Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 24 February 26 February >

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 delete under WP:CSD#A9 by Peridon (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure of deleted article. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeds of Evolution[edit]

Seeds of Evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is about an artists album but the artists it's written about doesn't even have a page. Koala15 (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator It actually has criteria for a speedily deletion. Koala15 (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Atlanta Police Department. J04n(talk page) 17:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Police patrol zones of Atlanta[edit]

Police patrol zones of Atlanta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I nominate this article for deletion based on the fact that this article (while including interesting information) is not notable. This article (and its content) does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG. In addition to the lack of notability, there is only one reliable source that isn't from the Atlanta Police department. A quick search on the AJC website and a few other places for source information only returns the various zones being listed or where a crime was committed. The sole source I could find pertaining toward any information about the zones themselves or why they would have notability is already in the article. The content is not encyclopedic in any matter as it just raw information. I would whole-heartly support the content in the form of a photo or simply the link that is on this page multiple times being included in the main Atlanta Police Department article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 05:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not arguing one way or the other as to whether it should be deleted, I think people should know the following from "real life" which is not reflected in "reliable" sources. Among black working-class youth in Atlanta (and Atlanta is 54% black), and in the hip-hop as well as gang cultures, a person "reps" his police zone. "I rep zone 4" is understood by almost every black Atlantan to mean that they come from Zone 4, Southwest Atlanta. A Google search for "Zone 4 Atlanta" will come up with YouTube videos of the housing projects in Zone 4 that were torn down, rap lyrics, Urban Dictionary entries, Yahoo! Questions about which 'hood is in what zone, and other references to the "rep" concept. Clearly, the existence of multiple YouTube videos or rap lyrics mentioning this are not "reliable sources" - but in some sense is this not discriminatory? "Street culture" by definition is going to be far less documented in, say, the Wall Street Journal, compared to what you would find in the WSJ about, for example, "The Westside" in Los Angeles, which is also not official. But "The Westside" of LA is "better documented" because wealthy powerful people live there and write about it in their "reliable sources". The zone identity is a significant, important reality for tens of thousands of Atlantans. Unfortunately, to take it down because of lack of "reliable sources" (and not popular sources) is, indirectly, a reflection of the institutionalized disadvantage of being poor and/or black and/or young in our country, since their culture is not documented "reliably". I don't know how to reconcile this with Wikipedia policy and am hoping another editor has a bright idea.Keizers (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well after a long search I have found a couple sources which touch on the notariety of police zones among Atlanta's southside, overwhelmingly black, communities, though it does not begin to reflect their notoriety on the ground there. See the updated first paragraph of the article.Keizers (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also I saw that there were more than 7000 hits on the article in the last 90 days, something to consider as well, I am guessing but I think it's a lot of folks trying to find out which 'hood someone "reps". Keizers (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keizers: First, please do not take this AFD as any reflection on the article or the work you've done. And while the statistics are impressive, they do not add to notability. I most definitly want you to know that you've thus far done a tremendous job on keeping the page up-to-date and looking good. I sincerely do not want to lose the content, it is just simply not notable enough (in my opinion) for a article separate from the APD. I am more than happy to assist in any way incorporating it into that article whether by working on a graphic or table or something that would be beneficial. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: After looking into this more closely I've been able to come to the conclusion that the police zones are notable as a cultural phenomenon and have added material and sources to the article to show notability - please see the changes I made earlier today. The police zones are strong identifiers of area commonly used by what must be a double-digit percentage of the city's population (working class black youth). So, this is just as notable (in real life) as "Buckhead" in Atlanta, "The West End" in London, or "The Westside" in Los Angeles, which are not political units either, but are notable because people define them as communities . As a result these places have articles in Wikipedia. If you are still not convinced that the zones themselves are significant, you can regard their significance in popular culture as the factor providing notability. I have added several reliable sources for this point, despite the significant handicap that the sources where cultural phenomena among working class black youth are most extensively documented (Urban Dictionary, YouTube, Twitter, City-Data etc.) are not considered "reliable" sources (this in contrast to cultural phenomena among middle- and upper-class people which is dozens of times better documented in traditional newspapers and other "reliable" sources). I have also illustrated the use of the zones as community identifiers in hip hop music lyrics by multiple major artists. Finally, I believe this article can stand alone, separately from the Atlanta Police Department article due to the unique nature of the zones as community identifiers i.e. the cultural use of the zones - which is actually quite distinct from their strict existence as zones strictly for police administration. Keizers (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal: As I believe most of the content is relevant, although not notable, see discussions above, I have made what I think could simply be added to the Atlanta Police Department article. This section can be found: User:ТимофейЛееСуда/APD Zones I have listed the data 2 ways, the first (with only most relevant & notable locations listed in a table, and the second in list form. I have brought over the information from the article as it stands now and therefore the research is not mine. My wife created a map of the zones (per my discussion above) that can be edited or modified to fit the needs/desires of anyone requested. Any feedback would be appreciated. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My feedback on this: I think this is very close to a "List of Police Zones" in which case wouldn't this be separated out as a "list" article - even though not "notable" in the sense of having a separate article based on notability. Secondly, I am not sure what we would now do with the information I have gathered on the significance of the police zones in popular culture. So for those two reasons I still see it as a separate article, perhaps renamed "List of…". Keizers (talk) 13:30, 25 February 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, ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 23:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The content you added is not notable, and it seems to be grasping at anything that mentions a "zone" of Atlanta. 2 of the references you added do not pass WP:RS and are simply lyrics. Another 2 references are about a song by Gucci Mane. The only content you added was about musicians singing about their zone or that they rep a certain zone. An musician simply mentioning that they are from a specific area or that they "rep" it does not make the place notable, especially in this case. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:41, 27 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Kulkov[edit]

Arthur Kulkov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable model lacking Ghtis and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. Article references do not meet criteria for secondary references. reddogsix (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't agree with the demands you are implying: If you have found information of the model, then that makes him a recognizable personality in his field of work.
I think this article should be a part of Wikipedia because it depicts a notable public person that works as a male model in the fashion industry that has made his way through the industry with talent and skills acquired naturally. He may not be the most recognizable model but he has achieved many accolades in the industry like his American mens magazine covers which are rarely given to male models, holding a place in the Top 10 Money Guys List, continuously working for every market that exists in the business (Latin America, Australia, Europe, America, Asia, etc.), acquiring recognition as a chameleon for his editorial work and style as well as starting his acting career. He is a perfect example of what a modelling career can become because of talent, good graces and charisma in front of the camera while still be a grounded person, things you can't say of many models or people for that matter. I hope you understand my point and keep this article live.
All references are sustainable sources of information like Models.com, site dedicated to publishing work and updating profiles on models, Male Model Scene, website dedicated to upload any print or digital work a model achieves and other trusted sources form sites that inform about the modelling industry and links to his own modelling management agencies. (talk) 12:12, 18February 2013 (EST)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustavoz (talk • contribs)
Comment - All articles are required to meet certain criteria in order to be included in Wikipedia. In this case notability needs to be established using verifiable, independent, non-trivial references. Non-trivial generally means articles about the individual (not just a paragraph), they can be newspaper or otherwise. A mention in a listing or a group of pictures of the individual does not meet the criteria. Just being on the cover or in a magazine does not work. I suggest you look for items about the individual that that meets the criteria.
Please note just being a "public person" does not entitle someone to be in Wikipedia. Inclusion is based on Wikipedia based notability, not "popularity", "talent", or "publicity." reddogsix (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A prototypical article written by a fan forced to stretch dubious sources to assert notability. The only source that appears reliable (and that does more than simply verify that the subject is indeed a model) is the Chaos Magazine interview, but then again, Chaos is fashion industry-oriented so such an article arguably fails the routine coverage guideline.  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep: The article now has more reliable sources which include international newspapers articles and magazines and direct links to the person or people's work. No source is linked to a fansite. The links that are directed towards his management agency are in order to give his measurements a verifiable source and the ones directed towards Models.com and Male Model Scene are only for pictures demonstration only since they are not copyrighted images. The article is meant to demonstrate and discuss a trajectory in the modelling industry, not about an adoration page dedicated to the person talked about in the article. The tone of the article is neutral as required here in Wikipedia. I can see your concern by this matter since you like to keep articles in Wikipedia in order but this is not the case, as with other male model articles the objective is only to describe what a the model has achieved in his career and be notable by it and Arthur is a good example of what can be achieved and be noted for. So the article should stay live since he is notable in his field of work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustavoz (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is way too fannish and the "sourcing" - oy! - but I think the model has notability. He's had a long and busy career in model terms, been the face of a number of high profile brands and ad campaigns, and had a lot of high profile work and exposure. I see this article [1] in the New York Times, from 2009, which discusses him at some length. And from a few years later, another NYT article here on him. Also see this 2011 Washington Post article (see page 2) which gives him quite decent coverage. This explains the significance of him (and two other models) being on the cover of a notable magazine run by the Vogue publishers. Also, he has had extensive coverage in Fashionisto, a print-and-online magazine with TWENTY pages of results from 2009 to 2013. I'm sure there are plenty more sources out there, but it seems to me that Kulkov is more than notable enough to have an article. Mabalu (talk) 03:25, 20 February 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, ‑Scottywong| speak _ 23:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - At least two NYT mentions, CHAOS Magazine profile, multiple cover shoots... sounds like notability for a model. squibix(talk) 16:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The number of cover shots is not really relevant to whether the article is kept. It's the coverage in reliable sources. As noted above, there is coverage in the NY Times and WaPo in addition to other industry/trade publications which represent the significant coverage needed to establsih that inclusion on Wikipedia is warranted. -- Whpq (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The sourcing is very weak for this person. I do not see any Washington Post source (an editor says there is such a source); and the two NY Times sources are very marginal: one is a "fanzine" article about Crush magazine (not about the model); and the other is a 1 paragraph "Sunny Delight" item, which looks more like a PR release ("... athletic sandals and shorts by Adidas, hat by American Apparel..." ). What I don't see is an article by an independent fashion industry magazine that is about this model. --Noleander (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - See [2] for the WaPo article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Alright. But someone should put that Wash Post source into the article. --Noleander (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole point of a wiki is that if someone thinks that something should be done then that someone can simply do it rather than say that it's some other someone's job. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am rather busy in real life right now, and don't have time to read the source, find where in the article it belongs, craft a sentence to paraphrase the source, and double check it. I was just pointing out that a decent source, mentioned in this AFD, was not yet utilized in the article. No need to get snarky. --Noleander (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evestment[edit]

Evestment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a company that fails to meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. The sources given:

  • 1, 2, 3 and 4 are essentially WP:DICTDEF with no bearing on the subject.
  • 5 is just an announcement about an acquisition.
  • 6 is a press release hosted on the company's website
  • 7 is another announcement on the Financial Times, which is not accessible without a registration.
  • 8 is another acquisition press release
  • 9 is a quote of a ranking among 5,000 other companies.
  • 10 Seems to assert notability, but it is behind a paywall.
  • 11 is a press release.

