limited to college newspapers, non-notable blogs, or trivial mentions. Gong show 08:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSBIO and WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there is some evidence of touring nationally, thus passing WP:BAND barely. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 29 July 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, Courcelles 17:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing is very sparse. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:14, 4 August 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. After being relisted twice, there is no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rockwell Knuckles[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 02:59, 18 July 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 July 18. Snotbot t • c » 04:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not finding a whole lot on this artist in reliable sources, but there's the long Riverfront Times story [9] already referenced in the article, plus some coverage at NPR [10], Spinner [11], and smaller blurbs in Spin magazine [12] and The Village Voice [13]. All in all, I think there's just enough material to support an article. Gong show 08:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:21, 26 July 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, Courcelles 17:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know enough about this genre to vote, but there does seem to be a fair amount of material. The Village Voice entry, though, is in the blog rather than the main magazine. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:58, 6 August 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 minor planets: 14001–15000#501. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

14598 Larrysmith[edit]

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

I found no sources to demonstrate notability of this. Beerest355 Talk 16:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I could not locate any suitable sources. It doesn't satisfy WP:NASTCRIT or WP:GNG, so I suggest redirecting to List of minor planets: 14001–15000#501 per WP:NASTHELP. Praemonitus (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Praemonitus -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:32, 8 August 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. postdlf (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliance Digital[edit]

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

advertising for a non-notable chain, subsidiary of a subsidiary company. The Banner talk 13:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With 100 stores, this is the largest chain of consumer electronics stores in India, a valid claim of notability. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources already in the article to meet the WP:GNG, and a Google News Archive search shows many more articles in reliable Indian newspapers. The fact that Reliance Digital is a subsidiary of a larger company is not a reason to delete the article. We have many articles about notable subsidiary companies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, see reference from article: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-04-12/news/31331104_1_reliance-digital-ceo-brands-indian-retailer "... to become the country's largest electronic retail chain." OSborn ^arf_contribs. 17:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the wording in the article. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 18:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, see the mentions of Reliance Digital in a recent article in a leading newpaper http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/reliance-retails-growth-trail/article4974498.ece .It is an important part of huge conglomerate.Ekaagar (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Reliance Digital is the biggest Retail chain in India and has sufficient coverage on reliable and authoritative platforms. This addresses the notability and reliable sources issue.Tushar Taliyan (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Reliance Digital is the biggest retail chain in the electronics domain in the country. Presence of the company in different secondary references makes it notable and that it is deemed fit to be part of Wikipedia.Mananshah15 (talk) 03:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I accept that the chain is notable. It was the point that suddenly several Reliance companies where showing up at Wikipedia that gave me the idea of a promotion-campaign. The Banner talk 12:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC) And no, I did not withdraw the nomination. I still have the idea that it is advertising and part of a wider campaign. The Banner talk 23:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I did not understand there was still an open question to be resolved. Is there a promotional issue on the page which cannot be fixed via cleanup? (Again, sorry about misunderstanding your post.) OSborn ^arf_contribs. 00:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner - Can u please let me know how do u feel that this is the part of 'so-called advertising campaign' ? I started the article and amused to know that you think this is advertising? Can you please elaborate with 'proofs or references' ?? Beacuse going by your logic every company that is present in the Business Project or Companies Project will be a part of a promotion campaign since today every company does have a marketing arm with them. Mananshah15 (talk) 03:32, 6 August 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. postdlf (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliance Fresh[edit]

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

Looks like advertising for a non-notable supermarket chain, subsidiary of a subsidiary company. The Banner talk 13:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News Archive search shows extensive significant coverage by many reliable Indian newspaper sources of this chain of several hundred grocery stores in India. I also found a lengthy article in the French newspaper Le Figaro. The fact that the chain is a subsidiary of a larger company is no reason to delete. The article should be improved through normal editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable per a simple Google News search. The article doesn't read like an advertisement, and why would an advertisement include a controversy section? Seriously? SL93 (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I accept that the chain is notable. It was the point that suddenly several Reliance companies where showing up at Wikipedia that gave me the idea of a promotion-campaign. The Banner talk 12:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reliance Fresh is a notable chain owned by Reliance Industries - one of largest companies of India. Afd is not the place for articles which need citations or improvements - just tag it. It should be Keep as per WP:SNOW - Jethwarp (talk) 03:59, 6 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

