Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 December	30 December >

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 speedy deletion (A7). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Olly Cunningham[edit]

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

I can't decide if this is a hoax or simply very hard to verify.

If the character did exist, it doesn't seem to be notable on its own as I can find no information about the character. If it's fake, the article should obviously be deleted.

The Hollyoaks show has the largest list of characters I've ever seen for a show and they're well documented on Wikipedia. See Template:Hollyoaks characters for the numerous character articles. None of them mention anything about an Olly Cunningham. They do mention a Holly Cunningham but that's a female character that obviously doesn't fit the description given in this article.

A [Google search] for "Olly Cunningham Hollyoaks" produces no results outside of this article.

A Google search for "Phil Johnston Olly Cunningham" produces no results (the real name of the actor whom allegedly played Olly Cunningham).

I've never heard of the show before today I didn't go through every plot summary out there but I couldn't find anything about this character showing up on the show. He also doesn't appear in the article about his "long lost brother", Tom Cunningham. Using the term "long lost brother" for a 14 year old child doesn't make much sense to me either.

Lastly, IMDB has no page for Phil Johnston. There are two Phil Johnston actors listed and neither would be the right age to have played this character.

If the character is real, this article should be redirected to either to another related topic. If no one else can find information about the character, the article should be deleted. OlYeller21^Talktome 00:00, 30 December 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EMarketer[edit]

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

Non notable market research firm. Every reference is either self-published or a routine notice based on press releases,. DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are quite a few citations of their various market studies in Google Books and Google Scholar, so I'm inclined to think they might be notable. We should probably treat them as a we do press agencies (or academics) in this respect, i.e. if they are cited enough they are notable. How much is enough though? They seem to have thousands of citations, so I would say it's a keep. (Look for example how many times they've been cited in WSJ just in the last month [1]. In total, there are something like 55 pages (1000+ results) of ghits for eMarketer on WSJ's site alone.) Sure it would be nice to dig some WP:GNG coverage about the company itself, but going through thousands of pages is a lot of work... We might as well delete Forrester Research for it has a comparable number of hits in WSJ last month [2]. (Gartner has two or three times that number). And there are some web pages out there comparing eMarketer to Forrester [3][4] and some books do that as well [5] [6], so this isn't outlandish... This [7] for example works towards satisfying GNG. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Easy keep. Agree with the above. Plenty of citations from reputable sources. They are clearly notable by how much their content is cited in other publications. E.g. [8]. However, some references should clearly not be there - Yahoo listing and Linkedin profile! Some are clearly also based on press or have a large spin from the company or owners. However, for a media-savy company perhaps that should be expected to some degree. But easy keep. GoldenClockCar (talk) 12:57, 28 December 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, Daniel (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2014 (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 Nike, Inc.. Courcelles 08:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Total 90 Tracer[edit]

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

An stub article about a soccer ball (!?) made by Nike, used as the official ball in various leagues in 2010-2011, with no sources other than a link to Nike themselves. Should IMHO be deleted as pure (outdated) promo. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 22:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment It would be the reaction of most people, I would imagine, that articles on soccer ball brands would be outside the the scope of a real general interest encyclopedia, but we appear to have many of them. I cannot see any rational basis on which to distinguish this one from others, so unless we are going to step up to deleting the lot, it's hard for me to say why this one should be deleted. Mangoe (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's not an article about a soccer ball brand, it's an article about a specific model of soccer ball. The brand article is Nike, Inc.. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 07:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nike, Inc. as not independently notable. Giant Snowman 11:19, 24 December 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, Daniel (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nike, Inc. Does not merit its own article. JMHamo (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2014 (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. KTC (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sam.c.s[edit]

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

A search for independent reliable sources indicates failure to meet WP:GNG. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possibly CSD A7). Effectively a WP:SPA CV for a software engineer who has been involved in some movie music. No evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any evidence that he meets the guidelines for inclusion at WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 07:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could not find any coverage whatsoever. --quantumobserver ^position momentum _{entanglements} 02:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced BLP and failure to establish notability. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 15:02, 5 January 2014 (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

María Soledad Ortega de Argüello[edit]

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

The article indicated that her only claim to fame is as an heiress. It is true that she inherited a huge piece of property. But is this sufficiently notable for encyclopedic purposes? I am not so sure and so would like a discussion. Weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many articles and books about the early history of California talk about her. She is not known for her deeds but for her land. The US Supreme Court case Arguello vs United States (1855) was prominent, the one which decided her land; it set a precedent. See list of sources below. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The Arguellos and Rancho de las Pulgas", The Daily Journal, August 4, 2008.
San Carlos, by Nicholas A. Veronico and Betty S. Veronico. Arcadia Publishing, 2007.
Redwood City, by Nicholas A. Veronico, Betty S. Veronico, Reg McGovern and Janet McGovern. Arcadia Publishing, 2010.
Cemeteries of Santa Clara, by Bea Lichtenstein. Arcadia Publishing, 2005.
Brief History of the Pulgas Case and Decisions Bearing on it, by James William Denver and Maria de la Soledad Ortega de Arguello. 1878.
Historic Spots in California, edited by Mildred Brooke Hoover and Douglas E. Kyle. Stanford University Press, 2002.
Reports of Cases Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of California, Volume 21, by the California. Supreme Court. 1906.
Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior on the Operations of the Department, Volume 2, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1886.
The Federal Cases: Comprising Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit and District Courts of the United States from the Earliest Times to the Beginning of the Federal Reporter, Arranged Alphabetically by the Titles of the Cases, and Numbered Consecutively, Book 17, West Publishing Company, 1895.
History of California: 1801-1824, by Hubert Howe Bancroft, Henry Lebbeus Oak, William Nemos and Mrs. Frances Fuller Victor. History Company, 1885.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:23, 31 December 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. KTC (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfuse[edit]

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of new user Wordy24, who placed an AfD template on this article but couldn't complete the procedure. I can certainly see why he wanted to nominate this as its notability seems quite iffy. Prodded in 2012 with the following rationales:

The term "waterfuse" apparently refers only to a single manufacturer's product, not to a generic device name. As such, this article falls more into the category of advertising. Although this device seems enormously useful, it does not appear to be very notable.

It is a trademarked name for another product and hasn't demonstrated independent notability

(Curiously, the article actually became more SPAMmy on deprodding.) Sideways713 (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotion of a non-notable product. I ran a search on all the academic databases to which I have access and found no evidence that this is anything other than a product. Moreover, a "water fuse" may refer to something else entirely (see US Patent application 20,120,186,328). There's also some beauty product going by this name. Google testing for waterfuse (without quotes) only reveals 323 hits. Anyhow, there's no indication of notability here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mendaliv. Products can be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. Spinning Spark 23:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability has not been established.LM2000 (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 30 December 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. KTC (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Branderpreneurship[edit]

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

I tagget this for proposed deletion, but the prod tag was immediately removed, so I will take it to AfD, and repeat my prod reasoning: Neologism without indication of notability. The term is proposed by one person and the references that discuss branderpreneurship are that person's publications; all the other references discuss other concepts such as entrepreneurship and brand development. bonadea contributions talk 21:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article about the person who proposed the concept is also in AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bambang Sukma Wijaya. (That AfD is almost due to close, which is the reason why I didn't simply include this article in that discussion.) --bonadea contributions talk 21:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure promotion. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NEO and WP:SOAP. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) — 22:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOTPROMOTION; no sources for neologism except its creator. Miniapolis 02:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 03:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per all above JayJay^{What did I do?} 15:27, 30 December 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. Our policies on splitting articles are very clear: independent notability must be established through reliable sources. This requirement is not waiverable, and as such those arguing for the preservation of this article would have to present how this requirement has been met. That has not happened here. Therefore, the only possible policy-backed course of action (based on the strong arguments presented in this discussion) is to delete these articles. For those who believe this should have been closed as no-consensus, I suggest you read our policy on notability and remember that these discussions are not votes. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Cook (Charlie's Angels)[edit]

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

No reliable sources indicate that these characters have achieved notability independent of the two films in which they appear. When they are mentioned at all it is only within the context of the films and consists entirely of rehashes of plot details. Based on the style I would almost be willing to bet that they are copyvio reposts of promotional material from the film but I can't independently verify that. Regardless, their lack of notability means they need to be deleted. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – looks like a copy vio eg from here, dated '7 years ago'. (Most of the material was added in the first edit in July 2007, 6 years ago.) Oculi (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All three pages submitted by User:TMC1982 in July 2007 (Natalie Cook, Dylan Sanders, Alex Munday) match that Yahoo! Answers page, with added introductory sentences, {{DEFAULTSORT}}, categories, and two sentences about Sanders's Helen Zaas backstory. The relative timing isn't so clear: assuming that the question ID is a timestamp, the question was submitted in late April 2007 and the answer some time later, but probably by late June (6.5 years before Oculi's check and comment). My guess is that they have official promo material as their common root source. Flatscan (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Background sections are close to the starting text, and Fashion and Covers and techniques were added in single edits by 125.160.120.56 in March 2008 (Natalie Cook, Dylan Sanders, Alex Munday). Flatscan (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not clear from TMC1982's contributions alone (no removal edit), but the individual articles were copied from the During movies section of Charlie's Angels. The Yahoo! Answers answer was copied from Charlie's Angels sometime between late March (1, 2) and early July. User:Khaosjr inserted the three bios as one edit in September 2006. Khaosjr has two warnings for copyvio from May 2008 and June 2010. Flatscan (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Khaosjr expanded several character lists in September 2006. The writing style is consistent, and the films and TV show are diverse. The curly quotes and special character ellipses are characteristic of copy/pasting from online or from original composition in a word processor. The May 2008 synopses were labeled as Danny Peary's work in their section headings, and they were removed immediately after the warning. Flatscan (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge: This could be true of hundreds of other WP articles about movie characters. Copyvio material can be rewritten, removed or fixed; that is not a reason for deletion. Note that Sabrina Duncan, Kelly Garrett, Tiffany Welles, Jill Munroe, Kris Munroe and all the other "Angels" characters also have articles. This is not a reason for deletion, shall we next go on to hunt down all TV characters from Benjamin Sisko to Mister Ed? Montanabw^(talk) 04:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why yes, what an excellent suggestion, let us delete all articles for all fictional characters that do not have independent reliable sources that establish that they are independently notable separately from the fiction in which they exist. I agree whole-heartedly. Please, give us the independent reliable sources that establish that these characters are notable beyond the fiction in which they exist. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep or Merge - Deletion is not a good course of action for an article of this type. Deletion should only come after it is shown to be unfixable and/or unmergable. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic personal attacks and bickering