I could not find any other material that could help establish notability, just press releases and self-generated content. FinanceSavant (talk · contribs) is an SPA which has no other contributions to Wikipedia. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination, also spam and too vague to improve by editing: a.... software solutions provider offering a SaaS-hosted database and analytic platform primarily used in the institutional investor and financial services community for analysis, reporting and research. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - these aren't good sources. Deb (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm far from convinced of notability, but must point out that there is no requirement that sources should be freely available on the Internet. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible delete - My first Google News archives search provided original or republished press releases with one Atlanta Journal Constitution: Metro Atlanta's top 100 workplaces on the second page which seems to mention them but it requires payment and the preview is vague. A search for Jim Minnick and Matt Crisp provided both relevant press releases and potentially useful Pensions and Investments articles (vague previews and require payment). I also found this which mentions the acquisition of Fundspire and PerTrac. I also found this from when the company started in 2000 which doesn't provide much and mainly talks about what they hope to do. As for Heath Wilson, I also found press releases except this which briefly mentions the company. A Google News search and archives search for EVestment Hedgefund provided several recent references in which EVestment's financial reports are mentioned. I've found mostly press releases for the London and Hong Kong expansion searches and nothing for the Canada one. I found more press releases when I searched the "Must Be In" and the "Most Influential Database" achievements. I found press releases for all of the acquisitions but no significant news articles. Although the INC. rankings may be signficant and this article claims they were "one of the first technology investment funds to come to the stockmarket, listing on Aim in 1997", a large amount of press releases and few significant news articles is usually a concern and it seems they haven't received much news attention recently aside from the published reports. SwisterTwister talk 22:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Shieber[edit]

Carl Shieber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this football executive is notable in any way. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. Safiel (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only seams to be vaguely notable for that role and nothing else GAtechnical (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No prejudice towards the opening of a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence[edit]

2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With a heavy heart, I nominate this article that's shown a lot of effort and work over the years, but is ultimately a massive POV fork of Keynesian economics, providing a synthesized concept of a point of time that the references...don't really support. There's a few hints here and there, but it ultimately reads more like an academic research project than an encyclopedia article. Nothing regarding an actual "Keynesian resurgence" in this time frame has been written, only information about how Keynesian thought gained some popularity following the crash, and without enough attention on the alternative options floated. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Snow keep With all due respect to the nominator, calling this a POV fork of Keynesian Economics is like calling 2012 Summer Olympics a POV fork of Olympic games. There are literally thousands of sources entirely about the Keynesian resurgence, including dozens of whole books. From Harvard University Press alone there is both The Return to Keynes and Maynard's Revenge, which is described here on amazon as being about the "phoenix-like return of Keynesianism." Thats not to mention the books from MIT and Cambridge, several other top publishers, or the many scholarly papers. There are literally thousands of easily digestible web sources on this, the first 4 sources in the article are well worth a quick scan (the very first is from the Financial Times and may require a 2 min registration.) The best and most comprehensive online scholarly source for the rise and fall of the resurgence is source no 5 , by the political scientist professor Farrell and the excellent editor John Quiggan working in his day job as an economics professor. I admit when I first started describing the resurgence back in 2008, I may arguably have been violating our OR policy, as I was a newbie back then and didnt understand all our key policies. But for several years the article has been 100% policy compliant. As a reviewer of over 10 GAs and a participant in the FA process, Id say in many ways the article is close to FA class. A delete or merge result would be unexpected, to say the least. (disclosure: I'm the creator and primary writer of the article) FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. It's also a good thing our articles dont structure themselves exactly like any one book as that is discouraged by our copyright policy. In this case a book about the resurgnece with a somewhat similar structure is Keynes: the Return of the Master by economic historian Lord Skidelsky, but that was published well after our article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The merge target you've suggested is largely about Keynesian economics as an academic discipline. This article is mainly about a global change in governments economic policy. These are two related but completely different things, there is no POV fork here at all. Maybe some are starting to forget, but in late 2008 there were regular newspaper articles and TV reports about an imminent total social and economic breakdown, with cash machines ceasing to give out cash and empty supermarket shelves. The resurgence helped to prevent that, as such it could be argued it affected the lifes of the world's people more than most major wars. This helps explain why there are already multiple book entirely about the phenomena from the top university presses like Cambridge, MIT and Harvard.
I feel a little guilty about spending so much time defending this article. When compared to the topics deletionists are destroying every day, like D&G monsters, fictional characters and computer games, it gets relatively few page hits. But in the time it took to reasearch this I could have clocked up about 30,000 gnome edits!
The Efficiency section is in fact well balanced as it reflects the weight of views from available credible sources. Even the leading economics journalist and author Anatole Kalensky, himself a moderately anti Keynesian, admits the objective evidence shows that countries recovered in proportion to the size and timeliness of their Keynesian stimulus. Few have tried to counter this: due to the overwhelming empirical evidence, one cant criticize the resurgence on these grounds without appearing either incompetent an obvious lier. Looking at the overall article, there is abundant criticism, and from all across the political spectrum, not just from the obvious Austrian School and Libertarian types. As well as spending many hours researching criticism for NPOV, I also invited good editors to contribute to the article who seem to favor anti Keynesian economics like Vision Thing and Srich32977. They added hardly anything, suggesting the article was already fairly well balanced. Of course, if there are any important criticisms I've missed, anyone else is welcome to add them to the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to All Things Bright and Beautiful (album). (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21 03:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deer in the Headlights[edit]

Deer in the Headlights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable single Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 26 February 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) — ΛΧΣ21 03:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Kruger[edit]

Dave Kruger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:Athlete. He didn't have a real notable college career. Only reason why the article was created is because his brother is Paul Kruger. Yankees10 22:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how three articles is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. They are also pretty weak. The first and third one are only in existence because of his brother and the second one is reporting an injury. I don't consider those extensive coverage of him at all.--Yankees10 20:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Significant coverage: Three articles that directly mention him and are from reliable sources. The sources are independent of the subject and therefore Kruger should be presumed notable. It's clearly not a violation of WP:DISCRIMINATE or WP:NOT, so I fail to see where I'm going wrong. Yes, there's interpretation into how much coverage one needs for it to be considered "significant", but a couple of news articles usually seem to suffice. Would there be these news articles if he wasn't the brother of Paul Kruger? Maybe not, but they are and the second one is primarily on his injury, meaning the newspaper felt him being injured warranted column inches. To me, that seems to be a passage of WP:GNG. Go Phightins! 20:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The lack of coverage by independent reliable sources has not been addressed. J04n(talk page) 17:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Herlache[edit]

Michael Herlache (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced biography with unsubstantiated claims about a seemingly non-notable person. After checking four archives, the only sources that I found were one press release and several newspaper mentions that he was on some honor rolls. The sources in the article are one press release and two publications that the himself subject wrote. - MrX 21:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The individual has just recieved Political Asylum having come from the US, in Brazil and Peru. This is what is called history. He has just authored two of the most important texts that have been written as it related to natural science and natural morality. He also owns a private equity fund that is raising $2.5 bn for infrastructure and economic development in the developing world. This individual is already one of the most influential people on the planet that you are just now hearing about and will in fact be the most influential individual period, in a relatively short period of time. I suggest you do your research more thoroughly here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.13.138.140 (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC) — 201.13.138.140 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Other than a press release, no indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kiriti Rambhatla[edit]

Kiriti Rambhatla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indications that this subject meets the criteria for inclusion. Rambhatla appears to have been interviewed as a student profile for the website of Politecnico di Milano's MBA program, and appears to have written a paper while studying at the London Business School. The article claims that his LBS article (the "Strategic Innovation Cube") is now in widespread use in business consultancy firms, but this claim can not be substantiated. So significant coverage can be found for this individual. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WikiDan61, there aren't any claims to notability besides the cube thing; and while he verifiably did write it, claims of notability for it don't stand up either. squibix(talk) 16:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not pass WP:BIO, etc.Jethwarp (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While he's an accomplished person, he is not notable enough for this encyclopedia as he does not meet WP:BLP. Mkdwtalk 05:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory L. Smith[edit]

Gregory L. Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

after due diligence performed there is still WP:Notability concerns, no Independent references or reliable sources. Does not qualify under Wikipedia:ANYBIO guidelines or Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) SosoStalin (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. All references provided at the article are self-referential. I could not find any independent sources about him at Google Books or at Google News Archive (he does get quoted a few times by the Deseret Times). --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- well-written article that improves the encyclopedia, but unless references can be found, does not pass the notability requirement. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:10, 1 March 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) Mkdwtalk 01:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men: Days of Future Past[edit]

X-Men: Days of Future Past (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a film that hasn't even started principle production yet. Lady Lotus (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, The article is well written and referenced, the production is planned to commence in the near future. So why delete it, and then recreate it only three months later. Star Trek Into Darkness is a good example of an article created before production started. B-watchmework (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It bothers me why someone would want to delete an article about an upcoming film when its about to enter principle production in more or less 8 weeks especially the article is well-sourced and there's already been a lot of confirmation and official information about the movie like the release date, the title of the movie, director and the cast. Instead of suggesting on deleting articles, why don't you help improve the article especially if its get deleted today, it will be just recreated in the next few weeks or months. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, your reasoning is invalid. If you were to say this, why not delete the 2020 Summer Olympics. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 04:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though I disagree that the reasoning is flawed. WP:NFF has been a long-standing guideline over at WikiProject film, as all sorts of things can delay and completely derail even "sure-thing" productions. But I think this is a case where the WP:GNG are clearly met, with significant coverage from a variety of reliable sources over an extended period of time. Even if the film never enters production, the project itself and its cancellation would still be notable (which is not always the case, hence the future film guideline) -Fandraltastic (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While WP:NFF is set to prevent premature articles on planned films, we always need acknowledge WP:GNG's instruction on how in-depth and persistent coverage of a topic gives us suitable topic notability... and how even NFF instructs that such persistent and in-depth coverage of a film's planning can make the topic notable even if unmade. And more, policy itself tells us that future events may indeed be written of within these pages, if properly sourced. THIS topic merits being one of those acceptable exceptions to the cautions of WP:NFF. We've had such exceptions before, and will again. This is one. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The film enters principal photography in a couple of weeks with no signs of any derailment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.227.166 (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We know this is a film that is due to start, it has been announced, it has been cast and frankly (to use a double negative) it ain't gonna not happen Hammersfan (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is strong information for this film and it has been announced. HereFord 01:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I realise this article may be pushing wikipedia's guidelines a bit but this film has recieved extensive coverarage and is definatly notable enough to have an article. SayPeanuts (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - I'd say this is a snowball keep right now. NickCochrane (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Per WP:NFF, this would be a fairly unambiguous Delete, but given the large amount of press surrounding the topic, as well as the fact the principal photography is only a month or so away, I am compelled to override bureacracy and advocate leaving the article as and where it is. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, I don't see an assertion of notability here. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WebMeUp[edit]