X-Play's sketches and segments[edit]

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

Listcruft of sketches with no realworld notabilty. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancruft. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 17:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sad to see this go eight months after the show ended, but it's time. No sources and reads more like a TVTropes piece than something that belongs here. Nate • (chatter) 23:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable list of episodes. A generic description of shows/skits/segments can be easily summarized in the main article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This cruft is fluffier than Fluffy itself. Not even a useful redirect (and god knows I love cheap redirects). :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:27, 5 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Min Jung Kim[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, has been tagged for over 3 years, but nobody has fixed it. Sources are all very trivial and/or not third-party. Otterathome (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, at least not yet. The article cites a couple of things from the San Francisco Chronicle - one actually about her, one quoting her - but not enough for notability. I couldn't find a thing in a Google News search - complicated by the fact that she has a very common name. --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator's analysis. Finnegas (talk) 19:56, 10 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Engelbertha Stroebele[edit]

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

... As Engelbertha Stroebele's supposed brother Friedrich Alfred Krupp was born only three months earlier than Engelbertha, the original research of this article is funny but ridiculous and wrong. Believe me, also in Germany women do not deliver every quarter ;-) Furter on, the name of the Lady is Engelbertha Stroebele and not Krupp. Her life is a nice memory to her family but not relevant for an cyclopedia. Significantly there is no article in the German part of Wikipedia. (RCasimir) Tönjes (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am adding to this nomination the following page about Engelbertha's husband, sourced only to David Stroebel's book, because no notability is asserted apart from his wife's supposed Krupp connection. JohnCD (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. The only notability asserted is her supposed Krupp parentage, and the sourcing for that is dubious, to put it mildly. "Caroline Marchuck, telephone conversation with author" and "A total of 15 "revelations" passed down through six relatives within the Stroebele family" are not the reliable, published sources required by WP:Verifiability. The principal author, user Dstrob (talk · contribs), identifies himself as David Stroebel, descendant of the subject, author of the book cited, and Founder, Chairman and CEO of the "Engelbertha Krupp Foundation": this gives him a severe conflict of interest. The sections "Impact of banishment" and "Discovery of photograph" are pure speculation and original research. JohnCD (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to admit I didn't do my homework on this after assisting the primary contributor to move the initial draft from his userpage to articlespace. Every single Google hit on the topic seems to lead back to the author's book, and the book itself has, as far as I can see, no significant secondary coverage. Therefore we can assume that this is original research. It may be that the author's theory might gain some traction and recognition in the future, but for now Wikipedia is helping led credence and notability to it, which is not our role. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. For being original research and a few details that don't fit. Her birthday only three months after her brothers birth. Her Husband J.J. Stroebele described as a shoemaker and Reserve Officer. A craftsman as an officer in the Prussian Army at 1870? No way, in this army with its officer corpse full of noble Junkers was it difficult even for well educated, wealthy sons of the middle class to get promoted to officer. --Ben Ben (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Factual errors (esp. regarding Prussian law system), poorly sourced (see above), doubtful relevance of the topic of the articles. The article might be recreated if the story should ever be proven to be correct.

In addition, both Stroebeles fail to meet the notability criteria: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. There is only one source (to which the news articles refer) and that one source has been published by a descendant of the person in question and who therefore is not independent. --Vertigo Man-iac (talk) 17:00, 7 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdie Catropa[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP since creation in 2005, PROD challenged so AfD discussion is needed to delete PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 10:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of notability. Delete. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NGOLF and WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My google news search seems to indicate that there may be two golfers named "Ferdie Catropa". It's behind a pay wall, but the summary of this article is about Ferdie and his twin brother Ernie who were both pro golfers. The article is dated Aug 12, 1957 and the person that is the subject of this article is born on 1953. A four year old pro golfer would be astounding. Perhaps it is a relative. This paywalled article does correspond to information in our article. A 17-year old Ferdie who is the subject of the article dated Aug 20, 1970 would match a birth year of 1953. None of the information that I can access can confirm that WP:NGOLF is met, but I'm neutral at this point. -- Whpq (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- nytimes article claims ferdie is ernie's son. romnempire (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At this point, I'm going with deletion for this article. The coverage I can find is almost all about the elder Ferdie. The article states that the subject didn't win any tournaments on the PGA, and there is no evidence to contradict that assertion. There's no evidence in anything I've found to indicate that any of the notability for a golfer is met. -- Whpq (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise[edit]