Jerry, how about you go out and write some articles and learn how the real world works? You are going to waste more bandwidth trying to delete articles you personally deem unworthy than the articles take up on wikipedia's servers? Montanabw^(talk) 18:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But to the topic, the searches linked above appear to return about 233,000 articles and I for one feel no need to go through in search of scholarly treatises or such. Frankly, if you want to do something other than pick on female characters, how about you try this at Pokemon? I suppose there is an argument for merging all these articles into something like List of Charlie's Angels "Angels" or something. But to delete every fictional character on wikipedia? Ebenezer Scrooge, perhaps? Montanabw^(talk) 18:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll spend my time here as I like regardless of your sorry opinion. Whether or not I write articles (and I do) is completely irrelevant to this process and your attempt to discredit me through veiled sexism accusations would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic. Yes, there are lots of sources that mention these characters in the course of discussing the film's details. Find me the ones that discuss them in the sort of significant coverage required by WP:GNG, because simply totting up WP:GOOGLEHITS proves nothing. I am not out to delete every article on every fictional character, just the ones that aren't notable. That's how this chunk of the real world works. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I know we aren't WP:POINTy yet, but are we getting WP:TEDIOUS?? VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you seem to be getting dickish. Look, sorry if it bothers you that there are articles about fictional concepts that don't meet the encyclopedia's inclusion standards. But if I come across one, or more than one, that doesn't I'm going to put it up for deletion. Pruning the project of stuff that doesn't belong, and thus I hope helping to set a tone that encourages editors not to create such content in the first place, is of service to the project. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that you are mostly targeting female characters as non-notable, and also failed to notify the folks who examine and set the standards for articles about fictional characters. It's also nasty to propose deletion when something as simple as a merge would solve whatever problem you are having. I'd support merging all three into a Charlie's Angels List, and I think that is justifiable, based on the low quality of the articles. And surely, given we have List of Hunger Games characters., List of Middle-Earth characters and the like, do you really want to delete ALL of these? Otherwise, what is YOUR criteria here? The fictional character articles tend to be an exception to WP:NOTABILITY overall, and seems to me they have their own guidelines. Do you think women are inherently non-notable, particularly if they are in action films? (Looks like it to me) What next? Will you be putting up Katness Everdeen? (Oh, I'd just love to sit back and chew on popcorn if you tried that one). Montanabw^(talk) 21:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem is that you are making things up, accusing me of "targeting" female characters when that simply is not true. You're attempting to poison this discussion with false accusations and lies. I've also nominated and commented on some Transformers AFDs too; am I robophobic too? If you believe that the correct solution is to merge these characters into a list then you are free to argue for that result, but a list of three non-notable characters does not in my opinion make for a notable list. Please stop making personal attacks and lying.
Show me in WP:GNG or WP:FICT where articles about fictional characters are exempt. I'll save you the time; they aren't. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to go chasing you all over wikipedia shutting down every tendentious deletion request you make. I put my research efforts into creating articles. I am only going to suggest that you use merge tags and other suitable methods to improve the content instead of requesting deletion -- deletion doesn't save bandwidth, an admin can re-userfy this stuff, and it is far more constructive to IMPROVE people's work instead of trashing it. Montanabw^(talk) 05:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, your lies can't be backed up so instead of trying to back up your lies you pull this "I can't be bothered" nonsense. Got it. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An opinion is not a "lie" - and when I said I can't be bothered to sort through 233,000 google hits for you over something this minor I mean it. I think that rather than waste bandwidth arguing about the notability issue, it is an elegant solution to merge the three articles, as we have a clear guideline stating "Individually non-notable elements of a fictional work (such as characters and episodes) may be grouped into an appropriate list article." That solves the problem and preserves the work others have put into the articles. My opinion is that of a content creator who knows that even creating a simple start or stub-class article takes time and effort and so I like to find ways to preserve the work others have done. I also have my opinion as to two possible motives for your mass deletionism behavior, it was based on my review of your talk page and contribs list, and I've expressed it. That's my opinion, and it is an opinion that can be changed by your actions. So far it has not been, but I'm always open to reassessing my views with additional evidence (how many articles have you created, anyway? Got any DYK credits? And GA or FA- class articles?) I encourage you to merge these articles. Montanabw^(talk) 22:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Charlie's Angels (film) or an all-encompassing franchise character list should one be created. There is nothing asserting notability currently. Simply asserting that there must be applicable sources from a Google search isn't helpful to anything, and it is quite likely that anything that mentions the characters would fit within the film articles without issue. TTN (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:GOOGLEHITS are not convincing arguments to keep this article. Neither is making personal attacks on the nominator. Instead, I suggest checking Google Books, which seems to give a few relevant hits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There's no encyclopaedic content worth merging, just some unreferenced juvenile fansite twaddle (and, yes, probably copied from somewhere too). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think a list article has been created, but probably should be. It might all be fansite twaddle, but so is List of Pokemon characters and we all know that's the very most important thing on Wikipedia. Montanabw^(talk) 22:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than a list, the article for each version should handle them separately. The majority of the information is unnecessary plot information, and they have nothing relevant that makes it worth retaining any of the info. For these, the plot summaries from the two films are enough to get the gist of the characters, so there is no need for any more than that. TTN (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These articles are largely plagiarized from their respective external links, [9], [10], and [11]. (The underlying site http://www.charliesangels.gr appears to have closed, but it was a fansite which itself cited no sources for its claims.) After deletion, the pages can be redirected to Charlie's Angels (film). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely WP:Copyright violations (promotional style, placed as large single edits) inserted at or near creation and persisting through present. The pages would qualify for WP:Criteria for speedy deletion#G12 if source URLs were known. I think that the recommendations to merge suspected copyvio are irresponsible. Flatscan (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A merge does not inherently mean you blindly copy over everything, so please do not use non-AGF labels like "irresponsible." Obviously, copyvio material should go. But here's the point: Doesn't deletion leave no redirect at all? Deletion can just wind up having the same article recreated later. (I ran into this problem at a different wikiproject) Better to just put the relevant matrial into the merged article and if a revdel is needed on a copyvio, request that. Far less waste of bandwidth. Montanabw^(talk) 06:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither you nor VMS Mosaic specified what content to merge (WP:Merge what? essay). The Background sections originate from the starting text, and the insertions of Fashion and Covers and techniques are also suspicious. Assuming that all the large additions were/are copyvio, the prose of all three articles is almost entirely and irreparably tainted (WP:Text Copyright Violations 101#Sample scenarios), and – even if some were copyvio, some not – extricating any clean content beyond the infoboxes would be very difficult. Page protection is the proper tool to prevent recreation. An IP editor can revert a redirect, and the article text can be found elsewhere on the web if deleted. Flatscan (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, merge the three character articles into a "List of" article (I strongly suspect there are far more than enough RS refs discussing them as a group) keeping any non copyvio (even if that is only a summary sentence or two) and the infoboxes. At that point a redirect for each character to the list should be kept per WP:Merge#Reasons for merger. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like Montanabw^(talk) 08:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using WP:Revision deletion on the entire history of the pages is an excessive amount of work for a few sentences and infoboxes that can be easily rewritten from scratch. Flatscan (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"From scratch" is not that "easily" done; it's easier to work with something that has been created. Right now, I've got a re-creation of something that was deleted as non-notable in the hopper (not an imaginary character, though) and it is immensely helpful to have the old stuff userfied first. Montanabw^(talk) 08:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Working from the old articles risks creating an unauthorized derivative work. Recreating the articles' unencyclopedic, WP:INUNIVERSE tone and zero reliable sources isn't a good thing. Flatscan (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought WP:Revision deletion was only used in special cases such as "the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it". After reviewing the guidelines, I see no reason for Revision deletion. In other words, please don't create a problem where none exists. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RD1 defers to WP:Copyright problems, and WP:Copyright problems/Advice for admins#Handling copyright violations recommends considering revision deletion "to help avoid inadvertent restoration in the future if the copyrighted content is extensive." If there is copyvio, most of each revision of the entire histories is tainted, and participants here have expressed interest in reusing the content by merging. Flatscan (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

off topic

Inclusionists make me laugh they can write characters articles with little or no reliable third person sources and when it asked they provide a source to show it should stay. They do little or nothing to improve it when its challenged they scream like babies that its notable or what about other articles if they spend as much effort looking for reliable sources to assert notability Wikipedia articles would be in a lot better state. If don't believe they pull this kind of nonsense in other wiki character debates, Dukes of Hazzards, Dark Shadows, Blake's 7 and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang Dwanyewest (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prominent characters in major shows are appropriatesubjects for articles. Thi sshould be regarded as a split, and is better than a merge because it is more likely to actually manage to retain some content. Verifiability is met, and how we divide subjects up into articles is a matter of convenience. We make our own rules. In any case, merge not deletion is appropriate. If we simply accepted these kind of articles instead of arguing each one of them, we'd have more time to write. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the reliable sources that support these articles are...? There are none? Oh. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With all the bickering and snarking, it may just be better to close it now as no consensus before people get blocked (again). The article does need a major rewrite or merged into a list, but I don't see how we get there with this AfD. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or in the alternative the closing admin could recognize that there are zero independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of these characters and apply the relevant guidelines and delete them. No sources = no article, or at least it should. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry, it is up to the closing admin to make a decision based on the arguments given here (i.e., he is not supposed to go off and make a decision based on his own view point). My point is that this entire discussion has gone beyond what a closing admin should be expected to deal with. Simply stating the same thing over and over and over and over .., again provides nothing helpful to the closing admin. At the risk of being unWP:CIVIL, that's all I'm going to say. There is nothing wrong with going to the mat in these discussions, but the arguments need to be more than "I say so" repeated over and over again. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to main article. As explained, they have no independent notability. --Slashme (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We all know whats gonna happen the inclusionist will keep these pathetic articles make no effort to find sources or make a place to merge this fancruft and deletionists will make a deletion attempt in the future and nothing changes. Mediocrity wins again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwanyewest (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:BRI is in place for both Jerry Pepsi and Dwanyewest here. This is the most tedious waste of time I've seen in a while. Chunk5Darth (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think it's best to delete these pages and start over again, perhaps with a List of Charlie's Angels characters. The copyright violation concerns mean that the articles would have to be stubbed anyway. The characters have not been demonstrated to have any notability, and they are probably best off described in such a list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2014 (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STANAG 4222[edit]

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

I haven't found many sources talking about this, probably because it is so specialized. This is essentially a very technical standards for a very narrow field. Ego White Tray (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment STANAG 1236 and STANAG 1472 seems similar articles. Perhaps there is a list of STANAG standards to move these all into? Ego White Tray (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dictionary definition. Article without content. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or redirect to Standardization Agreement. I was unable to find multiple in depth sources describing or commenting upon this standard, it seems to fail WP:GNG notability thresholds. This standard, along with all the other STANAG standards, is listed at Standardization Agreement. A redirect would be OK, too, if others want it, but I think the STANAG redirect is probably good enough for searching purposes. --Mark viking (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:18, 6 January 2014 (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 policy-backed arguments for the inclusion of this article have been made. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dysphexia[edit]

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

Someone thought it would be a good idea to create an article about a non-existent disorder, apparently because it appears on a couple of government forms. Having a page for every goof and misspelling is a terrible idea for so many reasons. Ego White Tray (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How else can people find out about this mythical condition? Of course the sole thing we have to cite is a primary source, but this is one of those articles where that inevitability is, of itself, encyclopaedic. This is a significant goof/typo/blunder, not just a run of the mill typing error. Fiddle Faddle 19:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Has anyone written an article about this error on these forms? Has this error had any influence in society or medicine? Have doctors reported that their patients are complaining about having this disorder? Are we obligated to change the redirect Saxomophone into an article because of a goof by Homer in The Simpsons? This is what notability is about, that someone actually cares about it, not merely that it exists. Ego White Tray (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete It's not up to use to do the research to show that the one reference to this in the literature is most likely a mistake. Mangoe (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per Mangoe I do not see why this non-notable error should be worthy of a Wikipedia article when it can only be based from original research and a primary source. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know that this is significant without documentation. Notability is not subjective. I've had a look, and I cannot find any sources documenting this error. And the primary source that I did find, a form from 1971, directly contradicted the article, in that it was clearly a mis-spelling of dyslexia in context. Wikipedia no more needs my personal made-directly-in-Wikipedia analysis that a U.S. government form from 1971 made an error than it needs the made-directly-in-Wikipedia zero-concrete-information analysis here. Subjects should have been already documented by the world at large outwith Wikipedia, and from what I can find, this one has not been. Uncle G (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete There is no notability in this error. --Bejnar (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terran computational calendar[edit]

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

Not notable, no reliable sources in article, and I could not find any reliable sources with a Google source. Tone of the only source provided suggests this calendar was recently invented by one individual. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the redirect Terran calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any documentation of any such thing apart from the WWW site of no known authorship that this is a copy of, either. This is unverifiable outwith an anonymous self-published WWW site with no way to determine the author's reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Uncle G (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Every link is to the website of this contrivance, and there are no real mentions unless you count all the "July 15th of the Terran calendar" passages in innumerable Sci Fi works. Mangoe (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia and the author of this article. All your suppositions are correct, although I can assure you that much thought, research, documentation, trial & error, and precise programming has gone into the calendar's creation. What modifications or ommissions would you suggest to keep this on wikipedia? If the complete removal of this aricle is the unanimous decision of the wikipedia community (with the exception of the author), what kinds of things (reputation, reliable sources, etc.) must happen in order for it to become a worthy wikipedia page in the future? (Chimeraha (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia: Notability outlines the requirements for a topic to be worthy of an article. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest explains that even if a topic is notable, it would be inappropriate for the inventor of a calendar to write a Wikipedia article about it. Personally, I look to the recent confusion about whether 2000 or 2001 was the first year of the new millennium. Even for the most important calendar in international commerce, no one had the authority to come forward and definitely settle the matter. In view of that, I consider it impossible to replace the Gregorian calendar with some "improved" variant. I would not favor an article on a calendar proposal unless there an exceptional degree of interest in numerous reliable sources over a long period of time (~ 50 years). Jc3s5h (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I apologise for posting in the calendar reform article. I should have posted in the calendar reform talk page before making any modifications (though I didn't understand or know of the existance of talk pages before now). I believe the terran computational calendar is an excellent alternative in conjunction with (not replacement for) the current ISO_8601 standardized calendar and gregorian calendar and I believe that the article is not at all "a bad idea". This being said, I agree that this article is not inline with many wikipedia expectations, and therefore I'll withdraw my thoughts and questions on this matter over to Jc3s5h's talk page, the terran computational calendar talk page, and maybe eventually the calendar reform talk page. Chimeraha (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete A forum for discussing this calendar was recently established; the only two postings on it are by the calendar's designer, Chimera. It appears that this proposal does not even have sufficient following to be discussed as a notable fringe theory. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as self-published or original research unless reliable third-party sources can be found, per Jc3s5h.—Odysseus 1479 05:35, 31 December 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. KTC (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Pantoja[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter (WP:MMANOT). Peter Rehse (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No top tier fights, fails WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with previous comments--he fails NMMA since he has no top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2014 (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) | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's School Harda[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable and is unreferenced. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated above, St. Mary's School Harda is not notable, doesn't have references, and uses promotional tone. Reads more like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia. Meatsgains (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, there is a strong presumption that secondary schools are notable, as shown by many previous debates. The school has about 3000 students through grade 12, and a search of newspapers in the area would almost certainly yield significant coverage. I see no excessively promotional language. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course per the very long-standing precedent for mainstream K12 high schools documented at WP:OUTCOMES#SCHOOLS. I don't find anything remotely promotional in the article, indeed, what would a Catholic school want to be promotional about? Is it selling something? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Secondary schools are kept per long-standing precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I do not see anything promotional here clearly nothing which would violate a policy like WP:Advert. Further it is one of the main schools in the city of Harda in Madhya Pradesh ,India. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2014 (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. KTC (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln de Sá[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter (WP:MMANOT). Peter Rehse (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable MMA fighter, fails WP:NMMA--no top tier fights.Jakejr (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No top tier fights to show he meets WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2014 (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 Thursday Next. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BookWorld[edit]

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

There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that establish that this fictional construct is notable separately from the fiction in which it is contained. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thursday Next. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So? Choor monster (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article on the series, probably with significant trim - there may be some coverage of the setting ~~by itself~~ as more than a passing mention (modified 20:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC) --qo), but I was unable to find it. Until such sources are unearthed, I would presume the subject not sufficiently notable for its own article. --quantumobserver ^position momentum _{entanglements} 04:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to repeat my question: "So?" Nowhere is there a requirement that stand-alone notability is dependent on verifiable sources that don't mention other topics. In fact, WP:N, near the beginning, states that the issue of one or more articles for a notable topic is a distinct question. (It is stated regarding a new topic, while meeting notability requirements, might be better off as a section of an article, not a standalone. The underlying principle is identical: it might be better off standalone.)
- The only question to be asked is whether BookWorld/Thursday Next read better as one article or as two. I see no one addressing that question. Choor monster (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well... stand-alone notability is, in fact, (almost always - exceptions for animal species and the like) dependent on significant coverage in reliable and verifiable sources. Those sources don't have to only talk about the subject in question, but they do need to give it more than a passing mention. We figure if nobody else cares to write much about a topic, neither should we - that's the idea behind the general notability guideline.