WebMeUp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This company appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Several searches have not yielded significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lianne Spiderbaby[edit]

Lianne Spiderbaby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP is not a tabloid. DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Notability requires more than attending the Oscars as the guest of a famous director. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant standalone notability, bio created obviously because of association with Tarantino. Redirect not indicated. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Here's the big issue: she hasn't gotten a lot of attention before appearing on the red carpet with Tarantino. I am finding sources that discuss her, but the rub is that the sources that talk about her are also places she works with. There is the STYD source, but that's the only one I was able to find that would show notability. We do have the red carpet articles, but that's not really enough to show notability in the long run because she's only mentioned in relation to her boyfriend. She's someone that would probably be usable as a RS, but she doesn't meet notability guidelines at this point in time. There is the potential of her gaining more chatter once her book releases, but we can't keep the article based on that because we can't guarantee that. I have no problem with someone userfying the article, but what we have here is someone who is popular, but is really only known within her specific niche. The only people who really report on her are predominantly those who have hired her, which eliminates those places as RS, not that there are that many articles about her out there. She's popular, but popularity does not equal out to notability here on Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just as Tokyogirl79 says, she is only mentioned by sources like Fangoria that she's associated with, and in conjunction with Tarantino; there's no independent notability. squibix(talk) 17:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to James Belcher. J04n(talk page) 18:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Belcher[edit]

Tom Belcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's nothing to show he was a notable boxer. The only source is a brief mention of him in his brother's biography. I'd suggest a redirect to James Belcher, but I'm not sure he's notable either (but he appears more notable than his brother). Mdtemp (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 4 March 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) LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AutoHotkey[edit]

AutoHotkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only contains primary sources as references. I could only find http://www.pcworld.com/article/245835/autohotkey.html as a notable secondary source that discusses the product. It appears that this product is not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I am an unbiased user of Auto Hot Keys. It has source-code which actually compiles! I am linking to it as we speak. That's how I got to this page. It is immensely useful but falls into the realm of un-talked about usefulness. Kind of like folklore... I will put up a link to keep it propped up I suppose... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cellurl (talk • contribs) 14:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its existence and usefulness are not sufficient criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. If the article is deleted from Wikipedia, it won't cease to exist and you are welcome to continue using it. The problem is that it is not talked about. Can you find any WP:RSes to support its [[:WP:N|notability]? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A quick search reveals secondary sources seem to give it anywhere from more extensive, guide-like coverage to passing mention: [8][9][10][11][12]. A glance at the Google Book Search also reveals a number of mentions (outside of Wikipedia reprints), although most of these appear fairly brief from what I can see. It seems to get a lot of very passing mentions, but I think there's enough more extensive coverage out there to demonstrate notability.  — daranz [ t ] 17:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I saw those as well, but I don't believe that how-to articles and mentions don't count as notable coverage. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a well-known and wildly popular app for Windows. It's been around forever. I don't see how the nominator went through WP:BEFORE and didn't notice? Google book results, third web hit is a review in PC World. There's no lack of sources or notability here. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think AHK has suffered the unfortunate fate of being billed as nothing more than a shortcut tool. A way to launch a browser with a keystroke. In actuality it is a very useful scripting language for all manner of GUI creation. The AHK forums have literally tens of thousands of topics posted and hundreds of thousands of replies http://www.autohotkey.com/board/. So, it is obviously important to a significant community of users. Therefore, in my opinion it deserves a Wikipedia page. --Drrchrds (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think the page needs an update, but deleting seems not justified. There are several sources such as c't which have written about the AHK Scripting language. There is a big community behind AHK as well. --Vital0 22:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If you are looking for another third party source, lifehacker.com regularly features articles on AutoHotkey and posts useful snippets of code — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.219.206 (talk) 23:56, 3 March 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. Apparently that AN discussion was quickly archived. Secret account 05:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Megabyte.KZ[edit]

Megabyte.KZ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. The article is unsourced, I can't find any sources that mention it, and it reads just like any of the other non-notable company pages we get. However, the "Economics" section is a reasonable claim of importance; I can't find any publications verifying that economists have studied it, but if there are some, that should be sufficient for notability. Given that this is Kazakh, I'm not very well-suited for finding and reading sources, so I'd welcome anyone that can. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Emoji. J04n(talk page) 11:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

💮[edit]

💮 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination on behalf of User:JohnBlackburne, whose rationale (as per WT:AFD) is included verbatim below. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a suitable topic for an encyclopaedia. Not notable: the ref is a list in which it's an entry, while googling turns up nothing (literally – zero results). Sole article in Category:Unicode_character, which suggests despite there being thousands of them there's no need for articles on characters. Transwiki to wiktionary if such characters have pages there.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Deletion. Not an encyclopaedic article. drewmunn talk 14:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. 16:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 16:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to emoji, which already contains brief descriptions of the meanings of some of these Japanese symbols. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This shows up to me as nothing more than a blue square. Running Chrome on Win7 64, and I'll note I can read any Japanese text just fine. Is this something only Mac users can see or something? Because if that's the case then we should just delete it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can see them on this machine, where I have all sorts of random fonts installed, but not on my laptop. The emoji article displays the set of them, and most are linked; 👷 (a stylized man in a hard hat) goes to construction worker, for instance. This picture is a stylized black and white drawing of a seven petalled flower. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, not seeing that either... and that article, wow, it's just a bunch of squares. I can display Mongolian script, but apparently not "Emoji". §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not independently notable as a symbol. if we do merges of such items, merge to emoji. PS its category is very odd, put that up for CFD just now.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to emoji. The only reference on the page seems to be to somebody's personal web page marked "Temporary notes". But it's reasonable to redirect unicode symbols to a table of them. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That source listed is not just "somebody's personal webpage" it's hosted on unicode.org by Markus Scherer, a Google engineer who co-authored the relevant section of the Unicode 6.0 spec. I've added an additional reference link to the unicode symbol table PDF where this character is shown but with no comments/description. His notes, however "temporary" are literally one of the two places on the web where this random symbol (included on the Emoji set on every iOS/Mac device) is even briefly documented. Petree (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to emoji, as there is some worthwhile narrative about this character. – Fayenatic London 18:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to emoji per other merge recommendations. This character doesn't render for me, but even if it did I would still recommend such a merge. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The multiple "keep" votes failed to justify the notability of this article. Materialscientist (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Kira[edit]

Hurricane Kira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally nominated under A7 but not an eligible subject. The article does not appear to be discussed by reliable sources. The current article is entirely in-world fictional information. The hurricane is not mentioned in the article about the show, Captain Planet and the Planeteers. I see no likely redirect and no notability for an independent article. GB fan 13:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to closing admin: I believe that many of the IPs who !voted may be the same individual resulting in duplicate !votes as they share a common ISP and geolocation. I have tagged those !votes below with "Verizon IP, geolocates to New York". Similar Verizon/New York IPs have attempted to close the AfD as no consensus: [13][14][15][16][17] .-- Gogo Dodo (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also a related SPI case. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock, see SPI -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: due to the contrversy surrounding this article, i have decided to move the article my userspace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siabaf (talk • contribs) 13:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • restore content to the article space, the history of the article needs to be retained with the article while it is listed at AFD. GB fan 16:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fictional hurricanes not covered by any sources, much less reliable. As the nom said, there's no likely redirect either. Vacation9 13:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge at best. Personally, I have seen the episode and yes it does have a hurricane but I doubt it Blight mentions the name. –BuickCenturyDriver 13:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A fictional weather system featured in a single episode of a minor children's TV series with no coverage in any other sources is not encyclopedic material. Kill it with fire. And Earth, Wind, Water and Heart... Yunshui 雲‍水 14:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like a SNOW candidate. I'll keep the article on my watchlist.–BuickCenturyDriver 14:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Sounds plausible" is not an indication of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable.-- Dewritech (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Hog Tide. Believe it or not, Simpson episodes have there own articles 174.254.182.44 (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC) — 174.254.182.44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Verizon IP, geolocates to New York[reply]
    • What does Simpson's episodes have to do with the notability of this fictional hurricane? Are there reliable sources that discuss this hurricane? GB fan 01:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point is that every Simpson episode, item and character gets its own article so writing an article about something seen on the Captain Planet show is no different. Att3847 (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock, see SPI -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Yuffo (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)— Yuffo (talk • contribs) is a new editor. Att3847 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename article to Hot Tide. After watching the storm episode on Youtube, Blight never mantion the name of the storm as "Kira". This article really is about the episode's plot. Yuffo (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep interesting article Att3847 (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Att3847 (talk · contribs) — Att3847 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • "Interesting" is not a reason to keep an article. Articles must be about WP:notable subjects. GB fan 21:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article's subject appears in the show and has a clear image. Those who feel the article is ng, should watch the episode — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.255.58 (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC) — 70.21.255.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Verizon IP, geolocates to New Jersey[reply]
    • Just because something appears in an episode of a TV show does not mean we should have an article. What we need to be examining here is, does this fictional hurricane meet the notability guidelines? GB fan 21:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is zero coverage in reliable sources about this fictional hurricane. In fact, there isn't even any unreliable soruces covering it. -- Whpq (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock, see SPI -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • move per above. Article is more of an episode plot than a hurricane. 69.115.164.157 (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A hurricane in a fictional TV series? Come on...not even close to being notable. Go Phightins! 01:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 174.236.76.63 (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC) — 174.236.76.63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Verizon IP, geolocates to New York[reply]
    • why should it be kept? GB fan 01:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • the fictional store Kwik-E-Mart has its own article. "Kwik-E-Mart" is not so well known by most people. So, articles about fictional events and businesses are nothing new. Now GB fan, why should this article be deleted? 174.236.76.63 (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That store is from the Simpsons. I'd assume the Simpsons is more popular than CP. Master Xandred (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I stated when I nominated the article for deletion, there are no reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this fictional tornado. Wikipedia has established guidelines to determine when a subject is notable enough to have an article. The basis of the guideline is significant coverage by reliable sources. You are correct that articles about fictional events and businesses are nothing new and if they don't have significant coverage in reliable sources they shouldn't have articles either. I have never looked at the Kwik-E-Mart article so I do not know if it has significant coverage. I just cam across this article because someone nominated it for speedy deletion with a criterion that did not apply so I declined that and then evaluated the article and looked for sources. Finding no sources to establish this as a notable subject I nominated it for deletion to see if anyone else can find sources or if it is not a notable subject. GB fan 17:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Hog Tide per above. The article writer was probably writing about the episode and came up with a name for the storm. The article's source are in the show itself. It makes more sense however to rename the article. 12.40.50.1 (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Primary sources, the episode itself, are not enough to establish notability. In Wikipedia notability is established by secondary sources noticing the subject and publishing significant coverage about the subject. In this case we do not have that significant coverage. GB fan 20:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - The keep votes here are WP:OTHERSTUFF, and WP:ILIKEIT arguements, moving the article to Hog Tide will not solve anything as the problems with the article will still be present so my opinion is to delete this per WP:N, WP:FANCRUFT, and WP:NOT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Part of a work of fiction that has no notability in real life.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it has no place in the pedia, also delete User:Siabaf/Hurricane Kira as a copy of the article, indef sockmasters don't need userpages. LGA talkedits 07:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Korean National Youth Football League[edit]