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

This article has survived for more than eight years but it still lacks any real evidence that it has any notability outside healthcare circles. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep there's nothing wrong with domain-specific articles. and more to the point, Healthcare comprises around 18% of US GDP so it's hardly some fringe sector, it is a major and central one. We have plenty of articles about different political science theories for example, most of which would never have graced the pages of the New York Times or other mainstream media. A google news archive search returns dozens or more hits, like this, And even hits in foreign language press. This subject is clearly notable, subject to multiple and detailed treatment in many different publications and not simply obscure ones. The Article itself needs improvement, assistance requested.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are thousands of results on Google scholar, many from peer-reviewed respected medical journals. Indeed, it is notable mostly within that community, but that community could easily be much larger than other communities who have their articles in Wikipedia, so is no way grounds for deletion. The article itself was horrible, just a cut-n-paste from the organization's web site. I had to spend a few minutes digging to get an idea of who they really are and what they do. Will try to rescue. I would say long before this one goes, Cross Enterprise Document Sharing should go, which is just one document produced by this organization. W Nowicki (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lack of notability outside the health care sector is not, of course, a valid ground for deletion. There are numerous perfectly legitimate articles that are not notable outside their sector or niche. What was a valid basis for deletion was the unsourced and advertsorial state when it was proposed. This has now changed due to sterling work by User:W Nowicki which has established notability. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although always more to do on it. Could someone review if all the complaint tags are still needed? W Nowicki (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, excellent work W Nowicki.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the three tags because the concerns have now been met. However, I think that the sponsorship section does need sourcing and I have tagged it accordingly. I had a quick look but have not readily found a good reference. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:21, 5 August 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. postdlf (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extramarital sex[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:CONTENTFORK of adultery. Dea db eef 06:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a content fork since not all extramarital sex is adultery. The extramarital sex article needs some tweaking rather than deleting. They are also very popular topics (in theory and practice!) so deserve separate articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alan. Diego Moya (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alan - "not all extramarital sex is adultery". Ansh6 6 6 17:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rethink on the highest level (if there is such a thing here :-)). Adultery is a legal concept, and has a good article here. The general topic of extramarital sex is much broader and deserves a much better article. Consider that there are/have been hundreds if not thousands of cultures and legal systems and that the concept of marriage is not the same across them, and is in fact being redefined right now. How about a same-sex married couple where one, with the consent of the other, has heterosexual sex for the purpose of having a child? Let's have a section on that. But regardless keep the title alive since it's a topic many people are interested in, although I hardly need to say that. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I didn't click on "free images" in my research to decide my vote. :-) -Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Alan. --Dede2008 (talk) 15:40, 4 August 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 close. Nominator was not requesting deletion; another user suggested WP:RPP and the article has thus been protected. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Heights (TV series)[edit]

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

Insufficient sourcing on a limited run series that is just causing edit-wars between page owning user(s) and IP addresses. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 05:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wrong venue by far; show was on the air on a national network, and if you're having problems with IP's take it to WP:RFP where they can probably get you some time to clean this article up. I will make that request for you, but putting this article up for deletion when a few IP's are causing trouble for the article is truly the wrong decision. This article does need sources, but the "list of episodes" should help you out with that. Nate • (chatter) 06:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the "ownership" issue you claim? It's good faith vandalism reversion by that editor trying to keep the incorrect IP information off the page, so please strike that from your rationale. Removing incorrect information even beyond the usual 3RR rules is not OWN by any yardstick. Nate • (chatter) 23:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close. No policy based deletion argument presented by the nom. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 3 August 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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian ambassadors to Burkina Faso[edit]