You are correct in that topics notable enough to have their own article are indeed sometimes better placed as a section of another article - the idea there is to get better context. Thing is, that's only relevant if the subject is in fact notable enough for its own article, which I do not believe this one is. --quantumobserver ^position momentum _{entanglements} 17:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you are now agreeing with me. You previously mentioned you didn't think there were sources that talk about BookWorld without mentioning any of Thursday Next, Jurisfiction, the Socialist Republic of Wales, Pickwick, Jasper Fforde, and so on. You are now stating you don't think there are any, with or without such mentions. Well, obviously there are: the Thursday Next novels, which by the way, are our primary source of information about Thursday Next, the article you recommend merging BookWorld with. In addition, pretty much all of the longer reviews of these novels discuss BookWorld to some extent. (The books themselves cannot be relied on regarding notability, just for information.)

Look at Template:Nineteen Eighty-Four or Template:War and Peace. Article after article, and many, perhaps most of them, concern topics that do not rate reliable source mention independently of the main book itself. Should we merge all the movie adaptations of War and Peace with the novel because every last source that mentions one of the movie always mentions that it is based on Tolstoy's novel? And this is just the tiniest of tiny tips of all possible icebergs. Consider Category:Fictional universes and Category:Fantasy worlds. (And don't cite WP:OTHER. These other things here are well-accepted, not mistakes that need to be fixed.)

My point is that this AfD was created in error and should simply be withdrawn. I have no opinion regarding a followup discussion regarding possible merger, so long as it's a question about packaging, and that the red herring about notability isn't dragged in. All the Fforde fictional universes are notable, the question in each case is whether the material should be inside a book article (for example, Chromatacia), or a book series article, or a standalone article, and how fine-grained any splitting off should be done for the details. Choor monster (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My initial reaction to this was that the whole thing was a hoax or OR and should be deleted. However, I will go along with REdirect to series. With some exceptions, we really ought not to have more than one article on any fictional universe. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe it best that the existing AfD be withdrawn, since it has no support, and it was based on an irrelevant criterion. Discussion regarding merger can take place at WP:PM, presumably without distracting nonsense about standalone sources for separate notability. Note that there are four articles that presumably should be merged: BookWorld, Thursday Next, SpecOps, and Characters in the Thursday Next series. Choor monster (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is a fairly common outcome here at AfD. --quantumobserver ^position momentum _{entanglements} 18:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen such, but only for non-problematic merges. Here, there are four relevant articles, and three of them haven't been warned. As it is, the Nextian universe is wildly original, covering seven constantly inventive novels and even one spin-off universe. So far. I assume the calls for merge are from non-readers: see Peter's comment. Choor monster (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into "Thursday Next" as main article plus add wp:RS sources, and remove from author navbox Template:Jasper_Fforde. Then change title "BookWorld" to disambiguation with earlier usage, such as "B.C. BookWorld" from 1987, because "bookworld" is a common term which perhaps gave illusion of wider coverage for years. -Wikid77 11:36, 8 January 2014 (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 Hawk Mountain Ranger School. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Air Patrol Ranger[edit]

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

Claims to be a program of the Civil Air Patrol. Exhaustive search of national Civil Air Patrol regulations does not seem to mention such a program. No outside sources could be found. WP:GNG and WP:SPIP. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 21:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because its notability derives entirely from the above:

--KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 21:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment The citations have suffered significant link rot because the the PA Wing which apparently has some degree of sponsorship responsibility has moved its website here while the Hawk Mountain program is now here. The obvious problem beyond that is an absolute lack of third party citations given that everything now in the article came from one of these two sites. The program plainly exists but my impression is that it doesn't have some sort of official specialist status within the CAP. Mangoe (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence, the article should be deleted per WP:GNG. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 07:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not the most well covered topic around, but there is coverage. This article [12] was about the Ranger training camp in PA. This article is only 2 years old and spends a lot of time talking about the camp and the daily routine. [13]. This CAP regulation [14] does mention the Hawk Mountain Ranger School as a special activity that can qualify for a ribbon. Here is a resolution by the PA legislature that recognizes the 50th anniversary of the Hawk Mountain Ranger school. Could probably go on, but I think these are enough to keep it. Regarding the tape article, merge and redirect. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the citations do establish the existence and notability of the Hawk Mountain Ranger School. It does not, however, prove that there exists such a thing as a "Civil Air Patrol Ranger". I could find no CAP regulation attesting to the existence of such a creature. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 07:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's too obvious to presume that you go to a ranger school to learn to be a ranger? Ok than.... try reading that second article I referenced: "...after graduating from ranger school, where Connor became a ranger, second class, and Colin earned the right to be called ranger, third class..." That alone is evidence that they exist. BTW, here is another link showing a Ranger training program in NC [15] Here are grading sheets from the courses for Advanced Ranger [16], Ranger first class [17], Ranger second class [18] and Ranger third class [19]. Note that each of these specifies that only instructors or higher ranking rangers can administer the tests. Again, pretty strong evidence that CAP rangers exist. The site for Hawk Mountain says "After this, the last part of the school involves testing, not just to graduate from the school, but also to earn Ranger Grade certifications which include 101 advancement"[20]. Here is a congresswoman from VA recognizing a cadet for attaining the Ranger first class rating. [21]. I'm not sure why you're hung up on only searching regulations, but that won't wash. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that a single throw-away line in a House of Representatives press release establishes that there is a "CAP Ranger", certainly not according to WP:GNG. The lack of recognition of such things by the national CAP, I think is prima facie evidence that these things don't exist. But let's say they do exist: where is the significant independent coverage attesting to the notability of CAP rangers? So far, all I've found is, at best self-promotion. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 16:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wait, you are changing your story. I presented you with sources that pass GNG (such as the one that describes the course and activities). Then you claimed it shows there is a school, but no such thing as a Ranger. So I show you sources for that. then you turn around and claim that the sources showing there is such a thing aren't enough. No skippy, that single line isn't what gets it past GNG. If all you're finding is SPS, then you aren't paying attention. First off, the CAP sources aren't SPS, they're primary sources. there is a different. Second, the NJ.com article alone will probably get this past GNG. It is significant coverage by a reliable source. Lastly, the fact that you keep claiming you searched CAP documents and can't find anything, yet turn around and try to dismiss CAP sources as SPS's borders on comedy. Frankly, I don't think you even know what you're talking about at this point.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still assert that there is no such thing as a Civil Air Patrol Ranger. CAP is a national organization, and if the national organization doesn't mention such creatures anywhere in their publications, that's pretty good evidence that there isn't such a beast. Furthermore, I cannot find significant independent coverage attesting to its notability. The notability guidelines require in-depth coverage from secondary sources independent of the subject. I have made good-faith attempts at finding such things, and I have not. Subject is therefore non-notable and should be deleted. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 21:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assert whatever you want. I have presented primary and secondary reliably sources that prove the title exists. Numerous CAP sites DO mention the term. Keep chanting that you haven't seen coverage, but the fact that I presented reliable third party coverage that DID give significant coverage counters that. I'm not some newbie here and I have been called a deletionist many times. This is not new ground for me. You're wrong and no amount of repeating yourself will change my mind. I'm done entertaining you. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have not given any third party coverage that gives significant coverage. I've seen throwaway lines. That is not in-depth. As for my assertion that CAP does not have rangers: the CAP corporation is a national organization. It has ground SAR personnel. I have only seen CAP refer to their ground SAR personnel as "ground team members". I will say that there is some (small) subset of CAP personnel who have begun styling themselves as rangers, following their attendance at a summer camp. There is no significant third party coverage of these "rangers". Hence, my assertion that such a class of personnel doesn't exist. The examples you have provided do not pass WP:GNG, as they are not in-depth. I can find non-CAP sources about their ground personnel, and what they do. I can find NOTHING about these rangers. I have tried. I can find things about the summer camp, but not the rangers themselves. If nobody outside the CAP organization cares to write in-depth about these rangers, then it is not notable. For a supposedly elite group within CAP that supposedly does all sorts of amazing things, I cannot find any corroboration. I can find third-party sources saying that CAP members have done things, including recovery efforts after Hurricane Katrina. But I saw no mention of any "CAP Rangers" being involved. So, maybe according to some within CAP, rangers do exist. Existence doesn't equal notability. Significant third party coverage equals notability. Going from what this article has told me, and my research on CAP operations, the only thing that distinguishes these "rangers" from the rest of CAP is a summer camp. And we already have an article on the summer camp. And even if these rangers filled a unique operational niche within CAP, the lack of third party coverage still dooms it to the fate that all non-notable subjects have: deletion. Since we're talking about a sub-organization, I'll also mention WP:ORGDEPTH. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 20:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to be obtuse? The article from NJ.com gives significant coverage. Just because you don't like it doesn't negate it. This shit is getting old. You talk and talk, , yet say nothing new. I'm willing to bet that the WP:BEFORE activity you were supposed to perform didn't didn't turn up those sources I provided. In any case, I've wasted enough time responding to you. Have the last word Niteshift36 (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another one: [22] Niteshift36 (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think comments sections are considered good sources. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 16:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sections? Are you for real? Those are put there by the AUTHOR, not reader comments. The writer gathered the quotes and used them in a sidebar piece. Sheesh.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a throwaway line. The article was about counter-drug programs. The comment was included as a "but CAP isn't bad" section. WP:GNG stipulates in-depth coverage of the topic. To quote "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 21:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay attention. That source was NOT offered as significant coverage to pass GNG. It was offered as an example proving that the term you claim doesn't exist, does in fact exist. Nothing more. Stop pretending like you have a point, because you have none regarding this reference. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the CAP Corporation claims to have rangers. All I have seen is that a class of members, namely those in and around Pennsylvania, have styled themselves as such. There is no significant third party coverage. The article should be deleted. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 20:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Hawk Mountain Ranger School Like everyone else I cannot find discussion of this away from the specific program in PA. Mangoe (talk) 20:21, 26 December 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, John F. Lewis (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have read the articles sourced above. I have yet to see anything other than sources on the Hawk Mountain Ranger School, the aforementioned summer camp. I am not challenging the notability of this camp; I believe that this has been established. However, I cannot find anything else on these supposed Rangers, and virtually no data on what CAP Rangers do besides attend the summer camp. It may be an informal tradition, but I am not certain. I would appreciate the input of subject-matter experts on CAP and its ground operations, to see if their input could help me in the quest for sources. However, barring that, I do not believe that these Rangers are notable, hence, my nomination for deletion. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 23:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Hawk Mountain Ranger School. As a former CAP cadet, I had never heard of this program. After reading the links offered, it is clear to me that the title of CAP Ranger has no verifiable existence as a recognized distinction as anything more than local significance. The lack of independent reliable sources for such a distinction is diagnostic of not being an actual program award of CAP as a whole. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Hawk Mountain Ranger School. Sources cited by Niteshift36 certainly prove HMRS notable - but Krapenhoeffer is correct in that they do not constitute significant coverage of the actual Rangers. --quantumobserver ^position momentum _{entanglements} 04:58, 5 January 2014 (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bay of Bengal Gateway[edit]

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

Similar to MEETS (cable system), (AFD closed as Delete) this is a stub about a yet-to-be built telecommunication cable. The consortium that wants to build it was formed in May of this year.

Fails WP:FUTURE: Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. Toddst1 (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Source examples:

"Omantel inks submarine cable linking agreement". Times of Oman. May 18, 2013.
Additional sources from April 30–May 2, 2013: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27].

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GNG about something that doesn't exist? I think you missed WP:FUTURE. Toddst1 (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, per WP:FUTURE, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Contracts to commence upon the Bay of Bengal Gateway project have been signed, and it's estimated to be completed and utilized sometime in the fourth quarter of 2014. See text and sources I added to the article that confirm this. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just because a contract has been signed and it may be built in the future, what is so notable about this? Sources prove that some companies are working on this, but WP doesn't need to report on every business endeavor. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close and then restart this Discussion in a new Nomination. For some reason, this shows up on the main WP:AFD page as linking to the Talk Page rather than the Article. Technically, that would be WP:Miscellany for Deletion. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do not see WP:FUTURE indicating planned or proposed future projects ought to be deleted.