Korean National Youth Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Football League for school teams featuring children as young as under-12. Fails WP:ORG and likely never to pass. C679 12:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 12:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a notable competition, seems to reside somewhere below the K-League Youth Leagie, which also seems to be of dubious notability. Also appears to be part of a wider K-League overkill being pushed by a handful of editors at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not pass the general notability guideline. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to FC Seoul Reserves and Academy. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Osan High School FC[edit]

Osan High School FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osan Middle School FC. Children's football team, not notable and no information of independent interest from FC Seoul. C679 12:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 12:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect I don't understand why this is back up, What happened in the previous AfD? I thought we agreed that this should be redirected to FC Seoul Reserves and Academy. Govvy (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It refers to a different article...that was 'Middle School', this is 'High School'. GiantSnowman 12:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per previous consensus for related article. GiantSnowman 12:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per previous discussion. Fenix down (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don' delete

....Osan High School FC have the same or more notabiltiy as belows high school football teams

Maetan High School FC, Hyunpung High School FC

Why do you place an deletion tag on only Osan High School FC and why do you think that only Osan High School FC articles to be deleted.

Please jude artilces by fair standard.

Footwiks (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Footwiks, You have a top level professional league in South Korea, basicly if they youth system has been setup using a school system for progression into the top teams, then it would be better served to have that information in Reserve-Academy articles. Govvy (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment. This is an important point, no one is saying the time you have put into these articles is a waste, merely that there is no need for a separate article on the High School team. All the relevant information can be included in an already existing article. Fenix down (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the consensus in the related article's AfD. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iplist[edit]

Iplist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about IP blocking software with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. There are no sources in the article, nor could I find coverage in my searches. Whpq (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep-The topic is notable. The external links are suficient for this kind of article.--Goldenaster (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC) — Goldenaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Reply - The external links consist of one unreliable source and two primary sources. I fail to see how this is "sufficient". -- Whpq (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't see notability, if Goldenaster really thinks a link to a forum trying to raise money to stay online then he needs to read our guidelines. But I see no evidence of that. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, no reliable sources to establish notability of this software. Current links are not sufficient. Dialectric (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Tim Henman#2001–2004. J04n(talk page) 11:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Tim Henman tennis season[edit]

2001 Tim Henman tennis season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I understand that WikiProject Tennis allow yearly articles for players who have won a major. Tim has never won a major so i have no idea why we need an article about his year with his closest SF result at Wimby. He had a better year when he made the SF of the French and USO but neither is that year worthy of an article. GAtechnical (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the highlights into Tim Henman#2001–2004, which can appropriately contain this content.  Gong show 02:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete - I would agree that he does not qualify for a stand-alone yearly page. Not only has he never won a Major, he was never in a Major final. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Per the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:24, 5 March 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. Both the keeps and deletes sides have some valid and invalid comments in this debate. WP:OUTCOMES is just an essay, these school districts need to meet GNG or something similar in order to have a separate article on the project and consensus can change. It is true however that school districts are rarely deleted as sources are usually found for them, as this AFD has shown with the expansion or claims of notability of some of the articles listed here. Fram mentioned a few of these districts had issues WP:V. It is a perfectly valid concern if we are talking about each of them in a seperate AFD, but not hundreds of them bunched into one. To keep it simple, mass nominations of huge proportions such as this is nearly impossible to find consensus one way or another, and some of the more problematic articles should be listed or redirected on a case by case basis. Secret account 05:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hartselle City School District[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hartselle City School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm nominating this and all of the other empty unsourced school district articles which this editor User:TMLutas has created based on WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The editor has confessed "My time is taken up with the database project" despite concerns raised to him that we're not a database but an encyclopedia. Despite concerns from multiple editors advising him not the create these, he's continued to ignore us and create these articles which I don't consider appropriate for wikipedia and would be better off put in a list. I have real concerns that they will ever be expanded or can be improved to the extent that they're of encyclopedic value. I strongly suggest a merge into a tabled List of school districts by county at least until somebody can bother to write a half decent article on them. I think the sensible thing would be to put in a list and if somebody can write a sourced meaty stub or starter article which is remotely encyclopedic like Carlisle School District (Arkansas) then great. I normally endorse editors who venture out into new topics but I consider these entries database-like dumps which really have little chance of flourishing, not to mention basic problems like no sources or punctuation. Articles like List of school districts in Alabama should be put in table format like List of museums in Alabama and if anybody can say anything about them they can do so in the summary box. If somebody has a lot to say then it might be appropriate to create the article like Carlisle School District (Arkansas) as an initial entry.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also up for deletion are with the exclusion of Carlisle School District (Arkansas):