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

The only three blue linked articles have notability tags on them. This appears to be a list of only non-notable people. SL93 (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment related recent-discussions/essays/guidelines seem to be WP:DIPLOMAT and Wikipedia:Generally notable people and Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard/Archive_14#Diplomats/ambassadors: Rfc and Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2013#RfC: A proposal to see if consensus has changed regarding notability of certain diplomats.2C possibly modifying the guideline WP:DIPLOMAT and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 104#Ambassadors: are they notable? - perhaps those links could be compiled somewhere permanently? HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Burkina Faso–Canada relations is a notable topic, and this is a reasonable component of that topic. If the individual ambassadors are non-notable (a dubious claim) then they can be merged into this list. Pburka (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I never made that claim. I said that they appear to be non-notable. It can't be a reasonable component of a topic that doesn't exist. SL93 (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you're confusing a topic with an article. Pburka (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't. You linked Burkina Faso–Canada relations, which I know is a topic, and it does not have an article. This list has been around since 2004, and there is no indication that an article about the topic will exist. An article about a topic should be created before any spin-offs. SL93 (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - To clarify, you acknowledge that Burkina Faso–Canada relations exists as a notable topic, and that this article is an important part of that topic. You also admit that the members of this list may be notable. If I understand correctly, your argument for deletion is that the parent topic doesn't yet have an article. Surely the solution is to write an article, not delete the subtopics. Pburka (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        No one has come forth with proof that they are notable, including in this AfD. The burden of evidence is on the editors who want to show notability of those people. "Surely the solution is to write an article, not delete the subtopics." That is my point exactly. This list should stay once someone does create an article on the topic. I don't take essays into account. SL93 (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Surely it would have been nearly as easy, and more productive, to create the Burkina Faso–Canada relations article. I know you don't like essays, but I think WP:NOTCLEANUP is apropos. Pburka (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up does not include creating articles. SL93 (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, you indicated that "This list should stay once someone does create an article on the topic." I presume that you will now withdraw the nomination. Pburka (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- This isn't the first time that I have seen similar keep votes, but the article actually existed in those cases. SL93 (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The recent notability guideline discussions were about whether permanent ambassadors between nations were entitled automatically to standalone articles for each individual one. Even if the answer to that is "no", that does not mean that individual ambassadors are presumed nonnotable, nor that the diplomatic posts themselves are not notable, nor that we should not list the holders of a particular diplomatic post. I'd think those who are opposed to standalone articles would prefer these lists as a compromise to merge likely permastubs. postdlf (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Burkina Faso–Canada relations or keep, as the individual topics do not appear to be greatly expandable. Also, remove the redlinks from the persons who are not likely to be/become notable. –Quiddity (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't withdraw it. There is a merge vote. SL93 (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I missed the "or keep" part. This is withdrawn. SL93 (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Note that withdrawing a nomination is never forbidden. The prohibition you're referring to relates to non-administrative closure. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Withdrawing a nomination. Pburka (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the individual ambassadors aren't properly sourced enough to stand alone as independent articles, a list of their names is still a perfectly reasonable thing for us to have. For example, we do allow lists of cities' mayors to stand even if the city is too small for its mayors to be considered notable enough for standalone biographical articles; we just don't link the mayors' names if they don't have articles to link to. Keep the list, or merge it into a subsection of Burkina Faso–Canada relations. Bearcat (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Burkina Faso–Canada relations Common sense would indicate that a separate article is not needed. Atrian (talk) 18:32, 5 August 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. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AmericanSnipers.org[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this organization. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not covered on Fox News and CNN as stated in the article. Fails WP:ORG to the point of almost being a speedy A7 delete assuming that it isn't done under G11! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 10:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Double-checked "references" to Fox News and CNN, nothing panned out. This appears to be promotional. Going to nominate for speedy deletion. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 23:40, 6 August 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. postdlf (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Herbal Formulas and Applications[edit]

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

Books doesn't meet any of the criteria for book notability. Article seems more promotional as well. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 00:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. I couldn't find anything at all substantial about this book, and it has been cited only twice according to Google Scholar. Clearly not notable by any stretch of the imagination. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – couldn't find any relevant third-party sources. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 03:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A book with no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find sufficient support to pass WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Zad68 01:41, 5 August 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. postdlf (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Park[edit]