Stating the policy, It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.

Per WP:GNG, this is a keep.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:03, 28 December 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, John F. Lewis (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Northamerica1000. ~KvnG 21:19, 3 January 2014 (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. KTC (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Via (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album, fails WP:NALBUMS, no sources to suggest notability. JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Given the circumstances surrounded the aborted release and lack of charting position, this album would have needed a good amount of coverage in multiple mainstream sources to prove notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't Care (Angela Via song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song that hardly charted, fails WP:NSONGS, no sources to suggest notability. JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, both recordings charted - David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, two versions charted nationally, notability established.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Hardly charted" = charted. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets WP:NSONGS - charting singles with verifiable references. Dan arndt (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2014 (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. KTC (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poku short film[edit]

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

Can't find sources to establish notability, created by an editor whose account name suggests they are a PR company Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for now. Searches show this seems TOO SOON. Allow undeletion or recreation when Malayalam-reading Wikipedians can come up with sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:42, 31 December 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:GB fan per CSD A9. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Race Against Time (Rogue Republic album)[edit]

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

Self-published musical recording. Fails WP:NALBUM. - Mr X 15:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A9. The band's article has just been deleted. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. by User:RHaworth (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 16:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ennaji ahmed[edit]

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

Article can be included in fr.wikipedia.org. Itsalleasy (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreated AfD content (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Ennaji). What we have here is the old invert-the-title-trick.- Mr X 15:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There seems to be a consensus that the article is clearly promotional in its current format, so I would be inclined to delete this as CSD G11. The article will require extensive reworking to fix this, but I am happy to userify it for anyone who wishes to undertake that work. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Ganikowskij[edit]

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

Perhaps a notable artist, but in that case WP:NUKEANDPAVE applies because of the poor quality of the article (or should I say, CV). References are given for some of the extensive quotations, but they are unclear. Author should have awaited comments on their AfC submission. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unquestionably promotional. Deb (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Deeply flawed. No citations besides a URL leading to a personal website. Doesn't seem to be written from a NPOV at all, it reads basically like a resume. Breadblade (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A colossal mess of an article, for all of the reasons Breadblade mentioned... and probably a lot more.LM2000 (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve The painter is notable although the article seems to be a mess. I have added a couple of references from the article on Russian wiki (that seems to be better written) and removed a few eyesores although much more work is needed Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently the article is little more than an advert for the subject. Number 5 7 22:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Perhaps userfy if the creator will speak up and promise to rework this. The article is a terrible, terrible mess, but the individual may be notable. Still, this cv/gibberish mess is hardly salvageable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:41, 1 January 2014 (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 snowball keep / withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pussy[edit]

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

Neither fish nor fowl nor good red meat, the only thing that seems to hold this page together are the letters in the word. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no valid reason for deletion given. It's clearly an encyclopedia article about a word, not a mere dicdef. Could use more sources and some cleanup, but that's not what RFD is for. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Apart from its offensive name, the article was really informative. OccultZone (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though it is offensive, crude, or tough to read with my family around, the page deserves to keep. Like OccultZone stated, "the article was really informative" and well referenced. I don't understand the explanation as to why this page was PRODed. Seems like the initial reaction to reading the page is to get rid of it however, that reason does not suffice. Meatsgains (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close. No rationale provided by the nominator. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no rationale for deletion (I'd NAC it myself, but I'm not on my main account and would rather not) Lukeno52 (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 20:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not as common in American as in British English, but a good article. For "proper" use citations, M. Gandhi -- A helpless mouse is not non-violent because he is always eaten by pussy. He would gladly eat the murderess if he could, but he ever tries to flee from her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs)

Withdraw nomination - ok, my take is clearly wrong, so I'm withdrawing this. Sorry about that. Dougweller (talk) 21:56, 29 December 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 -- Y not? 18:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prakhin International Literary Award[edit]

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

Not seeing that this is a noteworthy award. Cannot find reliable third party sources about the award to build an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete created by a single purpose editor with possible COI. References like this [28] do not even refer to the award. These are only small 1 line references [29] ,[30]. This one [31] is a self published source by a winner of the award. There is no coverage in mainstream press of this supposed international award.. LibStar (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Most references are not about the award, but only make brief mention of it, proving existence, not notability. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, of the sources that are independent of the subject, all of them merely mention the award briefly, usually in the context of a particular individual winning one. I would be much more comfortable that this award was notable if there were independent coverage of its history and importance. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:37, 8 January 2014 (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. KTC (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hörspielcrew[edit]

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

Although this has a German-language article, it is reliant on only one primary source and seems not to prove notability. The sourcs here do not establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BAND. Even the link to their 'official' website doesn't go anywhere. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:28, 23 December 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, Daniel (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per sub. --Lockley (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secular conservatism[edit]

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

Appears to be original research, no sources have been provided. --TFD (talk) 10:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

(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)

Delete per TFD, unsourced stub since 2010 and doesn't seem to be an established term anywhere else. A similar page is Secular Right. Citobun (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I have added it above. TFD (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I turned up a source by Chip Berlet that documents this, alongside the "theocratic right" and the "hard right", with 3 minutes' use of Google Books. I then turned up a later work that cited and used Berlet's terminology. What on Earth made you think that this wasn't a term? Did you look anywhere? The article is amateurish and crap. But that's a reason to show your mad skillz as encyclopaedia writers, by mercilessly making the article better and demonstrating that people with accounts are here to write rather than sit in armchairs and tag. It's not a reason to take the no-effort route, not put in the effort of looking for sources onesself, and proceed to AFD. Get Berlet 1998, p. 250–252 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBerlet1998 (help) and Downing 2002, p. 137 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDowning2002 (help) in hand and write! And try to read some of the several sources that document this in relation to the European Union, which are just as easy to locate, too. Uncle G (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Berlet, Chip (1998). "Who Is Mediating the Storm? Right-Wing Alternative Information Networks.". In Kintz, Linda; Lesage, Julia (eds.). Media, Culture, and the Religious Right. University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 9780816630851.
- Downing, John D.H. (2002). "International Communication and The Extremist Right". In Pendakur, Manjunath; Harris, Roma M. (eds.). Citizenship and Participation in the Information Age. G — Reference,Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 9781551930350.
  - There is a difference between a term and a noun modified by an adjective. A term has a specific definition and is used consistently by different authors. No one doubts that one can be conservative and secular. Can you provide a source that defines the "term" and explains its origins and use by different authors? And please don't say it means a conservative who is secular. TFD (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - My point about not looking and no effort is made yet again. I just did. Two, in fact. Complete with exact page numbers. Now go and read what you've been pointed at, and look at the further sources that discuss secular conservatism in the EU which are dead easy to find simply with some applied effort. It's a matter of mere minutes, as I said. Uncle G (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the sources and they all use the terms differently. However your two sources (here are their links: [32][33]) do seem to have a specific concept. Downing says, "Berlet proposes we categorize the extremist right into the secular conservative right, the theocratic right and the "hard right." Effectively, the secular conservative right would cover groups with strongly reactiionary views but normally working electorally and and without recourse to terrorism. Within the U.S. this would signify a spectrum from the Heritage Foundation to the John Birch Society. In France in would cover the Front Natiional, in Italy the Alleanza Nationale, in Austria the Freedom Party, in Britain the British National Party, in Russia Zhirinovsky's [Liberal Democrats], and One Nation in Australia.

Is your suggestion that this article should be about Berlet's category? In that case it fails WP:NEOLOGISM. It would be better to have an article about Chip Berlet's theory of the "extremist right". Ironically no one has bothered to add anything about this to his article.

Even if we were to follow this path, it would mean blanking the article, since it is about an entirely different topic and does not mention Berlet, and starting again. Much better just to delete and if someone wants to write it then they can do so. Are you going to do that?

TFD (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the term Berlet uses is "secular conservative right", not secular conservatism. Is it the same thing? Should we merge the articles Secular conservatism and Secular Right and perhaps re-name it? TFD (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This appears from the sources to be an established concept, but I do think Secular conservatism and Secular Right should be merged (the latter into Secular conservatism). Ithinkicahn (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a non-notable neologism (at best). An attempt to lay out a concept to juxtapose to social conservatism. The non-notable neologism Secular Right is a similar effort to create a phrase from whole cloth to juxtapose to Religious Right. There are traditional forms of conservatism that do not base themselves around religion; this ideology and movement isn't commonly called either of these things, and a merge of the two non-notable neologisms to make a somewhat longer dictionary definition stub is inappropriate. Carrite (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That not all conservatives are religious, or that the Relgious Right does not comprise the entire Right, though true, is not by itself justification for an article. This is not a specific topic. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TFD and Carrite. WP:OR. --Bejnar (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC) In case I wasn't clear, delete all three. --Bejnar (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2014 (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 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iqra University North Nazimabad Campus[edit]

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

This article is basicly a collection of 4 biographies of living persons. The only source cites is official web site of their University. No independent reliable sources. This fails WP:BLP. The author deleted PROD tag, so I'm bringing this ti discussion. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would say merge to Iqra University but there seems to be nothing in the article worth transferring. Most of article is spamtastic or biogs.TheLongTone (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio. Everything but the first sentence is copied from the school's website. Tagged for G12. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 30 December 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. Per the below discussion, it is apparent that the article's subject has not been significantly covered by reliable sources. Therefore, while the author may be notable in the future, at this time there is no policy-backed reasoning for this articles inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Debora Geary[edit]

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

The subject appears to be the author of several self published books (Fireweed Publishing) but shows no results in a Google News search. I did find one book review in News Library:

Baltimore Examiner (MD) - May 9, 2012, Book review of 'A Modern Witch' by Debora Geary, Title: A Modern Witch (A Modern Witch Series: Book One) Author: Debora Geary Publisher: Fireweed Publishing Publication Date: March 12, 2011 Genre: Fantasy Review: — Keithbob • Talk • 22:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears not to be in the same ballpark as WP:AUTHOR Neonchameleon (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Geary is that rare thing, a highly successful self-published author working outside the normal publishing system. She is very popular, her library holdings at LibraryThing [34] put her in the top 1% of 1% of all authors in all languages (ranked #10,201). The Telegraph said "A Modern Witch which recently ranked number one on the Kindle best seller list,"[35] while GalleyCat reported "Debora Geary rocketed to the top of our Self-Published Bestseller List with her Modern Witch series". Self-published authors have a much more difficult time because they don't have access to the publishing house marketing machine that create the normal book reviews through established channels, but in this case I think we should give extra weight to the popularity of the author. -- GreenC 20:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Neonchameleon. Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:01, 25 December 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 08:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even though I think WP:AUTHOR is too stringent (it sets a much higher bar than is generally applied to authors' articles in Wikipedia, and is out of sync with guidelines on biographies of singers and athletes), the subject of this article seems to fail the basic GNG: I can't see a listed source that provides reliable, third-party, in-depth coverage. Because this is a BLP, we have to err on the side of deletion to protect Wikipedia and the subject of the article. --Slashme (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably more successful than your average self-published author, but there are no reliable sources (as in, not Facebook, blogs, forum posts, etc) that talk about Geary and why she and her work are notable. There are a couple of brief mentions in reliable sources, but these don't confirm anything except that she's an author who self-releases books for the Kindle. I don't think she meets the WP:BIO notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, The thing that caught me about this article is that she's made a #1 Kindle best seller list - see kbooks. There's the magazine article on the first comment and: telegraph article and publishers weekly. Books here --CaroleHenson (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, the mention in the Telegraph is a single sentence that offers her as an example of a successful self published author, and she's not mentioned in the linked PW article at all. WP:GNG requires 'significant' coverage, and I don't think this qualifies. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Reply - Understood. She seems to be on a good roll, so hopefully in a year or two there will be more reliable sources to prove notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2014 (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. G3 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viknu Tribe[edit]

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

The sources don't support what is in the article and I can't find any evidence of there actually being a Viknu tribe. Chuy1530 (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. A Norwegian tribe that wrote in hieroglyphics on papyrus? Blatant hoax. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've speedy tagged it - there's no point people wasting their time tagging it for improvements. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant hoax. A rare language spoken by many peoples? Getaway.TheLongTone (talk) 16:20, 29 December 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. KTC (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Touchtalent[edit]

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

Advertisement? Is it notable? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cited independant sources are about start up, which only establish it exists. Note that article creator & another major editor appear to be associated with the organisation: another self-promotional article. Nature of organisation generates a lot of hits, but didn't find anything solid.TheLongTone (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I nominated the article for a (speedy) delete a couple of days ago. The lead for the last version of the article read: "Touchtalent is one of art showcasing size for professional" and the remainder of the article consisted mainly of lists. To the author's credit, there have been significant improvements, but I did an extensive search, and found no substantial coverage of the company. Delete as non-notable. JSFarman (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 30 December 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 policy backed arguments for this article's inclusion have been presented. I'm deleting the article at this time, but any editor can feel free to contact me for the article's content if needed for merging. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood Hundred Crore Club[edit]