Robla_Elementary_School_District Riverbank_Unified_School_District Rio_Bravo-Greeley_Union_Elementary_School_District Rincon_Valley_Union_Elementary_School_District Richgrove_Elementary_School_District Rescue_Union_Elementary_School_District Red_Bluff_Union_Elementary_School_District Raymond-Knowles_Union_Elementary_School_District Rancho_Santa_Fe_Elementary_School_District Ramona_City_Unified_School_District Pope_Valley_Union_Elementary_School_District Plumas_Unified_School_District Plumas_Elementary_School_District Pleasant_Valley_Elementary_School_District Pleasant_Valley_School_District_(California) Plainsburg_Union_Elementary_School_District Placer_Union_High_School_District Placer_Hills_Union_Elementary_School_District Pittsburg_Unified_School_District Peninsula_Union_School_District Paso_Robles_Joint_Unified_School_District Clarkdale-Jerome_Elementary_School_District Bouse_Elementary_School_District Beaver_Creek_School_District Ash_Fork_Joint_Unified_School_District Ajo_Unified_School_District West_Fork_School_District_(Arkansas) Western_Arizona_Vocational_District Western_Maricopa_Education_Center Paradise_Unified_School_District Palo_Verde_Unified_School_District Palermo_Union_School_District Pacific_Union_School_District Pacific_Unified_School_District Pacific_Grove_Unified_School_District Pacific_Elementary_School_District Pacific_School_District Oroville_Union_High_School_District Oroville_City_Elementary_School_District Old_Adobe_Union_School_District Oceanside_Unified_School_District Oakley_Union_Elementary_School_District Oak_View_Union_Elementary_School_District Nuview_Union_School_District Northern_Humboldt_Union_High_School_District Nicasio_School_District Nevada_City_School_District National_Elementary_School_District Mount_Shasta_Union_School_District Mountain_View_School_District_(Los_Angeles_County) Mountain_Valley_Unified_School_District Mountain_Union_School_District Mountain_House_School_District Mountain_Elementary_School_District Mother_Lode_Union_School_District Moorpark_Unified_School_District Monterey_Peninsula_Unified_School_District Modesto_City_Schools Mesa_Union_School_District Meridian_Elementary_School_District Mendocino-Lake_Community_College_District Mendocino_Unified_School_District McKinleyville_Union_School_District Mark_West_Union_School_District Mariposa_County_Unified_School_District Marcum-Illinois_Union_Elementary_School_District Magnolia_Union_Elementary_School_District Lowell_Joint_School_District Los_Olivos_School_District Los_Banos_Unified_School_District Loomis_Union_School_District Loma_Prieta_Joint_Union_Elementary_School_District Livingston_Union_School_District Liberty_Union_High_School_District Liberty_School_District Lewiston_Elementary_School_District Lennox_Elementary_School_District Lemoore_Union_High_School_District Leggett_Valley_Unified_School_District Le_Grand_Union_Elementary_School_District Laytonville_Unified_School_District Lakeside_Union_Elementary_School_District_(Lakeside) Lakeside_Union_Elementary_School_District Lakeside_Joint_School_District Lake_Tahoe_Unified_School_District Laguna_Beach_Unified_School_District Lafayette_School_District La_Mesa-Spring_Valley_School_District La_Habra_City_School_District Konocti_Unified_School_District Klamath-Trinity_Joint_Unified_School_District King_City_Union_School_District Kernville_Union_School_District Kerman_Unified_School_District Kenwood_School_District Junction_Elementary_School_District Junction_City_Elementary_School_District Julian_Union_School_District Imperial_Unified_School_District Hydesville_Elementary_School_District Huntington_Beach_City_School_District Holtville_Unified_School_District Hollister_Elementary_School_District Hickman_Community_Charter_School_District Heber_Elementary_School_District Healdsburg_Unified_School_District Happy_Valley_School_District Happy_Valley_Union_Elementary_School_District Hanford_Elementary_School_District Green_Point_School_District Grass_Valley_School_District Golden_Valley_Unified_School_District Glendora_Unified_School_District Geyserville_Unified_School_District Galt_Joint_Union_Elementary_School_District Fowler_Unified_School_District Fortuna_Union_Elementary_School_District Forestville_Union_Elementary_School_District Fillmore_Unified_School_District Ferndale_Unified_School_District Farmersville_Unified_School_District Fallbrook_Union_Elementary_School_District Fairfield-Suisun_Unified_School_District Eureka_City_Schools_District Encinitas_Union_School_District Elverta_Joint_Elementary_School_District Elk_Hills_School_District El_Centro_Elementary_School_District Dos_Palos-Oro_Loma_Joint_Unified_School_District Dixon_Unified_School_District Delta_View_Joint_Union_School_District Delhi_Unified_School_District Delano_Joint_Union_High_School_District Dehesa_School_District Cypress_School_District Cutten_Elementary_School_District Curtis_Creek_School_District Corning_Union_Elementary_School_District Compton_Community_College_District Columbia_School_District Coalinga-Huron_Joint_Unified_School_District Clear_Creek_School_District Cinnabar_School_District Chowchilla_School_District Chico_Unified_School_District Chabot-Las_Positas_Community_College_District Centralia_School_District Central_Union_School_District Altar_Valley_Elementary_School_District San_Fernando_Elementary_School_District Redington_Elementary_School_District Yucca_Elementary_School_District Topock_Elementary_School_District Valentine_Elementary_School_District Owens-Whitney_Elementary_School_District Hackberry_School_District Arlington_Elementary_School_District Palo_Verde_Elementary_School_District Paloma_Elementary_School_District Sentinel_Elementary_School_District Mobile_Elementary_School_District Aguila_Elementary_School_District Cayucos_Elementary_School_District Castaic_Union_School_District Cascade_Union_Elementary_School_District Canyon_Elementary_School_District Camptonville_School_District Campbell_Union_Elementary_School_District Camino_Union_School_District Calaveras_Unified_School_District Butte_-_Glenn_Community_College_District Burton_School_District Burrel_Union_Elementary_School_District Buena_Park_School_District Bret_Harte_Union_High_School_District Brentwood_Union_School_District Bonsall_Union_School_District Bonny_Doon_Union_Elementary_School_District Blake_School_District Black_Butte_Union_Elementary_School_District Big_Springs_Union_Elementary_School_District Bennett_Valley_Union_School_District Benicia_Unified_School_District Bella_Vista_Elementary_School_District Bassett_Unified_School_District Barstow_Unified_School_District Baldwin_Park_Unified_School_District Baker_Valley_Unified_School_District Azusa_Unified_School_District Atascadero_Unified_School_District Arvin_Union_School_District Portage_Township_Schools Crown_Point_Community_School_Corporation Hanover_Community_School_Corporation Griffith_Public_Schools Arena_Union_Elementary_School_District Arcata_School_District Apple_Valley_Unified_School_District Amador_County_Unified_School_District Alisal_Union_School_District Adelanto_School_District Ackerman_Charter_School_District Shirley_School_District Strong–Huttig_School_District Waldron_School_District Perryville_School_District Stephens_School_District Prescott_School_District Nevada_School_District South_Mississippi_County_School_District Scranton_School_District_(Arkansas) Newport_School_District_(Arkansas) Poyen_School_District Viola_School_District Vilonia_School_District Woodlawn–Rison_School_District Pea_Ridge_School_District Yuma_Elementary_School_District Somerton_Elementary_School_District Mohawk_Valley_Elementary_School_District Gadsden_Elementary_School_District Sedona-Oak_Creek_Joint_Unified_School_District Mountain_Institute_Joint_Technological_Education_District Oracle_Elementary_School_District Eloy_Elementary_School_District Tanque_Verde_Unified_School_District Continental_Elementary_School_District Snowflake_Unified_School_District Mohave_Valley_Elementary_School_District Morristown_Elementary_School_District Casa_Grande_Elementary_School_District South_Pike_County_School_District Mount_Vernon–Enola_School_District Mount_Ida_School_District Mountainburg_School_District Midland_School_District Mayflower_School_District Marmaduke_School_District Mansfield_School_District Manila_School_District Mammoth_Spring_School_District Magnolia_School_District_(Arkansas) Magnet_Cove_School_District Magazine_School_District Lafayette_County_School_District Kirby_School_District Jessieville_School_District Jackson_County_School_District_(Arkansas) Hughes_School_District Horatio_School_District Hillcrest_School_District Rucker_Elementary_School_District Quartzsite_Elementary_School_District Parker_Unified_School_District Canon_Elementary_School_District Bullhead_City_Elementary_School_District Avondale_Elementary_School_District Amphitheater_Unified_School_District Wynne_School_District Wonderview_School_District Spring_Hill_School_District Southside_School_District South_Conway_County_School_District Smackover_School_District Hazen_School_District Hackett_School_District Gurdon_School_District Green_Forest_School_District Flippin_School_District Dierks_School_District Dermott_School_District Deer/Mount_Judea_School_District Cross_County_School_District Cotter_School_District Clarksville_School_District Clarendon_School_District Sloan–Hendrix_School_District Siloam_Springs_School_District Searcy_School_District Salem_School_District Russellville_School_District Charleston_School_District Cedarville_School_District Cedar_Ridge_School_District Carlisle_School_District_(Arkansas) Calico_Rock_School_District Caddo_Hills_School_District Brinkley_School_District Bradley_School_District Bradford_School_District Booneville_School_District Blytheville_School_District Blevins_School_District Benton_School_District Beebe_School_District Bearden_School_District_(Arkansas) Bay_School_District_(Arkansas) Bauxite_School_District Barton–Lexa_School_District Bald_Knob_School_District Winfield_City_Schools Wilcox_County_School_District_(Alabama) Washington_County_School_District_(Alabama) Vestavia_Hills_City_Schools Tuscumbia_City_Schools Troy_City_School_District Thomasville_City_Schools_(Alabama) Tarrant_City_Schools Tallassee_City_School_District Tallapoosa_County_Schools Talladega_County_Schools Talladega_City_School_District Sylacauga_City_Schools Sumter_County_School_District_(Alabama) Saint_Clair_County_Board_Of_Education Sheffield_City_Schools Russellville_City_Schools Russell_County_School_District Roanoke_City_Schools Randolph_County_School_District_(Alabama) Pickens_County_School_District_(Alabama) Phenix_City_Public_Schools Perry_County_School_District Pell_City_School_District Oxford_City_Schools Opp_City_School_District Piedmont_City_School_District Oneonta_City_School_District Muscle_Shoals_City_School_District Monroe_County_School_District_(Alabama) Midfield_City_School_District Marion_County_Schools Marengo_County_School_District Madison_County_Schools_(Alabama) Madison_City_Schools Linden_City_Schools Limestone_County_School_District Leeds_City_School_District Lawrence_County_Schools Lauderdale_County_Schools Lanett_City_School_District Jasper_City_Schools Jacksonville_City_Schools Jackson_County_School_District_(Alabama) Houston_County_Schools_(Alabama) Homewood_City_School_District Hartselle_City_School_District Haleyville_City_Schools Hale_County_Schools Guntersville_City_School_District Geneva_County_School_District Gadsden_City_Schools Franklin_County_Schools_(Alabama) Fort_Payne_City_Schools Fayette_County_Schools Fairfield_City_Schools Etowah_County_Schools Elmore_County_Schools Elba_City_Schools Eufaula_City_Schools Dothan_City_Schools Demopolis_City_School_District Daleville_City_School_District Dale_County_School_District Crenshaw_County_School_District Covington_County_Board_Of_Education Coosa_County_School_District Conecuh_County_School_District Cleburne_County_School_District Clay_County_(Alabama)_School_District Clarke_County_Schools Chilton_County_School_District Chambers_County_School_District Calhoun_County_Schools Butler_County_Schools Bullock_County_School_District Brewton_City_Schools Boaz_City_School_District Blount_County_School_District Bibb_County_School_District Bessemer_City_Schools Barbour_County_School_District Shandon_Joint_Unified_School_District Parkers_Chapel_School_District Paris_School_District Norphlet_School_District Mountain_Pine_School_District Monticello_School_District_(Arkansas) Mena_School_District McCrory_School_District Maynard_School_District Marked_Tree_School_District Malvern_Special_School_District Lonoke_School_District Lincoln_School_District_(Arkansas) Lakeside_School_District_(Hot_Springs,_Arkansas) Lake_Hamilton_School_District Junction_City_School_District Jasper_School_District Huntsville_School_District Hope_School_District Hermitage_School_District_(Arkansas) Hector_School_District Hartford_School_District_(Arkansas) Greenbrier_School_District Glen_Rose_School_District Genoa_Central_School_District Fouke_School_District Forrest_City_School_District Fordyce_School_District Emerson–Taylor_School_District DeQueen_School_District Cutter–Morning_Star_School_District Crossett_School_District County_Line_School_District Crane_Elementary_School_District_(Arizona) Union_Elementary_School_District Liberty_Elementary_School_District Buckeye_Elementary_School_District Eagle_Elementary_District Blue_Elementary_School_District Klondyke_School_District Eastern_Arizona_Junior_College_District Solomon_Elementary_School_District Bonita_Elementary_School_District Young_Elementary_School_District Tonto_Basin_Elementary_School_District Pine-Strawberry_Elementary_School_District Payson_Unified_School_District Gila_Community_College_District Chevelon_Butte_School_District Pomerene_Elementary_School_District Pearce_Elementary_School_District Palominas_Elementary_School_District McNeal_Elementary_School_District Forrest_Elementary_School_District Elfrida_Elementary_School_District Double_Adobe_Elementary_School_District Cochise_Technology_District Cochise_Elementary_School_District Ash_Creek_Elementary_School_District Maine_Consolidated_Elementary_School_District Coconino_Community_College_District Naco_Elementary_School_District Douglas_Unified_School_District Cochise_County_Community_College_District Bowie_Unified_School_District