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

Reason Listed as an actress and musician on Wikipedia, wondering about the notability of acting performances. Doesn't seem the meet the evidence for WP:MUSIC,WP:NACTOR? Cannot find any information about the bands online. Some of the supporting articles seem self-promotional (website of her own theater company, personal website). Banchasana (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject-specific notability criteria do not override the general ones, and Park has been the subject of profiles in newspapers, magazines and printed books (as cited), chiefly but not exclusively in relation to her work as host of Chic-A-Go-Go. Speaking as the creator, I would not have added this article were I not confident that it cleared WP:GNG and WP:BIO by a wide margin. Further, judging from the numerous incoming redlinks, I was not the first to come to that conclusion. If this is deleted, I would like clarification on one point: how many non-trivial treatments in independent secondary sources would be needed for it to be kept? -- Visviva (talk) 20:32, 28 July 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) 00:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the General notability guideline as host of a ~~broadcast~~ TV show for 15 years, and there is no need to invoke narrower actor or musician guidelines, as those fields are not her primary claim to notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation about general/subject-specific guidelines. I was confused because her page is tagged with actor/musician labels - the actor/musician information on the page seemed more promotional. To clarify: the show she hosted (which has a Wikipedia entry) is a community access TV show, not a broadcast TV show. Banchasana (talk) 20:19, 5 August 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. postdlf (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revelation Records[edit]

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

The article lacks independent and reliable sources to satisfy WP:MUSIC. The reference which states the pressing stats indicates a few hundred or a couple of thousand records would be pressed, often for sale by the band on the record at their appearances. May be part of a walled garden articles about labels, acts and musicians. Edison (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very significant 1990s American punk label. Almost guaranteed to have been the subject of coverage in Flipside, MRR, Punk Planet, Hit List, etc. Carrite (talk) 04:27, 28 July 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) 00:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lacking sources does not equal non-notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:42, 3 August 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 John Porcelly. postdlf (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schism Records[edit]

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

Tagged as unreferenced for 2 years, this record label may not satisfy WP:MUSIC . Produced records in limited numbers, often given away with a fan magazine put out by the same persons. Edison (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 05:16, 27 July 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) 00:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to John Porcelly as a possible search term. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:41, 3 August 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. There is no consensus to delete. Merge discussion should take place on the talk page as pointed by KvnG. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multitasking (iOS)[edit]

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

Does not warrant a separate article. There is no real difference between the concept of computer multitasking and this specific implementation. Some of the content could be merged back into iOS. Don Cuan (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IOS article is ~51 kB but IOS#Multitasking contains much of the same information. Two articles specifically about IOS multitasking in PC World, two in Macworld, one in the Register and one on gizmodo.com would seem to satisfy WP:GNG. If this is to be kept, the section in IOS could be removed, could it not? If it's merged, IOS needn't grow much. —rybec 03:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 05:14, 27 July 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) 00:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multitasking in iOS was a big deal in specialized news media, first for its lack thereof and later for its limited approach. Although that is not reflected in the article's text, it's available at the provided references. The article should be expanded to reflect that view, but as it is now it complies with WP:GNG. Diego Moya (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep AfD is not for merge discussion. I have put up some merge banners. Please discuss this on the talk page. ~KvnG 05:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to iOS. I'm confused why there's a separate article to begin with. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 02:31, 8 August 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. postdlf (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acropolis Institute of Technology and Research[edit]

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

Non-notable education institute, with no news sources and fleeting mentions in books. Beerest355 Talk 19:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a degree-awarding institution which experience shows can invariably be developed to meet WP:N. Recently created and, to avoid systemic bias, time needs to be allowed for sources to be researched locally and in Hindi. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:06, 27 July 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) 00:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The Whispering Wind - As a degree-awarding institution, it shares the same presumption of notability granted to high schools. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:02, 7 August 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 Steady B. The other articles can be redirected at will (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's My Name (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album, fails WP:NALBUMS. Beerest355 Talk 00:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Steady B unless there's addition information/reviews forthcoming. Notwithstanding the proposal for deletion, WP:NALBUMS clearly says "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:35, 29 July 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) 00:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Steady B for the same reasons as those given by Colapeninsula. Though there's a probability there was paper coverage of the album back in the pre-internet era, the coverage will need to be found before an article like this is created. The same can be said for his other album articles, in my view they should be WP:BOLD-ly redirected following the outcome of this AfD. Sionk (talk) 04:27, 3 August 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.