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

List of highest-grossing Bollywood films already exists and has been suggested by someone to be merged into List of highest-grossing Indian films worldwide. This is totally redundant, misleading--contains wrong infomation and sources are not consistent for all films, meaning a source that highly inflates gross amount for all films, is used to source only few films on this page, thereby making them look higher ranked when they are not. This page is also subjected to high level of vandalism and very few Wiki-administrators 've knowledge about the subject in question. Joyceevan (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Also, a day 'll come when there 'll be hundred 100-Crore grossing films. It's ever enlarging. So best is to delete this aricle and list the highest grossing films on List of highest-grossing Bollywood films.--Joyceevan (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Merged Joyceevan' comments into one. Please don't use star mark again & again for different comments of yours. It will be hindrance while counting vote. - Jayadevp13 05:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose/Keep for now especially since multiple discussions regarding the content & status of this particular article is going on here and here. You should have waited for a few more days before taking a decision. - Jayadevp13 05:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is why I nominated it--Joyceevan (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose/Keep for now especially since it is now in much significance in bollywood ,trade magazines,new channels,prin and electronic media.--Nehapant19 (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the multitudinous cutting and re-cutting and re-re-cutting of the same data in different ways, the current content is completely redundant to List of highest-grossing Bollywood films and should be deleted / merged (if there is anything encyclopedic in this article which is not already in the other article)- with extreme prejudice against recreation in anything close to this format. However, the concept of the "100 Crore Club" as a marketing gimmick / promotional hypemobile is potentially worthy of an all text article which covers the "concept of the 'club' "- where the term came from, how it is used, its importance (or perceived importance) in the industry and by raving fans , the critique of it as being a purely promotional concept of no actual value etc. - as opposed to lists of "members". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article in question was since moved (a couple of times [36] [37] [38] ) to Bollywood films grossing above 100 crore. Also, there was already an active merge discussion involving several similar articles. Not sure if it is appropriate to proceed with this AfD ~~until~~ while the merge discussion is in play. Dl2000 (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy procedural keep - Ref WP:SK, the nominator is now effectively banned with an indefinite block. The parallel merge discussion is also proposing significant changes to the article which will likely render the original deletion rationale void (WP:ATD). Dl2000 (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, I almost just closed the discussion on this basis, but since there are experienced editors in good standing agreeing with the nomination, I think it's best to leave it open to be closed in the usual way. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Strong oppose/Comment As creator pf the page i oppose and also try to make my point clear. The unaceptable moving of the page from the name "Bollywood 100 Crore Club" to "Bollywood films grossing above 100 crore" by an unauthorized user User talk:Nehapant19 who has been warned several times for doing mess in wikipedia different pages has destroyed the page. In the 2013 Zee Cine Awards directors of Bollywood 100 Crore Club were awarded with a special award namng The Power Club Box Office(100 crore club award). So the page must be moved to its original name to protect it. Dr. Shahid Alam(Talk to Me) 22:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you have said that many times. However, that is not a reason to keep a page. Please specify what policies you are basing your rationale upon. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOT. "Bollywood Hundred Crore Club" (100-crore club of Bollywood, 100 crore club in Bollywood, Bollywood 100 Crore Club) is a neologism, not a subtopic of List of highest-grossing Bollywood films. However, the current article attempts to convey factual accuracy along the lines of List of highest-grossing Bollywood films, but the topic appears to be nothing more than a marketing gimmick. An expert in the area notes in this article:
Actor Arshad Warsi, who is best known for his role of Circuit in the Munnabhai series and Babban in filmmaker Abhishek Chaubey’s Ishqiya, finds Bollywood’s R100 crore club "lame". The 44-year-old, who has been in the industry for around a decade, says: "I find this whole Rs. 100 crore club very stupid. How can every film releasing lately do a business of Rs. 100 crores all of a sudden?"

An article meeting WP:NEO, such as the draft at User:TheRedPenOfDoom/sandbox/B100CC, is fine. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jreferee: If you look at almost the end part of this discussion than you would see that we were thinking of replacing the entire contents of the article with that in User:TheRedPenOfDoom/sandbox/B100CC. But we couldn't possibly do it because of an open AfD and merger proposal. - Jayadevp13 05:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD takes precedent over the non-AfD merge proposals and the closer of this AfD should close out an non-AfD merge or other discussion related to what to do with Bollywood Hundred Crore Club. The default length of an RfC and merge proposals[39] is 30 days whereas an AfD can be closed after seven days. Given the multiple discussions, it was correct to bring the issue to AfD to get a clear resolution and have a clear time frame as to when the issue can receive a consensus decision. Deleting Bollywood Hundred Crore Club instead of replacing the entire contents of the article will give consensus to keep out the tables etc. from any future of the Bollywood Hundred Crore Club page. Deleting only affects a particular topic. Deleting a list article on Bollywood Hundred Crore Club does not prevent subsequently moving User:TheRedPenOfDoom/sandbox/B100CC to the same location. -- Jreferee (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge (if possible) to List of highest-grossing Bollywood films per User:TheRedPenOfDoom. I supported the merge proposal at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films_worldwide#Merge_discussion, but have been holding off from posting here until an admin commented on whether it was correct to bring it to AFD. As Dr. Shahid Alam points out above, this page has been subject to extensive edit warring and page moves. This, as I see it, is a clue that the page name is part of the problem, and will continue to attract this sort of discordant editing. The neologism "100 Crore Club" is notable enough for a a brief, referenced mention in List of highest-grossing Bollywood films. Ruby Murray 16:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete If there's anything significant, merge it to List of highest-grossing Bollywood films Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2014 (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. WP:TNT applies - thanks to Acb314 for his work on the article ... I would have thought deleting and starting over would have been easiest, but he proved me wrong . Thanks again. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 03:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Cornrich[edit]

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

Absolute puffery obviously written by someone affiliated with Cornrich, a paid editor in all likelihood; while the aforementioned, in and of themselves, are not reasons for deletion, the fact that the article, as it stands, contains nothing useful that is not drivel that is blatantly biased indicates that, even if Cornrich meets GNG, which though he did receive some coverage, such as in these articles, is debatable ... he seems to qualify under criterion 4 as well as possibly criterion 8 of WP:DEL-REASON. I was going to simply strip the article of the promotional content into a one-to-two sentence stub, but there is too much spam here even just to do that. Go Phightins! 04:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve through the normal editing process. If Cornrich paid for this article, he should ask for a refund, as any competent paid editor wouldn't list a slew of bare URLs as references, especially since most go back to Cornrich's own website. The fact that Cornrich is known to be publicity shy also speaks against paid editing. That being said, Cornrich is a notable figure in the business of NFL football, as a Google Books search shows, as well as the articles linked by the nominator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article needs a rewrite but there are references in the article showing news coverage. It needs work but I think something can be salvaged. (Update - I have made some changes and removed a section to the talk page) Acb314 (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Acb314 has gone to town on the article, so I don't know if WP:TNT needs to go into effect here.LM2000 (talk) 02:46, 30 December 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. Courcelles 08:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Saviour (Syracuse, New York)[edit]

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

No indication in the article that it satisfies the relevant notability guideline WP:ORG or the general notability guideline WP:N. Wikipedia is not a directory of every church in the world. Edison (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prominent Anglo-Catholic church in upper New York which has undergone a number of notable events (particularly fires) and is noteworthy for among other things its pioneering use of free pews (a big deal in the Nineteenth Century). Despite what the nominator says, this is not written like a directory listing. JASpencer (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I have not found much in the way of online sources for this church, but its distinguished architectural and design lineage, as outlined in the current article, strongly suggest some level of notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources used in the article are not independent of the article topic, but a quick Google search turned up a couple of third-party sources that lead me to conclude that people not affiliated with this church consider it notable for its history, architecture, and/or organ: American Guild of Organists, New York Landmarks Conservancy. Also, I am amused to find that someone in England has linked to this article (and reproduced the photo) as a source of information on church architecture: [40] --Orlady (talk) 17:44, 30 December 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First Presbyterian Church of Marcellus[edit]

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

It does not appear to satisfy the relevant notability guideline, WP:ORG or the general notability guideline WP:N, although it is a very nicely written article. Edison (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep seems to have substantial material from a book, and also a newpaper ref. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-written, historically significant. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historically significant and has independently verifiable third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while some parts of the article do appear to descend into trivia (for example, a complete list of pastors), the church does appear to be of local historical notability and reliable sourcing doesn't seem to be a problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this several years ago, so it can go if it needs. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 00:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequately sourced, notability established.LM2000 (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted as WP:CSD#A7 by User:Secret (non-admin closure). Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Lami[edit]

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

Declined PROD. My rationale still stands "None of the sources are independent, or from reliable sources". Person seems up-and-coming, but does not seem notable. Pinging @Suriel1981:, who endorsed the PROD. Chris857 (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my PROD endorsement rationale was that the article appears to violate WP:NOTADVERTISING with its promotional tone and WP:CRYSTAL with its details of media to be released in 2015. Additionally, current notability is not clearly established, indeed the Twitter account linked has 4 followers and the Youtube account just one. I have additional concerns regarding the creator that I have raised elsewhere. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this was speedied, so can someone come along and close? Chris857 (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnydale High School library[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional library. Those few sources that do mention the library mention it in passing, stating that it served as the meeting place for the characters for the first four seasons and that it had a lot of books in it. That's it. The notability of the series is WP:NOTINHERITED by every fictional construct within it. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main independent source that mentions it is a blog, and therefore not a reliable source. Not notable outside of the world of the fictional work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Normally a merge would be preferable for this sort of thing, but there's really no in-depth sourced content to merge anywhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everything above, not notable.LM2000 (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nandhi (film)[edit]

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

I can't find any sources that demonstrate notability. The references in the article appear to go to user-generated content, similar to IMDb. Powers ^T 01:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Powers ^T 15:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 16:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found some hits under the spelling "Nandi", but so far it's really slow going. I'm kind of frustrated at how much I'm not finding since I am finding just enough in non-usable sources to assert that there should be more out there. Sudeep is a popular actor and even though this was fairly early in his career, he was pretty well known even back then. I did find where the award was confirmed, so that's a plus for the film. Not enough just yet. I think I'm going to hit up WP:INDIA and see if anyone can find some foreign language sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Good job Tokyogirl! Best Actor award for the performance in the film does make the film notable enough to stay. You may, of course, try to make it pass GNG. But if sources are missing for non-Bollywood regional films, i won't be surprised. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above discussion and sources found. Consider renaming per findings. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:40, 31 December 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. Items and concepts from within a television series do not automatically inherit notability from the series itself. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic Box (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources discuss this fictional store in such a way as to establish its notability independent of the fiction. Tagged for references for seven years. The notability of the series is WP:NOTINHERITED by every aspect of it. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep (and a healthy dose of WP:SOFIXIT) I believe this to have been a fairly popular bit of TV, to say the least. It's significant and non-trivial within that series. Any complaints about article quality are just that, complaints about quality rather than subject notability, and are thus fixable by the sort of editor who contributes to articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of the store within the fiction is not relevant, nor is the popularity of the series. There need to be independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the store itself. SOFIXIT doesn't apply when what is necessary to "fix" the article does not exist. Unless you're prepared to offer up those sources yourself? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:MUSTBESOURCES are not good keep rationales. This plot device does not seem notable, and it really doesn't matter how integral it is to the series (or how popular the series is). Unless reliable sources specifically discuss the subject of this article, it's not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without sources to establish notability, this does not need an article. TTN (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fictional location does not inherit the notability of the series it comes from. In lieu of reliable sources discussing this specific location in detail, I agree that its article should be removed. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:01, 6 January 2014 (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tripoding[edit]