  • Delete all per the discussion with the creator on his and my own talk page. Badly created substandard stubs. Kudos to the Doctor for talking the trouble of tracing all of them and bringing them to AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you still feel that way after I added content to the stubs. Did you check the later ones or are you just responding to Blofeld's notice on your talk page without seeing if things have changed since you last examined them a few days ago? TMLutas (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You really have trouble with WP:AGF, isn't it? I checked some and found similar things as Fram did below. --Randykitty (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all or merge. No indication of notability, and a lack of any information (many of them even seem to have a non-working website listed at the time of creation, so the source seems to be outdated). In other cases the article title and subject don't exactly match (e.g. Bouse Elementary School District). Fram (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
US governments are automatically notable. There are 12,879 US school districts the census department says are governments. I'm only stubbing those. By my count 11,894 have websites, some of which I got via the Census and others I hunted down myself via Google. I might have made an error here or there but 'many'? Let me know where they are and I'll be happy to hunt them down and improve the relevant article. As for the discrepancies in names, that actually is an oddity that there is no easy fix for since official opinion seems to be mixed. Some districts have a popular name and an official name and it's not exactly clear which is correct for the listing. I've temporized by mostly adopting whatever was in the state list of school districts. Should I list the federal government opinion or the local government? Sometimes the local government refers to itself via multiple names. That's a nice thing to debate over but hardly a reason for a mass delete. TMLutas (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
US governments are automatically notable? Why? Names: is it San Ysidro Elementary School District (article title), "San Ysidro Elem Sch Dist" (first line and infobox), or "San Ysidro School District" (website)? Considering that this is about one third of the info (the other being the address and the website), this is quite a good reason for a mass delete. If you create microstubs, at least the tiny bits of info in them might be correct. Otherwise, what is there worth keeping in them? This is a common problem, the next article I looked at, San Luis Obispo County Office of Education, has the exact same problems. The next one, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District has a non-working website. Ross Valley Elementary School District (Elementary?) has the wrong website, the right one seems to be [18] instead. Rohnerville School District also has the wrong website, [19] is the right one. This is from checking 9 articles (and one redirect); nearly all had title problems, and three have website problems. For me, this is more than sufficient to delete them all and start again with decent articles from scratch. Fram (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lutas, claiming that they're all notable because they're government-run is sort of like claiming every post box or post office in the UK is notable in its own right because it's run by the Royal Mail, a notable central institution. I don't think any of us are debating that any of the articles could probably be expanded with half encyclopedic sourced material, we are more concerned about the errors and appropriateness of the short stubs and that the sheer number of them with errors and the time needed to correct them and expand every article makes deleting or redirecting them a legitimate solution. We'd be better off converting the lists to tables, you can put the address of the districts (which is all the articles have) in them until you or somebody wants to produce a proper article on one.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have repeatedly pointed out that the Census Bureau puts out a list of governments every five years and every single one of those pages is on them. I am not claiming that they are notable because they are government run. I'm claiming they are governments (and therefore notable) because they have independent taxing and spending powers and are categorized as governments by the US Census. If you have a beef with the Census Bureau's definition of what is a government, I cannot help you. You've gone far beyond the rules at that point. TMLutas (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Census Bureau's list is used without edit at the moment. Whatever the Wikipedia source is for the name, I left that alone too unless the Census had a government and the list did not have a school district that matched. Sometimes the two lists did not match and going to the website showed the local district using *both* names. In other words, it's a mess, but not a mess that originated with me, or even Wikipedia. NCES, which I was told was a good source, has another naming system which sometimes kind of matches but the frequency of non-matches is so common that the infobox instructions say do not correct it, just use the NCES name in parallel in the infobox, which may agree with one source or another or not with anything else. So, yes, things are not consistent in the stubs. That's not a legitimate reason to delete because they're not consistent in reality. The time needed to fix them via replacement with better autotext is actually not that large. I just create better autotext and figure out how to poke that into the pages, which was my original plan. Several editors have suggested improvements and I've largely followed their suggestions, which means the front end of these (I'm going alphabetical) are different than the back end and I was going to do them all over at the end of the process with the latest and greatest of the text. Ideally, I'd be able to detect articles that had somebody contribute and put the new stuff on the article's talk page and a notice on the user's talk page. TMLutas (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the article which was expanded you could pretty much convey all of that information in a tabled list, something like what I've done to List of school districts in Alabama. That list now has the potential to be several hundred times more valuable than any one of the stubs. That's how I think this should be done, and if anybody wants to write a fuller articles beyond data (if it is actually possible without bloat) then create a proper article.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can also convey all that information in narrative form, like a customized form letter. Make up your mind as to how you'd like it in order for you to be happy and I'll put the information in to satisfy your objections. I've repeatedly asked for you to do this because I've been burned by people who won't say what they want and make me go through iteration after iteration until they're satisfied. It's reasonable for you to get a byte at the apple of my time and for me to accommodate reasonable objections. Instead, you've chosen to do an AfD on a long list of articles that can easily be mended because I 1)know where to stick amended text, and 2) can automate the process fairly painlessly. If these are little used pages that almost never get attention (a previous complaint of yours), this isn't a high impact area that must be fixed immediately lest people be horrified or led astray. TMLutas (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point. I'm arguing, errors aside, that it is inappropriate to have hundreds of articles on school districts with no data when you can fill such a table crammed full of data on one page. And if you are up on coding you should be able to utilize something which can extract data and turn our lists by state into useful tables which convey information. You're not going to expand them all beyond sub stub status, even if you correct the errors are you? It would take years for you to do so and if you were going to code something to produce something useful you'd have coded a bot and asked permission to generate articles using it. I guarantee that in 5 years time most of the ones you started will still contain nothing but a fact or two which would be in the table anyway.This is how one of your stubs might look in the year 2020. In my opinion it is still of dubious encyclopedic quality which is more suited to a list.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm up to coding. I simply don't have time to add your method to my schedule at present. I'm trying to be reasonable. You are making estimates of time needed for which you have no actual data. I need to just figure out how to write a script to update the stubs and it's pretty much all automated from there and should take a number of hours. I won't have to do all 12k schools. A large number of these already have articles. I would estimate that it's reasonable to expect an update to take less than 10 seconds so let's budget for 10 seconds, 6 per minute, 360 per hour, and I estimate that I would have to do fewer than 6k stubs in toto so let's budget for 6k which would make the whole thing around two overnights of work for each round of improvements (under 17 hours). That's hardly years, and that's doing things deliberately slowly via Applescript and the ordinary UI interface. I'm reasonably sure that Wikipedia has some fancy API for doing it better but I don't have time to learn that either. Running the updates as a batch process while I'm sleeping is fine.
Really, I do see where you're coming from with the idea that it's unreasonable to have these stubs hanging around for years. I would agree that having them hang around for years is unreasonable. What I am asserting is that your time estimates to update are grossly off and much too high, that the NCES data (much less other available data we haven't even discussed yet) is actually fairly extensive and would not fit in a normal width table but could be made into a form letter type article, and that it is possible and reasonable for these pieces of information to come in over time via regular, iterative, improvements. I've started that process and there's a lot of underbrush of inconsistency out there internal to the US school district Wikipedia lists. This first round was intended to clear out the underbrush. But instead you're introducing more of it by putting in this new table structure. Are you going to go through all 50 states? Are you going to leave things inconsistent between state lists? Are you going to check for links going to individual schools instead of district pages? What are you going to do with them? And probably most importantly, why are you asserting notability issues in an AfD when you never, to my knowledge, inserted a notability tag or any of the other tags that would have been appropriate to signal your concerns prior to launching an AfD. TMLutas (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's trivial to add content. We often have the problem that district articles are not here when we need something to redirect a school to, and this is a valid approach to making them. I do think I need to remind the creator that mass creations of this sort always run into questions, and are generally not a good idea. it is more responsible, and more satisfactory in the end, to proceed slowly. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what way is it on the one hand trivial to add content, but on the other hand hard to create it when something is needed to redirect a school to? Considering that schools can just as well be redirected to their community instead of their school district, proactively creating (or keeping) school districts as a possible far future redirect target seems a bit far-fetched. While this may technically be a valid approach (though riddled with problems), turning them into larger lists is also a valid editing approach which doesn't lose any value, but which would ruin them as redirect targets anyway (double redirects). Fram (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial to add content? Who is going to a] correct the errors b] add facts c] start writing prose into articles rather than a database entry for several hundred articles. Expand one into a proper article, sure that can be done easily, but correcting several hundred and expanding them all up to a half decent standard is certainly no trivial task.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as the notability standard requires that sources are available, not that every article starts at B-class with images and an infobox. There is no deadline for the completion of these articles and no benefit to mass-deleting them. It is far easier for editors to expand existing articles than to create new ones and these can be the structure on which much better article are developed. Mass deletion without due consideration of each article (they're mostly not even linked from here!) is ill-advised and does nothing to benefit the readers of this encyclopedia. - Dravecky (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reality is that nobody is expanding the stubs and they remain virtually untouched. Short stubs on school districts do nothing to benefit the readers of this encyclopedia especially when they have errors.Deadline or not, the fact is Sierra-Plumas Joint Unified School District is of no benefit to the reader and is problematic. The creator is obviously interested in doing something to try to get facts on the districts onto here which I agree with, but would be best displayed in lists like List of school districts in Alabama at least until somebody can write prose and write an article.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply not true. I am expanding the stubs because I am expanding template that created them in the first place and will be revisiting them on a regular basis as soon as I nail down how to detect when others are expanding the stubs so as not to overwrite other editors work. If you actually look at the stubs generated (looking at my contributions list) an early stub is not the same as a later stub. Those early stubs, if somebody else doesn't expand them, will be expanded by me. Direct mail people have been creating fairly decent customized form letters for decades. This is not difficult technology to implement. What is difficult is to make any broad use of this tech in Wikipedia without ending up in an AfD. Repeatedly you have asserted that I will not update but you have not, and I suspect cannot provide any evidence to that effect because your assertion rests on my willingness to follow through on stated intentions, something you cannot know. TMLutas (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - There is a broad consensus — not reflected in the actual guidelines, but very broadly accepted and enforced by closing administrators in AfD debates — that secondary schools are presumed notable if existence can be demonstrated (akin to the way towns, rivers, highways, etc. are treated) while primary schools are presumed non-notable outside of extraordinary circumstances. The latter are redirected to the school district or, failing that opportunity, to the town in which they are located. This compromise between those favoring a tight, narrowly focused encyclopedia and those favoring a broad, expansive encyclopedia has a logic behind it. As follows: high schools are community landmarks and are almost invariably the subject of substantial media coverage, sponsoring sports teams, drama clubs, bands, orchestras, choral groups, etc. Moreover, proper biographies often include the exact name of a high school and these links should be blue, not red; elementary schools are not mentioned by name. Elementary school articles are invariably vapid, containing daily schedules, lunch menus, teacher lists, and so forth that often run afoul of NOTDIRECTORY. This is the consensus that has emerged, it works. We don't need to spend half an hour every day fighting over overzealous deletionists challenging this high school or that or overzealous inclusionists arguing that Smalltown Elementary School should be included because the Smalltown Cryer and the Smalltown Community News each have run a couple articles on the school over the years. High schools which exist are in, elementary schools unless extraordinarily noteworthy are out, end of story. Now, here's the catch... For this system to work, there need to be redirection targets — articles on school districts. These entities should be treated like high schools, if their existence is confirmed, they should be in. The fact that these are lousy machine-created stubs should not detain us, Wikipedia needs these target pages, which WILL inevitably flesh out over time. If you want to call this an WP:IAR defense, that's fine, although I think a careful consideration of the logic of this situation should support what I'm suggesting here. Carrite (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Give it 100 years maybe. I took 10 articles on existing articles at random, none of them had been meaningfully expanded in years of existence on here and mostly anything added was an infobox with the superintendent in.Some have barely been touched in 7 years and still contain less facts that could be put into a sourced table in a list. I'm still not seeing a valid argument why, as a start, a sourced list isn't the way to go and easier to manage.As for the argument "if the article exists people will come and expand it" this is generally not the case and the ones I chose at random have not been written into articles. So currently readers will have to peruse hundreds of articles to get less info than they'd get in a single sourced table list.. The idea that newbies and ip's will come along and expand them all fully with sources and well written is really overly optimistic. It's rarely the case, expanding them meaningfully will be left to regulars who might be part of the school project or state projects. In these circumstances they can branch out into meatier stubs and start-B class articles when they want to write it, a list format is easier to handle the basic facts to start with given that the editor has professed to planning on creating short stubs on all 12,000 and something school districts. Wouldn't 50 decent sourced lists crammed full of data be a better, more logical way to start this? That said if the article creator can code something and show an ability to create start class articles on these districts with as much information as he claims which is more than can fit into tables I'd like to see an example and would support him overriding all of these with a bot and using it to generate proper useful articles if he can do this without major errors..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And again, past performance by other editors, using other techniques is not relevant to a system that is designed to throw off wikipedia pages as a side effect of a larger, self-sustaining project. You are making the assumption of bad faith pretty central to your AfD claims. That's not a good thing. TMLutas (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've looked at four of the named articles nominated here. Each is a one-sentence sub-stub, but not a one had a period at the end of the sentence. Also, all had (and mostly still have) unacceptable abbreviations of names. However this discussion ends, the article creator needs to use proper punctuation and orthography for any future article creations, and if these articles are kept, they need to be fixed. TMLutas, you keep talking about what you have time for; you must take the time to use standard spelling and punctuation. If that slows down your article creation, so be it. LadyofShalott 21:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all These are probably all notable topics for the reasons that DGG and Carrite stated, and issues with length and style are reasons for improvement, not deletion. While I agree that most of the articles are low quality and probably should not have been created in that state, some of them are reasonable stubs or have been improved since their creation; for instance, there's nothing objectionable about Hartselle City School District itself at this point. Moreover, if some of them have been improved, there's no real way of knowing, since the nomination appears to include a few hundred articles and 95% of them aren't linked above or properly tagged. If we deleted all of them, we'd either be throwing out a bunch of good articles or at best telling the closing admin to sort out which of these are "good enough", which is pretty subjective when the topics are all notable. I agree that TMLutas needs to stop making these articles if they don't have time to check for errors and use proper style, but AfD isn't the place to settle problems with editors' behavior. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy towards adding this sparse info to List of school districts in California. I am disturbed that many of them were elementary school districts, which are really not needed here. I can see also deleting only the elementary school districts. What i dont understand is why someone would want to create these sub-stubs, which dont give more info than a directory, which we are not supposed to be. doesnt even list the schools in the districts, which, if secondary schools, would be notable, and if not secondary, could still be listed. if recreated as list(s), the individual districts could be slowly built up into articles if possible.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until ready: I am not a fan of the quality of these micro-stubs by the creator and we have discussed this at some length and I have provided suggestions. My focus is in List of school districts in Arkansas and creating quality articles for each school district, which I believe can be done with available resources online. My biggest complaint is the quality, lack of punctuation, spelling and formatting. If the articles were better, I would be a proponent of keeping, but like others have mentioned, these articles will rot like this for years and reduces the value of Wikipedia. If it is worth doing, it is worth doing right. Separately, as time allows will I likely create articles for all of these school districts, the answer is yes. But I don't and won't create articles that are simple dumps of information from another database. Djharrity (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There you have it, a sensible response from an editor who actually works on school district articles. I agree, and if they were created like Carlisle School District (Arkansas) at a minimum I'd happily have articles on every one of them.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As this is all done via autogenerated text, an improvement on one is an improvement on all. I'm not currently doing *any* improvements on the actual wikipedia pages until the AfD is done but I am improving the database off wiki. If you have any improvements you would like to suggest, I already have a track record of adding them. I'm currently trying to figure out a way to get the NCES data in the infobox correctly. Unfortunately, NCES uses its own district naming system that neither matches Wikipedia or the Census so that's a semi-manual process. TMLutas (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "I don't and won't create articles that are simple dumps of information from another database," isn't that how Wikipedia in part was build up in the first few years? That's becuase there was agreement then that such actions were needed. There's nothing wrong with simple dumps of information from another database. However, it should be done based on consensus agreement, not a lone editor acting against requests of multiple editors. See my post below for further comments on this point. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as per Doc B. trivial, not notable: we are not a directory. SchroCat (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of these pages describe governments with taxing, regulatory, and spending powers devolved by their respective state governments. That makes them notable. There are school districts that do not have those characteristics, for instance dependents districts on military bases. None of those are included in my list of additions specifically because I was not sure if they *were* notable. What other criteria should I have used in addition to that? TMLutas (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, AfD is not a substitute for clean up. The question really should be is each of these different school districts are notable organizations? Each one of these organizations should be reviewed independently. That being said, a compromise would be to create list articles, for each state, of the school districts. As individual school district articles are created, once notability is established for each school district, those redlinks would become links to actual articles. Many organizations receive multiple mentions in reliable sources, and when taken in total could be considered significant coverage; that being said, each one of these organizations should be examined on a case by case basis. For instance take my local elementary school district, it has received over 100 mentions (some of them potentially significant). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small note, all school districts that have the characteristics of governments (they can tax, spend and regulate) are included in a once in five year census of governments conducted by the US Census Bureau. Every single one of these districts is going to show up in NCLB ratings reviews as well as their state equivalents. Every single school district is covered by the local real estate people in multiple forums. There are also school district rating organizations like GreatSchools. I really don't know what school district wouldn't be notable under standard RS criteria. TMLutas (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All Established consensus described in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is that the vast majority of elementary school articles (except those about schools of genuine historical or architectural notability) ought to be redirected to an article about the school district or locale. To me, an article about the responsible governmental entity, namely the school district, is always preferable, as that is the logical place for a list of schools, a list of board members including elections and taxing authority, a description of the history of education in that geographical area, and so on. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with a stub about any notable topic, and as time goes on, users who learn that we rarely have articles about individual elementary schools but usually have articles about school districts, will be motivated to expand these stubs. It ought to be considered indisputable that these governmental entities have received significant coverage in reliable sources over periods of many years, even if such coverage is not always instantly available through a Google search. Many local newspapers are not yet indexed online. This encyclopedia is a work in progress, and I believe that one of our long range goals ought to be an informative, well-referenced article about every single school district on the face of the Earth, and I commend TMLutas for efforts in that direction. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I expanded and referenced Pope Valley Union Elementary School District to show that even the tiniest and most obscure school district is discussed in reliable sources, and worthy of a brief article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I do worry about our criteria for notability when an unexceptional institution responsible for the education of 71 US children is "notable" while a school anywhere in the world with hundreds of young (pre-highschool) students is, almost always, automatically deemed not to be - just because of a quirk of US governance structure whereby school districts exist and can be considered as "governments". (Is every "government" notable? Every English parish council would be a "government", but would not have a separate article, being treated in the article for the parish or its main village.) I could show Ofsted reports for any primary school in the UK, and doubtless many of them have local newspaper coverage for some initiative or other. PamD 08:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Pam, and it is concerning to me that "we are a work in progress" is used as an excuse for keeping any article, regardless of quality and errors. We still need to maintain a minimum standard.If you can't see why Green Forest School District is problematic as an initial entry. Lacks even basic punctuation and isn't even categorized, still red linked. We should strive to have these articles produced with sources and at a minimum standard which is acceptable as a start without errors. It would be easier in my opinion to delete them and restart them properly using a coded bot, if we must "have articles on every school district on the planet".♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Green Forest School District was problematic but AFD is not clean-up. I spent about 20 minutes gathering sources, adding text and an infobox, and doing a bit of cleanup and now, other than relying solely on one newspaper because my quick search was shallow, it's a perfectly reasonable start/stub. Any of the remaining one-line stubs could be replaced by a bot without having to delete these articles, almost none of which have any notification that this discussion is taking place. - Dravecky (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but it is still pretty trivial.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: contrary to what has been stated above, there doesn't seem to be anything in our notability guidelines that gives a "government" (to use the loosely applied word) automatic notability. WP:ORG has nothing that exempts "governments" (or school districts) from its general rules. Claims that school districts are inherently notable are not supported by our guidelines. Fram (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that they're inherently notable as much as that they're usually notable when somebody looks for the sources, which qualifies in this case because it's unrealistic to look for sources for several hundred articles in the week this AfD is supposed to run. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 09:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - school districts as official bodies are notable and as a repository for information on non-notable elementary schools these articles serve a valuable purpose. They way forward is to expand and source, not to delete, which is the way that stubs and hence the encyclopaedia is developed. TerriersFan (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all of them. It's true that elementary SCHOOLS are not generally considered notable, but school districts should be. There is nothing wrong with stubs if the subject matter qualifies for an article, and school districts do qualify. IMO TMLutas should be thanked for filling in this huge gap in our coverage of school districts. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    in what way does San Ysidro Elementary School District or any other "fill in a gap in coverage". The subject is not filled in or covered created in this way.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for an excellent example. It took me only 15 minutes to find multiple Reliable Source references to this school district and add them to the article. A little later when I have more time I will expand it further. Bottom line, the sources DO exist for these agencies. All one has to do is look. --MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time, I'm not questioning that sources exist, just who you think is going to cleanup up 500+ articles and expand them all to something half decent that's all.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you concede that sources exist, then there is nothing else to debate; that's the equivalent of a "keep" vote. If the topics are notable, they deserve an article. The QUALITY of the article is not a valid reason to delete. Wikipedia allows stubs. It is not up to the creator of the stub, or the discussants at this article, to recruit the volunteers who will expand the articles. Are you seriously suggesting that all these articles should be deleted because we don't know right now who is going to expand them? --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many times in wikipedia's history we have deleted a big batches of stubs which are notable, either people of BLP concerns or those which contain so many errors and problems it is easier and a cleanup to get rid of them and start from scratch. I have a lot more experience on here than you do. I'm saying that it would be easier to delete them all and code a bot to create virtual start class articles full of data and consistently sourced and categorized yes and i believe that would be more productive for wikipedia in the long term.