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

"Tripoding" appears to be a non-notable neologism. The article references a bunch of sources which are either not significantly reliable or do not mention this term. Wictionary already has an article about this word, I'd suggest if this is a valid biological term that definition could be expanded. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term is a WP:NEO, but the phenomenon is real. -- 101.119.14.240 (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete GScholar's 149 hits shows that this is spurious. Book hits are better but are entirely for other sense of the word. Mangoe (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not spurious; the phenomenon is real. -- 101.119.14.240 (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The term used here may be a WP:NEO, but the phenomenon is real enough. See the reliable book references I have added to the article (and there are plenty more out there, if you search for "legs" "tail" and "tripod"). The monkey and squirrel examples seemed misplaced, and I have removed them (the tail is probably not being used as a support here). Possibly an article title change may be appropriate, but that is not an issue for AfD. -- 101.119.14.240 (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to give names to phenomena. If it doesn't have an established name, we won't have an article on it. Mangoe (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion that the topic is spurious has been shown to be false, now you're inventing Wikipedia policies? WP:GNG does not include the policy you're suggesting. If you don't like the article title, the appropriate action is a move request, not an AfD. And in any case, there is an established name, namely "tripod stance." -- 101.119.14.234 (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All we need is a one or two reliable sources that show this is a term used by biologists in this sense. In the absence of these sources, we'd be guilty of publishing original research which is one of the cardinal sins of Wikipedia editing. --Salimfadhley (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. AfD is about whether the subject of the article is notable. The subject in this case is animals adopting a tripod stance using two legs and a tail. The sources in the article show that the subject is discussed by biologists and is notable per WP:GNG. Reporting these facts is not remotely original research, and WP:GNG does not require significant coverage of the article title -- only of the topic. If you don't like the article title (and I'm not wild about it myself), the appropriate action would have been a move request, not an AfD (the literature would certainly support a title like "tripod stance"). -- 101.119.14.234 (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The IP editor can sigh all he wants, but it's not going to change the fact that this fails WP:NEO. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm now moving for speedy keep based on the fact that no policy-based arguments for deletion have been advanced; merely (valid) arguments to change the title. If you look at WP:NEO, the applicable section says "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." That's not an argument to delete, but an argument to rename the article to avoid WP:NEO. -- 101.119.15.209 (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creator's comments - strong keep As the creator of this page, I felt there were enough occurrences in Wikipedia of the term "tripoding" for this behaviour to deserve its own page. I really can not understand how anyone can deny this behaviour occurs given the images I placed on the original article - are photos not evidence as much as words? (And I favour replacement of some of these photos.) I did not take any of the photos myself and I did not refer to any of my own published research on ethology, therefore this article can not be original research. On reflection, I agree the title might not be the best - I was simply using the term that has been used previously by editors on Wikipedia to assist searches - I would favour the move to Tripod stance.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Perhaps retitling is in order, but that's a different discussion for after this one. Either way, this is a real thing and not a new concept or neologism. I did a search for "tripod stance", https://www.google.com/#q=tripod+stance+tail+-dinosaur and clearly the tripod stance has significant coverage - and more if you include all the "T-Rex didn't actually have a tripod stance" ones! Montanabw^(talk) 07:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creator's comments This is the first of 40+ articles I have created that has been nominated for deletion, so AfD is a new process to me. How/when is it decided that the page is deleted or kept? I (and presumably other editors) feel unwilling to do any more work on the page unless its future is secure.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely that the discussion will go on for a while and then someone will look at all the comments and decide what are the most convincing facets. Then that person will declare the article kept or closed and put a closing box around the discussion saying that the discussion has ended. The outcome is not necessarily democratic, but depends on what is most convincing. I hope that the article is kept, so may I suggest that you continue to improve the article and not waste too much time here. Snowman (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To me this looks notable and also it seems to me to be interesting and well sourced. The title of the article could be made more precise, perhaps by using a phrase rather than one word, so I think the heading could be a topic for the talk page. Snowman (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The primary rationale for deletion seems to be WP:NEO, but this fails to address the issue of whether the tripod stance is a notable kind of animal behavior. If no sources use the exact term "tripoding", then the article should be renamed to something purely descriptive, per the last paragraph of the WP:NEO policy itself. A valid reason for deletion must address the issue of whether this is a notable phenomenon in biology, not whether the term itself is superficially notable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability For those considering whether the subject matter of this page is notable, it may be worth realising that pages exist on Standing, Lying, Sitting and many other postures/positions - presumably these were considered sufficiently notable.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of related articles does not imply that this article is notable. One relevant datum is whether this has been independently studied by reliable sources on animal behavior. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ermmm...don't the 16 reliable references show that the behaviour HAS been studied independently and on multiple occasions? I'm not even sure multiple studies are a criterion - what about when a new species is discovered and there is only one (reliable) report on the species. Do we have to wait until there are multiple reports on the species before it can appear on Wikipedia? With regards to notability, in my opinion (and notability can only be opinion), standing by a bipedal animal is considerably less notable than a quadruped animal shifting to a bipedal position and supporting itself with its tail.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've not looked at those sources to see what is actually said there. I was merely commenting as a point of order for those arguing deletion based (apparently) on the title alone. That's not grounds for deletion, and absent some more substantial reason for deletion, the article will default to keep. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per article creator's suggestion for "tripod stance." Montanabw^(talk) 04:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename (article creator) __DrChrissy (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tripod stance (is moving articles while at AfD really helpful?). The phrase "tripod stance" gets 165 hits on Scholar, which show that the phrase is commonly used both in animal locomotion and in robotics. It's definitely notable. The article is interesting, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a thing, mentioned in journals, textbooks and elsewhere, as "tripodding", "tripodal stance", "tripod stance" or simply "resting on its two hind legs and tail" etc. An encyclopedia article would be useful. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:27, 3 January 2014 (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 Coffee milk. Serindipitous closes aside, the consensus for a merge is clear here. However, as it appears all relevant information has already been merged, a redirect is now in order. (Note: Any information felt to not have been merged can be retrived from the article's history.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee syrup[edit]

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

Withdrawing proposed merger and nominating for deletion. Duplicates contents of Coffee milk. Before my most recent edits to the latter, it duplicated the text almost exactly. Coffee milk is the notable subject as the official state drink of Rhode Island, not the syrup. (Also, the article cites no sources and makes no claim to notability except through coffee milk). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge selectively to Coffee milk.~~ Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: - I proposed merge first, then withdrew it when I realized all of the content on coffee syrup was duplicated at coffee milk, rested on the notability of coffee milk, and that much of it was inaccurate and/or unsourced. After a rewrite of coffee milk (in the last hour), there is nothing further on the coffee syrup page that can be merged. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's some content in Coffee syrup that's not present in the Coffee milk article, and a quick search demonstrates that the content in Coffee syrup has a potential to be sourced. For example, see, this book link (pp. 146-147) (scroll down) about the origins of Autocrat Coffee Company. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What was there that wasn't present in Coffee milk? The coffee cabinets sentence, I guess? The "Originally produced in..drug stores" seems to be the only other thing not duplicated, and that's because I removed it from the other article as unsourced (in favor of a sourced history that tells a slightly different story). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (changing my !vote above). Upon a review of available sources, (and more are available), this topic passes WP:GNG. Source examples include:

Providence Monthly
Huffington Post
Imbibe magazine
CBS News
Rhode Island Curiosities
New England Country Store Cookbook
Boston.com

Again, more sources are available other than those I've listed. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Below are the titles of all of the references you mention:
- Coffee Milk: The Rhode Island Specialty Fueled By Autocrat Syrup
- Drunk on Gansett Coffee Milk
- Narragansett Beer Co. Planning Autocrat Coffee Milk Stout
- Narragansett announces release of Autocrat Coffee Milk Stout
- (Title of the section in the RI Curiosities book):Milk in your coffee? Coffee in your Milk!
The only one out of all of these that doesn't contain "coffee milk" in the title is a recipe for coffee syrup on 1 page of a book. Aside from that one, any notability coffee syrup has would be inherited from the drink, coffee milk, that has been the subject of far more sources.
Aside from the negligible recipe are there any sources that talk about coffee syrup independent of coffee milk? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Try a control/find search for "coffee syrup" and "syrup" (which it is often referred to thereafter) in the sources I provided instead, and also read them, rather than relying upon the term within article and book titles. The topic clearly passes WP:GNG. As the old saying goes, one shouldn't judge a book by its cover. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point isn't that the sources don't mention coffee syrup, it's that the only notability it has comes from the drink and does not have significant reliable coverage apart from it (the way e.g. chocolate syrup does -- that article's not looking so hot at the moment but I have no doubt there are plenty of articles about chocolate syrup on its own merit).
Even if we say "ok, all of its coverage is tied to coffee milk but it's still significant reliable coverage," passing the GNG doesn't mean it gets a stand-alone article -- only that it's notable enough to appear in Wikipedia. Hence why I initially tagged it for merge -- but it has nothing to offer the other article so merge isn't applicable. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Looking at both articles and the above discussed sources I'm not persuaded it's independently notable, and with coffee milk already existing and covering the same ground there is no need for a separate article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that the Coffee milk article does not have all of the content of the Coffee syrup article within it. For example, compare the timeline section (which I've worked to expand and cite) in the Coffee syrup article to content in Coffee milk. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hm. As I said in my nomination rationale, in my response to your initial comments, and again elsewhere: the timeline as well as everything else coffee syrup has that is not on coffee milk was on coffee milk as of this morning -- until I revised it. Everything usable from the timeline was incorporated into Coffee milk#History, and everything that was unsourced OR, marketing/promotion, trivia, etc. stripped out. So again, all of the content from coffee syrup was duplicated at coffee milk this morning -- until, on the latter, the garbage was removed and good bits worked into the article (as opposed to a "timeline" section) --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: to be fair, I should say Northamerica1000 did recently add sources/content about beer to both articles and I pulled those references which were not already at coffee milk over from coffee syrup. ...But that it's a "coffee milk stout," I think, just makes the point again. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is also quite expandable compared to its present state, per sources available that cover the topic. Again, many more sources exist other than those I posted in my !vote above. Also, regardless, Happy holidays to all.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above discussion and looking at the articles it appears that they are very closely related and would best be covered as a single subject. Much of the content has already been merged. Redirect and include anything else worthy in a combined article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A fact of the matter is that coffee syrup is not used only as an ingredient to make coffee milk. For example, it's also used in the preparation of coffee cabinets. I still feel that the topic has received enough significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify for a standalone article, and that a merge to coffee milk would dilute the topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your argument. My suggestion would be to build a section in the merged article on coffee syrup and if in fact it grows unwield it can at some future point perhaps be broken out. But at the mo, the two articles are so interwined it doesn't seem to me to make a lot of sense to have two article covering them. I think the distinctions can be noted in a ombined article. Boht relate to Rhode Island, etc. etc. Maybe others will feel differently but that's my opinion. Happy New Year!!! Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems to be the best option for now. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge agree.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shlomi Constantini[edit]

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

no actual evidence of notability. President of a major international society is notability , but the ones listed here are not major societies, but sub-specialty societies. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just passes WP:Prof#C1 with an h-index of about 21. Presidencies will help. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep It's not often that I disagree with my colleague DGG (and then usually I am a bit more in favor of deletion than he is), but for once, WoS gives higher citation results than GS... I get a couple of thousand citations, seven articles with >100 to up to 256 citations, and an h-index of 26. It's a horrible "article", though, in dire need of cleanup. --Randykitty (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know of other cases too where GS gives a lower h-index than WoS. It's not uncommon. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 29 December 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Diners of Toronto[edit]

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

Utterly trivial tabloid material. Some of the refs are mere mentions. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 29 December 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 December 29. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable, purely local interest.TheLongTone (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't quite meet WP:GNG standards. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I'm taking care to avoid I don't like it as an argument here, but I agree that this is pointless society gossip about a thoroughly non-notable topic. A group that tries to eat out at all the restaurants of Toronto is simply not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article, even if they are continually written about in newspapers by society writers desperate to fill pages. Still, I don't think it's a catastrophe if this article survives the AfD. --Slashme (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There has been no evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bronze[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional bar. The few sources that discuss the Bronze at all beyond noting it as a location discuss it not as a standalone subject but entirely in terms that some of the music of Buffy (itself a clearly notable topic) is played there. The notability of the series is WP:NOTINHERITED by every aspect of it. Article has been tagged as under-referenced for going on seven years. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The topic is a spinoff from Music in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel in which it is a section. The topic is discussed directly in sources such as Strutting and Fretting: A Music Arc Needs a Stage — The Bronze. Our editing policy is therefore to develop this material rather than deleting it. Andrew (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proffered source is one that I looked at in deciding whether to make this nomination. It covers the music used within the series and discusses the Bronze solely in terms of its being a music venue and not in its own right. An article on how Buffy used music would be encyclopedic and the proffered source would certainly be useful in writing it but it does not support a separate article on the fictional bar itself. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. I guess it could be merged back to wherever it was originally spun off, but I don't really see the point. The source offered above seems to fit more to the parent article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The one source provided isn't significant enough for an entire article on the topic, and it seems likely any discussion on the topic will fit within the music article. TTN (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pickering[edit]

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

May fail Wikipedia's WP:general notability guidelines SarahStierch (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Creator of notable programs as well as production company. SOurces such as here verfiy his role. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:27, 31 December 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. ~~Soft delete, i.e. the previous PROD stands. An further undeletion request may be fulfilled again if appropriate sources are proposed.~~ (Sorry, I rushed this without thinking clearly. Thanks for the notification.)

Consensus against the notability requirements being fulfilled. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 16:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Grove[edit]

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

This article was deleted as a result of a deletion proposal made by Wikipedical on 9 September 2013‎. Subsequently, a request for undeletion was made, and I restored the article. However, after waiting for nearly two months, I see that nothing whatever has been done to address the issue raised in Wikipedical's original PROD, namely "Non-notable performer; requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. None provided, nor found in Google News.", which remains just as true now as when the proposal was made, so I am bringing it here. The article does not provide a single independent reliable source. Hits from a Google search start with this Wikipedia article, IMDb, a couple of YouTube videos, Twitter, a couple of Wikia entries, a listing site that merely tells us his town of birth, date of birth, that his language is English, and a link to his web site, and so on: not a sign of substantial coverage in any independent reliable source. The article has been tagged for more sources for over 5 years, to no avail. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 17:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 17:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say he passes WP:NACTOR. He has the main role in a notable television series, and had major roles in What Just Happened and Beverly Hills Chihuahua 3: Viva la Fiesta!. While these movies and shows sound pretty bad, his roles in them are enough to satisfy the guideline for me. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete JamesBWatson has ably summarized the lack of general notability, so I agree that WP:NACTOR is the only hope for this article. As far as I can tall, however, the subject has not had "significant roles in multiple...productions". The only significant role he has had was as the voice of the protagonist in The Amazing World of Gumball, a role he no longer has. His other roles were all quite minor. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. JamesBWatson has said it succinctly. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. To refute the point made by User:Taylor Trescott, the two movies noted are a straight to video animated sequel, and a bit part in another film. Neither in my mind makes a strong contribution to a notability argument based on WP:ENTERTAINER. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom and Eggishorn. We have been especially wary of keeping articles about marginally notable child actors. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the comments. I found four articles on HighBeam, but he's just listed with actors for film release, etc. type articles.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a difficult one, especially since it comes on the heels of the Sarah Stierch disaster which polarized the community with respect to paid advocacy. If we try to analyze the arguments with a cool head, there is consensus that the article in the current form is not appropriate, but the company is likely notable. Therefore, keeps argue that the article can be saved by editing it, and deleted argue that it has no place in the mainspace. Numerically, we have slightly more deletes (which is tricky to count anyway since there are some dissenting and weak opinions). The only way I see to find smth like a common ground is to delete the article without prejudice against userfication at the first request (please contact me if you are not admin and want it to be userfied).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PrintingForLess[edit]

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

I think they are probably notable; not all the refs are substantial, but some seem to be. However, this article is so promotional that the only practical thing to do is to delete it and let someone without COI start over. I note the emphasis on how the founder happened to think of the idea -- in this case ,while fly fishing --complete with a WP link to the river he was fishing in. I note the pervasive puffwords, "unique", the discussion of how they train their staff, the undocumented (and I think undocumentable) claims of what they could do that traditional printing could not. The reason for not stubbifying it is to get this sort of material out of the article history. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Company notable, article needs a rewrite. That's not an AfD issue. Keep Neonchameleon (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:44, 14 December 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, L Faraone 07:29, 22 December 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) 00:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Neonchameleon, this is a salvageable project.LM2000 (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting delay of 1-2 days. I just became aware of it through a user talk page I watchlist. I plan on looking at it over the next 24 hours. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I ask for deletion rather than cleaning ,because of the need to giving strong discouragement to rings of paid editors; this was a typical project of one such ring, written in their standard form. According to their usual contracts, if we reject such articles, they don't get paid. If the article is worth writing which is possible, someone else can write it from scratch later. Personally, I think we need more articles on notable businesses, but we should set the priorities for writing the articles according to their relative notability, and this one is not very notable. If we were to salvage it, it would mean eliminating most of section 1, all of sections 4, 5, and 6, and removing the promotional adjectives & similar writing from the remaining parts. leaving less than 1/4 of the article. Were this written by a good faith editor, I would have done it myself rather than come here adjust DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although you did not name names, it's pretty obvious that you are talking about the creator of this page. Granted, that editor has no edits that I as a non-admin can see beyond this article, but that alone doesn't warrant practically accusing him of paid editing. I saw no indication that this editor has ever been blocked, brought up at ANI, been the subject of a sockpuppet investigation, etc. etc. It would be helpful if you provided a list of other articles which were written in this "standard form" so we could judge for ourselves. It's too bad that these edits are probably too old for an SPI/checkuser to do any good. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withholding judgment because the claim that the editor was acting in bad faith seems to be the crux of the matter, and I can't distinguish a bad-faith editor from a good-faith one in such situations without additional evidence. I completely agree with DGG that the current article needs to be re-written, but to delete the existing article only for the purpose of denying someone a paycheck who may not even have done this for a paycheck is overkill without additional evidence. I recommend keeping this AFD open until 1 week after the nominator supplies the evidence, provided he do so within a reasonable time (2-3 days). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have the tools (such as legal discovery proceedings) to confirm paid editing where it is not disclosed, so the only thing that can be done is to guess based on the edits themselves, knowing we will sometimes get it wrong and never know for sure. Editors like user:DGG who are experienced in these cases can do a pretty good job detecting it, however I find a "ring of paid editors" unlikely. PRSA's study shows only 1-2% of companies hire a paid editing firm, while the majority use their PR firm or internal staff. I don't think you are actually preventing them from getting a paycheck, just making their clients (who are paying for general PR services) a little unhappy that the Wikipedia project (which probably has no dedicated resources or funds) was not as successful.

Further, it looks like the article was submitted to AfC, which is proper behavior for user:Kmhagler, who I think we can safely assume works at PrintingForLess or its PR agency. The problem is that the article was accepted, when if I was in user:Hahc21's shoes, I would have declined for promo and asked them to clean it up before it's ready for article-space.

At this point, I have already cleaned up the article to reasonably acceptable standards, however I would have also supported deletion if nobody felt like putting in the time for cleanup. But I think the deletion rationale should be that the article violates WP:NOT and that a blank slate is a better starting point than the article, rather than the COI angle. We would want to remove PROMO anywhere, regardless of the author. What I think is needed is a policy about co. articles that attacks both promotion and unsourced contentious material with the same fervor as copyvio and other such problems, which would encourage higher standards of neutrality based on the content itself and not who authored it. CorporateM (Talk) 15:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I did not remember I was the one who accepted this util I checked the history (though it was almost a year and a half ago). My bad. — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 18:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to WP:Articles for Creation. That should satisfy all. Otherwise, delete per WP:Not. And not after some delay or postponement, either. Dloh cierekim 15:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

furthermore It's been relisted twice already, for Crissake. I Dloh cierekim 15:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS- I wish someone would pay me to do this. Alas, y'all couldn't afford me. Dloh cierekim 15:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to AFC after all of this time would be a WP:BOLD use of WP:IAR, and I wouldn't recommend it as it might start a precedent. In general, returning pages to AFD is only done in the first few days after acceptance. While I still haven't made up my mind of delete vs. keep, I would prefer delete over "return to AFD" due to the article's age. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my. A reviewer sent it out with these issues? Dloh cierekim 22:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Per WP:NOT and IAR. The question here comes down to what hurts the encyclopedia more: deleting this article and causing someone else to spend time writing it in the future (a slight inconvinence), or keeping this article and thereby sanctioning using this great encyclopedia as an advertisement/PR site. When posed like this, the answer becomes obvious: This article should not be allowed to stay here. If it is, it will only allow the further corruption of our purpose. And if we allow special interests to take over our mission here, we'll be no different than the politicians that allowed governments worldwide to be corrupted the same way. Money should not be allowed to influence our system here, period. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very compelling argument for a total and immediate rewrite, leaving none of the existing text beyond bare facts. As an argument for deletion similar to WP:DENY, it has its merits but not nearly as compelling. Basically, the only "good" choices seem to be: Rewrite it now and keep the edit history, rewrite it now and delete the edit history, or delete the article and rewrite it whenever someone gets around to it. The other choice, "don't rewrite immediately, don't delete" is not a good option IMHO. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:09, 11 January 2014 (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Gordon[edit]

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

He seems to have done some interesting work, but nothing to establish notability. Additionally, it was created by a WP:Single-purpose account with the name 'John' in his username, and has been tagged for notability for almost six years - hopefully we can resolve it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CREATIVE #3 multiple reviews/articles in reliable sources about works he wrote or co-wrote: [41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50]. -- GreenC 20:05, 24 December 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) 00:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Substantially covered in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:35, 31 December 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. Courcelles 08:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Wong[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating on behalf of Spngejen (talk • contribs) who has suggested that the subject has not increased in notability since the article was deleted after the first AFD. Functional nomination - neutral for now. Stalwart111 10:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion I created this article as I believe the subject qualifies under the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. It is now well-referenced and there are several media articles about her and her work in well-known newspapers such as the Hong Kong Economic Times, the South China Morning Post and Apple Daily. Veteram (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too little improvement since last time. Maybe too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Has both book reviews (AUTHOR) and GNG coverage in multiple reliable sources. The previous AfD did not mention any of these sources which I assume from Veteram's comment above are new or mostly so. -- GreenC 08:38, 24 December 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) 00:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources of author and her work. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keepMarioNovi (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2014 (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. Courcelles 08:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diphan[edit]

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

This is a biography of living person, but does not cite any reliable source. The only source sited is IMDB, which is, per deffinition, not reliable (Wikipedia:Citing IMDb). So, the article fails wp:BLP. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Individual isn't significant or notable. --MrRatermat2 (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No RS? Really? I found some quite easily... This says he directed the 2013 film SIM, and this one about Puthiya Mukham and this one about he co-directing D Company. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first link there is enough for me. The Times of India is treating him as a notable part of the film - and it has its own category listing for him Keep Neonchameleon (talk) 23:53, 16 December 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, Sandstein 11:36, 22 December 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) 00:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:39, 31 December 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. It is clear that at this time that the community does not feel a list of this nature would fall under WP:IINFO. As such, there is no strong argument for this article's removal at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of events held in Kombank Arena[edit]

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

This list is clearly against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We don't need a record of every event held at this arena, especially since the more notable events are already listed that the parent article (Kombank Arena). The "upcoming events" section is additionally against WP:FUTURE. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no idea what's your problem with this article. It's a useful collection of information about the events held in the Arena. It's not just a list, it contains information about the events, short description, notes, the info on the attendance (in the cases of record-breaking attendances), references, etc. If there is a problem about the fact this is a list, then we shouldn't have lists on wikipedia. Otherwise, for example, if there's an article on a concert tour (e.g. The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour), we'll have all the concerts in this tour listed. Also, in that case, we'll have scheduled events listed as well (official list of upcoming events in the arena can be easily found at http://www.kombankarena.rs/en/events/index/List+of+upcoming+events , so I believe that counts as a credible source. WP:FUTURE states: Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. In this case, these events are notable in the context of this article, and are almost certain to take place, as we have a reputable source claiming these events will happen). Finally, if you want some additional info or a summary, I will gladly provide it. But don't delete something just because you don't see a point of an article - someone else might see it. Why would you remove it, then? I really don't understand. This is a useful article, simple as that.--Vitriden (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 23 December 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) 00:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as promotional fluff. This belongs on the venue's web site, not in an encyclopedia. The future event listings can only be promotional, as they certainly cannot yet be notable. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Have you even looked at the article? To present it as "promotional fluff for future events" is ridiculously incorrect.Zvonko (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a list of "Look what we've done!" that is mostly non-notable events. That has no other purpose than to be promotional. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Look what we've done" ?!? Huh? So, you're suggesting that the management of Belgrade/Kombank Arena created and maintained this Wikipedia article in order to profit from it? That's quite a burden of proof you've taken on.

Furthermore, if imparting info on what a person or an entity has done has as you accuse "no other purpose than promotion" and is therefore according to you subject to deletion and if concerts, tours, sporting events are "mostly non-notable" then a huge number of Wiki articles should be deleted. It seems to me that you're writing them off as non-notable simply because you yourself have never heard of them.Zvonko (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Copperfield's event in that venue on that date was not notable. Phil Collins' concert on that date in that venue was not notable. Etc. Etc. Notable people do non-notable things, especially in the day-to-day pursuit of their craft. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so you don't think David Copperfield's and Phil Collins' activities are notable. Good for you, that's your POV. Unfortunately, the greater community is not agreement with you as evidenced by the existence of articles such as:

Seriously, Live! World Tour

Both Sides of the World Tour

The Hello, I Must Be Going Tour

The No Jacket Required World Tour

David Copperfield's laser illusion

David Copperfield's flying illusion

and so on and so forth. I guess I shouldn't be wasting any more of your time because you should then be principled enough to fight for the deletion of each and every one of these articles including some hundreds if not thousands more like them.

Also you want the article deleted on a false premise. You say it "has no other purpose than promotion" yet you offer nothing more than your POV in support of that claim.Zvonko (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good job proving that the tours were notable. Poor job proving that one particular uneventful concert in the subject venue was notable. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I proved is your own logical inconsistency when it comes to requesting the articles to be deleted based on containing what you call "non-notable info" . You pretty much consider any single show "non-notable" or "run of the mill", yet a collection of those "non-notable, run-of-the-mill" shows is suddenly notable enough for you. But not always, sometimes you just feel like terming a collection of "non-notable, run-of-the-mill" shows not notable. So we're really going on your whim here, aren't we?

And when are you going to address your "promotional" accusations that you use as the basis to have this article deleted? How is listing events that took place in an arena promotion, while it's not promotion to list events as part of an article documenting an artist's tour? And please answer with something that doesn't amount to "it's like that because I say it is".Zvonko (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to point out that I am the one who started this article and I am the author of some 80 percent of the article. I am a doctor of medicine from Belgrade, I have a regular job, and I am neither employed nor in any way affiliated to Kombank Arena. I started the article in 2007 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_events_held_in_Kombank_Arena&oldid=172751739 ), when there was only handful of events in the "previous events" section. I have also created some other articles, unrelated to Kombank Arena (listed here), and I've been an active contributor on English Wikipedia since March 2006. The reasons I've kept updating this particular article for seven years (dear God!) are: (1) I consider it useful; (2) I've started it and I consider that, as pretentious as it may sound, my duty. Oh yes, and (3) I enjoy it. So, if this is a "promotional fluff", I just want you and everyone to know it's not organized by someone employed by the Arena (I am not sure they even know about this article), but by me and a small number of other editors. If that's important anyway.--Vitriden (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see how this is in any way "promotional". I agree with Vitriden that the list is useful. 23 editor (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really don't understand what makes you think no future event can be considered notable. Is 2014 FIFA World Cup notable by your standards?--Vitriden (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the more ridiculous AfD listings. None of the 4 points of WP:INDISCRIMINATE apply to the article in the slightest while invoking WP:FUTURE here, thereby essentially saying the article is "collection of unverifiable speculation", is simply too preposterous for words. A clear case of "I kinda don't like it so off with its head" if you ask me.Zvonko (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is exactly the type of non-encyclopaedic list that the guidelines were drafted to avoid. Having some notable events or names in a list does not make the list notable. Having chunks of non-notable events serves neither the informational, the navigational nor the developmental purposes of lists. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Purposes of lists. And just because a person or band is notable does not make their every appearance notable. Notability is not transferred. --Bejnar (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not convinced. Don't see anything in the guidelines listed here that supports the view of the info imparted in this article (or the way info is framed) as "non-encyclopaedic", "non-notable", "promotional", or "unverifiable speculation". The arguments presented here to delete this article basically boil down to "I don't like it".99.226.44.125 (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#List of events by place. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, INDISCRIMINATE is a narrowly worded policy consisting of four or five specific situations and is not obviously applicable to this article. James500 (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTPAPER. Indiscriminate doesn't apply, as the list is finite, relatively short and with a clear inclusion criterion, so it doesn't match in any way what INDISCRIMINATE is about. WP:INDISCRIMINATE was created to avoid the project become everything2 or DMOZ; but this is not a "list of all ISP providers in Indiana" or "list of health-related websites". WP:LISTN doesn't require that all items in the list are notable.

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 more notable events are already included at Friends Arena#Events; also not in accordance with WP:LISTN. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 15:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of events at Friends Arena[edit]

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

This list is clearly against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We don't need a record of every event held at this place, especially since the more notable events are already listed that the parent article (Friends Arena). The "2014" section is additionally against WP:FUTURE. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I personally do not see a reason to delete a worthy list of events in a internationally prominent arena.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:30, 25 December 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) 00:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as promotional fluff. This belongs on the venue's web site, not in an encyclopedia. The future event listings can only be promotional, as they certainly cannot yet be notable. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can the future events become notable if you deemed the already occurred events to be obviously non notable as you want it deleted?. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On their own, without the promotional assistance of a mention on Wikipedia. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It only becomes promotional if someone thinks it is. All I see is a list of notable events in an arena. How can that be promotional.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is a run-of-the-mill concert by One Direction "notable"? A Kiss concert? Bruce Springsteen? What was it about these concerts that was notable? --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is how you interpret "notability", why aren't you screaming at the top of your lungs fighting for the deletion of literally thousands of Wiki articles that document tours stops of different musical acts? Zvonko (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - More zealotry from P 1 9 9 who went through the Category:Lists of events by place and arbitrarily selected a few articles from it and nominated them for deletion. None of these articles are in violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and they're definitely not in violation of WP:FUTURE. Some are not as well sourced and maintained as the others but that's not a reason to delete them.Zvonko (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Zvonko: Keep the personal attacks to yourself and stick to deletion arguments. My interpretation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE includes these excessive listings and I am entitled to that opinion. If community consensus is "keep", I'll be more than happy to accept that. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see any logic, reason, principle or criteria in what you're doing. In addition to invoking Wiki guidelines where they do not apply you've gone through Category:Lists of events by place selected 4-5 entries while leaving the other 10 or so. Why? What's your own criteria in this selection process when you decided to nominate some while leaving others.Zvonko (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zvonko: WP:NOT does not specifically mention "list of events", but IMO, it is still contrary the ideas/principles there ("Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia"). Because this is my interpretation, I am nominating these articles for (deletion) discussion. Why only nominating a selection of them? OK, fair question. To set a precedent for the other ones. Besides not all lists are as all-inclusive as this one, for instance, Events at Madison Square Garden is limited to notable events only. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once you manage to get one of the articles you nominated deleted (which is looking like a distinct possibility now), and once you then use that precedent deletion to wipe out the rest of Category:Lists of events by place, I hope you'll remain consistent & principled and go after the thousands of Wiki articles that list different musical acts' tours with the same "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" scrutiny. Zvonko (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, the notable events can be covered in the article about Friends Arena. Mentoz86 (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what criteria do you plan on applying to determine which events are notable enough to be included in the list?Zvonko (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User Mentoz86, respectfully I have to ask you, you are !voting delete but says that notable events can be covered in the main article but if you are !voting delete you say that all events is non-notable. And if some events are notable then the list is notable and of use for its readers. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is exactly the type of non-encyclopaedic list that the guidelines were drafted to avoid. Having some notable events or names in a list does not make the list notable, contrary to BabbaQ's opinion. Having chunks of non-notable events serves neither the informational, the navigational nor the developmental purposes of lists. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Purposes of lists --Bejnar (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#List of events by place. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:18, 9 January 2014 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of events at Tele2 Arena[edit]

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

This list is clearly against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We don't need a record of every event held at this place, especially since the more notable events are already listed at the parent article (Tele2 Arena - although this can be expanded a bit). The "2014" section is additionally against WP:FUTURE. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is a good list in my opinion. It is needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I think the list is a good one and is needed especially since it is an international standard arena. Which has already hosted big events.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:31, 25 December 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) 00:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as promotional fluff. This belongs on the venue's web site, not in an encyclopedia. The future event listings can only be promotional, as they certainly cannot yet be notable. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can the future events become notable if you deemed the already occurred events to be obviously non notable as you want it deleted?.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an indiscriminate list of information. Major events can be included in the main article. --bonadea contributions talk 13:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - More zealotry from P 1 9 9 who went through the Category:Lists of events by place and arbitrarily selected a few articles from it and nominated them for deletion. None of these articles are in violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and they're definitely not in violation of WP:FUTURE. Some are not as well sourced and maintained as the others but that's not a reason to delete them.Zvonko (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, the notable events can be covered in the article about Tele2 Arena. Mentoz86 (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But if you ate !voting delete you mean that not any of the events are notable. Because if some are then the list is notable. So?. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Mentoz86 and don't know their take on this, but I do not agree that the list of events is by definition notable just because a few of the list elements are notable. WP:NOTINHERITED would seem to apply here. --bonadea contributions talk 13:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no need for a calendar-style list of more-or-less every event at an arena. (Not even in those cases when the arena is visible from my window. :-) ) Tomas e (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the arena hosts a large number of notable events, or events centering around notable people or groups, there is obvious value to the users of the encyclopedia in such a list. That's not a formal reason for keeping an article, so it would have to be by reinterpreting NOT Indiscriminate using IAR. If a deletion reason prevents including something that improves the encyclopedia, IAR takes precedence as it does every wp policy and guideline. Whether it actually does improve the encyclopedia to have lists like this is another matter, and could be validly discussed. Whether these events are by and large sufficiently important to be worth the trouble could be discussed also. Most articles removed by NOT INDISCRIMINATE do not have value to any likely users, or the value is not as important as other possible problems. I don;t see problems here, and the material may become very hard to find otherwise. Of course, such lists can get very long, but we're NOT PAPER. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point there is a very small number of notable events that have been held at the arena, though (I count two or three, depending on how strictly you define "notable"), and I don't quite see why those could not be more usefully listed in the article about the arena. --bonadea contributions talk 08:43, 5 January 2014 (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. KTC (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Air Max LeBron shoe line[edit]

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

Article written like an ad for Nike shoes, listing their products, and with no other sources than Nike themselves and a mention on Twitter. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 23 December 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) 00:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivia, of no encyclopaedic value. Not only are the "sources" only Nike and Twitter, but they don't even support any significant part of the content of the article. Also, it probably wasn't intended as an advertisement, but that's what it looks like. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced fan article. No hope of passing WP:GNG.--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:39, 5 January 2014 (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. Courcelles 08:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep (rapper)[edit]

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

Non notable musician, fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a waste of time. Firstly, he does meet WP:GNG, as demonstrated by the references included in the article and any cursory Google search for his albums. Secondly, as a musician, the specific criteria he has to satisfy are WP:MUSICBIO, which he does - easily meeting criterion #1 (see references in article/more easily found via Google), criterion #5 (Strange Famous Records), and criterion #6 (The Chicharones and Oldominion [the latter don't have an article, but I'd remind you that that implies nothing about notability and the group also meets criterion #6 re: independently notable members]). - Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well i only found one review from a notable publication and i don't think that is enough. Koala15 (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are either reliable or unreliable; "notability" has nothing to do with it. Familiarise yourself with the criteria for reliability. A website can be notable (can be eligible for its own Wikipedia article) without being a reliable source (say, 4chan), and a source can be reliable without being notable by Wikipedia standards (this applies to most sources, most websites, including Hip Hop DX and other sources we use all the time). Some of the references in the article are dead links, but even there there are at least two indisputably reliable sources, the Boston Phoenix and All Music Guide. Did you not check the existing references? Here are a few more from a quick google: [51], [52], [53], [54] The appropriate action for you to take would have been to add a Refimprove template, not call for the article's deletion. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 01:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well the reliable sources for this artist are scarce besides the Boston Phoenix review or the AllMusic source. But i guess we shall see what the other users think. Koala15 (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just given you four other sources from a cursory google. And that was leaving out any sources on The Chicharones or Oldominion. This AfD should not have happened; you obviously did no research and possibly didn't read/understand the notability guidelines. The appropriate course of action was a Refimprove. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage in reliable sources to be covered here, but perhaps a merge to The Chicharones would be an option. --Michig (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough reliable sources to establish notability. With the exception of the Phoenix review and AllMusic (which is a fishing net that indexes all musical acts and can't be used to establish notability), the only references are to blogs, a Facebook page, and Sleep's own label's website. DocumentError (talk) 04:20, 26 December 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) 00:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll sum up the arguments made thusfar:

Koala15 nominated the article for deletion because of the subject's "failure" to meet the general notability guidelines. This assessment is false, as Sleep "has received significant coverage in (multiple) reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as demonstrated by the sources provided in the article and the further sources provided in this AfD.
As a musician, the specific notability guidelines the subject has to meet are WP:MUSICBIO. These criteria were not consulted by Koala15 before noninating the article for deletion.
Sleep meets criterion #1: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. - Sources so far provided include: Exclaim, XLR8R, URB, Willamette Week, Spinner, The Boston Phoenix, and All Music Guide. DocumentError claims that All Music Guide cannot be used to establish notability, but this is only true for artists who have been merely indexed, not for artists who have received non-trivial coverage in the form of biographies or album reviews. In addition to these sources, here are three interviews with Sleep as one half of The Chicharones, from Yahoo, IndyMojo, and Spinner.
Sleep meets criterion #5: Has released two or more albums ... on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable). - Sleep has released two albums (and will soon release a third) on Sage Francis's record label Strange Famous Records, whose roster of notable artists includes Sage Francis, B. Dolan, Cecil Otter, Buck 65, No Bird Sing, Metermaids, Curtis Plum, Buddy Peace, Dan le Sac vs Scroobius Pip, Prolyphic, Reanimator and 2Mex.
Sleep arguably meets criterion #6: ...is a musician who has been a reasonably-prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. - Sleep is one half of The Chicharones with Josh Martinez, and is a founding member of the Pacific Northwest hip hop collective Oldominion. Oldominion don't have a Wiki article, but they are probably eligible for one, as they almost certainly meet criterion #1 and possibly #6, as other notable member acts include Onry Ozzborn and Grayskul. If Oldominion meet the notability criteria, then Sleep meets criterion #6. If Sleep meets criteria #1 & #5, then he becomes further justification for Oldominion meeting criterion #6, which would circularly further justify Sleep's own article.

That's about all I have to say I think. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage listed above (such as the reviews in Exclaim!, The Boston Phoenix, and URB) demonstrate that this person meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Gong show 03:26, 31 December 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. Neither in accordance with WP:BIO1E nor WP:BASIC. After a good-faith search for sources, the deletion rationale and supporting !vote seem valid. COI declaration: I am acquainted with an employee of a UK Raytheon business, but this has not influenced the close, which has been judged on its own merits. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 16:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Keebaugh[edit]

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

Article has been around for a while but the only links I found from reliable sources were brief mentions of him being quoted about the company Raytheon. Fails WP:GNG. Would recommend that article be deleted. JakenBox (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 24 December 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) 00:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:42, 31 December 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. Merging would be an option, but I do not see any sourced material to merge. If we do not merge, I do not see any need in redirect, though it can be added anytime per WP:BOLD.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dunk (footwear)[edit]

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

Article written like an ad for a model of shoes made by Nike, with no sources whatsoever. A short mention on the general Nike page would be more than enough. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 22:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 24 December 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) 00:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nike Skateboarding TheLongTone (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced fan article. No hope of passing WP:GNG --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:44, 5 January 2014 (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. KTC (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarice Sherry[edit]

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

Delete: as throughly non-notable actress. Apparently appeared in several movies, but all, save one, in un-named bit roles. Unable to substantiate anything about this person's existence from independent sources aside from IMDb. NOTE: I misguidedly am the editor who created this article, based on long-dead links, which implied she was more notable than she really was. Sorry about that. Quis separabit? 00:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per findings of nom. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An actor who has only played mostly uncredited bit parts isn't notable enough without some other factor that would justify an article. --Michig (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2014 (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell S. Steir[edit]

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

The subject may not meet our notability requirements. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Despite a lack of enthusiast for this kind of guy-with-a-job biography, I feel the two New York Times articles referenced in the article - one a profile, the other an interview - seem sufficient to demonstrate some biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'd haver to agree with you AllyD on this one. Though he is just a real estate broker, the references on the page (like the New York Times) are reliable and prove he is notable. Meatsgains (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Daniel (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:59, 31 December 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.