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all It is inconceivable that sources don't actually exist for these government agencies. Sure, citing sources would require that someone actually look for them, and in some cases, that the "look for" involve using paper sources, but the claim that no such sources have ever been published (not even by the local newspapers?!) is not credible. Notability cares about whether it is possible for a sufficiently motivated and sufficiently resourced person to obtain sources. It does not care whether anyone has done this yet, or whether sources are available for free online, or can be found by asking your favorite web search engine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The delegation for an international conference could mistake the corridor for the toilet. Doesn't make their shit notable and doesn't change the fact that some poor janitor has to clean up after them. I don't think anybody is really questioning that these can be expanded, the whole point of the AFD was in light a mess has been created with empty stubs with lack of even basic grammar and sources and to produce something more constructive it might be easier to organize something to replace them or redirect at present into a more useful lists with data for our readers. That none of the "keep!" voters (except Cullen who has spoken to Lutas and myself) seem to care about the extent of the cleanup needed is irresponsible. If somebody at least said "Keep, I can clean these up using AWB and will commit to expanding them" at least would be something.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have Watchlisted this page so I will have a convenient list of the stubs needing expansion. I will start working on the California articles in a few weeks after I get past some Real Life obligations. I do agree with others above that TMLutas should revise his creation tools so that words like "elementary", "school" and "district" are spelled out. I also think they should create a script to go back and expand those abbreviations in the articles already created, and to put a period at the end of the sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I've personally done at least a basic clean-up (recat, grammar, links, punctuation, wikiproject templates on the talk page, and stub sorting) on about half of the Alabama school district articles (manually!) and hope to finish the list soon-ish. Also, I've significantly expanded a couple of the singled-out articles just to show how easily it can be done. - Dravecky (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, good luck with expanding all 500 odd!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but WP:Deletion is not clean up. If you personally don't like looking at underdeveloped stubs, then don't click on those pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7000 articles on Chinese townships were deleted from an AFD on wikipedia because they needed cleanup. Funny how none of you turned up to keep those.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I don't participate in every possible AfD and only have a dozen of the noticeboards watchlisted. It's not a conspiracy, just time management. - Dravecky (talk) 07:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I missed that one, too. Do you have a link to the AfD? I would be interested in reading the close reasoning. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Schools and school districts fall under WP:ORG, which these fail, outright. The editors citing WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES seemed to have missed, well, the entire thing they cited. Wikipedia:SCHOOLOUTCOMES#Citing this page in AfD specifically, and the fact that it specifically says that schools fall under WP:ORG. Notability has to be established, and when the relevant notability guideline specifically says that nothing is inherently notable, it makes protestations to the contrary very weak arguments, not supported by a single thing on Wikipedia; nothing is notable "just because". Short of explaining how these articles meet WP:ORG, they do not belong on Wikipedia, per established consensus. - SudoGhost 12:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to SudoGhost The only way to determine if any given one of these school districts meets WP:ORG would be to make a good faith effort to look for coverage in reliable sources for that specific school district. Consider the case of one of the nominated articles, Benicia Unified School District, a district which I happen to be familiar with. This district operates seven schools enrolling nearly 5000 students. Using Google News Archive, I was easily able to find 100 articles about this district in seven different newspapers, three of which are major regional papers, namely the Sacramento Bee, the Oakland Tribune and the San Jose Mercury News. Unfortunately, almost all of these articles are hidden behind pay walls, but the snippets available make it clear to me that this district meets WP:ORG. How many other such indisputably notable districts are hidden in this mass deletion? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Without actually seeing these articles, I very much doubt that they make the subject "indisputably notable"; just because it's mentioned in a newspaper doesn't mean it warrants an article; that's Wikipedia policy ("While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia|). I looked at a few, and they were routine coverage of local events, not something that makes an article notable, let alone "indisputably so". - SudoGhost 06:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I spent about 20 minutes improving, expanding, and sourcing the Hartselle City School District article that is still the only one properly tagged to point people to this discussion. This quick scrape of the surface of the news coverage shows that in-depth coverage from multiple reliable third-party sources is available for this subject. Also, the section of policy you cite is specifically about current events, not organizations. - Dravecky (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It still applies to topics such as this, and local papers aren't exactly "third-party" when it comes to their local area. This is not independent of the subject, it is a local piece for a local school, and WP:ORGDEPTH specifically points out that these are insufficient. They are also extremely routine coverage, the exact type of source that is insufficient for establishing the notability for a subject. Looking at the sources in that article, if that's all there is for that subject, then that subject most certainly fails WP:ORG and does not warrant an article on Wikipedia. - SudoGhost 08:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, it explicitly applies to events, not organizations, which is why "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" is immediately followed by "See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events)". Either your reading of WP:ORGDEPTH is severely constrained or our definitions of routine coverage are very different. (Controversies erupting over planned "live shooter" training exercises in an elementary school full of kids just a month after Sandy Hook strikes you as routine? No. That the Hartselle City Schools were the only public school district in the the state to routinely test all of its students for drugs? No.) Huntsville and Birmingham are not "local" to Hartselle by any useful definition. Plus, that's hardly "all there is" as I stated clearly above. The Hartselle school district was formed in 1975 and I merely added a handful of the top results from the last 3 years. Could an editor build on my work to improve the article? Heck yes. But the verifiability and notability thresholds are easily crossed by this subject. - Dravecky (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hartselle is most certainly "local" to Huntsville by almost every definition, and WBRC routinely covers minor events in Hartselle, which a "non-local" source would not do. That is as local as one can get, which is why that article fails to meet the notability requirements given the poor sources in the article and found elsewhere, hardly "easily crossed" it fails horribly. - SudoGhost 11:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - What's done is done and deleting these articles is not a best way to address conduct. I do not like stubs, but once they are created, they have to be judge by different standards than would be applied before they are created. Regarding that standard, newspapers are going to provide source material for Wikipedia on school districts because school districts have a wide impact on the families and tax payers in the community (which is just about everyone in the community). There should be stand alone articles on these topics to provide editors a discrete place to contribute information from those reliable sources. The above list does look like a lot of articles, but they would appear to be a very small number if you also listed Wikipedia's other 4,175,000+ articles above. As for User:TMLutas's conduct going against concerns from multiple editors advising him not the create so many stubs, we need a better way to address single editors deciding to create numerous stubs. I'm not sure where you would put it, but perhaps there can be a statement that the creation of more than 10 (20?) articles in any 24 hour period first requires consensus. We have the 3RR rule, so there is precedent on restricting the number of certain edits in a given period of time. We also require the repetitive actions of a bot to be approved before hand not so much because it is a bot, but because we do not want one editor making repetitive edits that are going to upset others. I see that the articles were created via autogenerated text. If that is "a semi-automated tool that carries out repetitive and mundane tasks to maintain articles of the English Wikipedia", see Wikipedia:Bots, then perhaps consensus was needed per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. Lack of consensus to create the stubs would be a reasonable basis to delete the created articles if consensus was needed, even though the semi-automated tool technically was not a bot requiring approval via Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. If this AfD is closed as no consensus, you might relist at AfD using the lack of needed consensus line of reasoning as the basis to delete the autogenerated text articles. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that "school districts have a wide impact on the families and tax payers in the community" is actually exactly why WP:ORGDEPTH does not consider those sufficient sources for establishing the notability of the subject, you may or may not agree with that, but that's what community consensus has determined. It has nothing to do with the actions or the number of edits, but the notability of the subjects, which are non-existent according to WP:ORG, which is the criteria under which schools fall, assuming it's notable isn't enough, it it must be shown, and these do not meet that criteria. - SudoGhost 08:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know to what part of WP:ORGDEPTH you are referring. Would you mind quoting the text from WP:ORGDEPTH that does not consider those sufficient sources for establishing the notability of the subject. Also, when you say notability, are you talking about whether school districts are important/significant enough as a class of entries to be part of Wikipedia or are you talking about whether there is enough reliable source material for standalone articles on school districts? -- Jreferee (talk) 09:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section titled Audience: "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." - SudoGhost 11:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the best stuff is from local media. If the audience guideline makes it into WP:GNG, then that would provide a community consensus which could be applied consistently from one subject to the next. Until then, it is not clear as to why people should be given access to the sum of all human knowledge, except for organizations and companies. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of our existing entries on school districts are rather sparse in sourcing and trivial in content it has to be said. They're low importance articles in my opinion. I'd like to see an article expanded beyond trivial "xxx was lieutenant as of 2013" and "Hugsy is mascot" and see if anybody can produce a full well sourced article on one. I'd love to see Benicia Unified School District expanded using those sources Cullen.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you requested, Dr. Blofeld, I have expanded the article on Benicia Unified School District, showing that its direct predecessor is notable in the very early Gold Rush history of public education in California. One of the first public schools in California was established there in 1849. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great job, Cullen! It's now an interesting, factual, and well written article. Has anyone noticed that every time - literally EVERY time - Dr. Blofeld dismisses one of these individual articles as trivial and unworthy, someone is quickly able to bring that article up to encyclopedic standards? If nothing else, it shows that these articles can not be treated en masse - because so many of them pass muster when looked at individually. --MelanieN (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm right there with you. "Oroville Union High School Dist is a public school district based in Butte County, California, United States."[20] Except for the fact that it is not a "Dist," the rest of the fact is true. I read it and think, "Yes, and ...?" A WP:V statement such as a public school district that "encompasses 723 miles of eastern Butte County" (that is a lot of miles), "that serves high school needs of 14,490 residents," (that's a lot of people). I looked at a few of the articles and see no indication of importance. While speedy deletion excludes educational institutions, that does not mean slow deletion excludes a need for educational institution articles to indicate importance. I think a strong argument for delete is that, while these topics each should be treated in a standalone article, the lack of consensus to auto-create a set of a significant number of articles that do not indicate why its subjects are important or significant supports the idea that we should delete and start over with a consensus agreeded-upon plan for growth in this area, including minimal criteria such spell check and one sourced indication of importance and other things you mentioned. I think a strong argument to keep is the reasons I listed above. I think the closer can make a wise decision either way. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per DGG, Dravecky, MelanieN, and Jreferee. Altairisfar (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have also started to help expand and add sourcing to the articles. Altairisfar (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have wikified, sourced, and expanded Demopolis City School District, Linden City Schools, Marengo County School District, and Wilcox County School District (Alabama). I have struck them out in the above list. I believe that they have been expanded and sourced well enough to pass muster now, if this AfD is successful. Altairisfar (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. There are others that have been similarly improved and could also be struck. But the reality is that "delete all" is probably not even a valid option at this point. Both because so many of the articles have proven worthy when looked at individually, and because the additional ones (other than Hartselle City) do not have an AfD tag on the article. I thought that was required. --MelanieN (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rincon Valley Union Elementary School District has an AFD tag pointing at a separate discussion.
I have mixed feelings about the expansion efforts. On the one hand, a properly written and sourced article is undeniably a good thing. On the other hand, people who clean up these articles in response to a sloppy, pointy, or wikilawyering nomination are rewarding and encouraging that type of nomination by making an AFD be an effective method of finding someone else who will stop what they're doing (which might be more important) and clean up the nominated articles ASAP. I don't think that we want to reward this kind of nomination. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 5 March 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) — ΛΧΣ21 03:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Park[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chicken Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was nominated 5 years ago, with no consensus, and and the hope of improvement. Since then, it has remained low quality, and is not notable. drewmunn talk 07:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn by nominator The page has been much improved since this nomination was opened, thanks to all involved. drewmunn talk 18:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm finding things, but most of it is rather trivial in nature and the only two things of real note would be the MDZ Online and Shock Magazine reviews. The other two are more offhand remarks than anything, as far as I can tell. Maybe this would be better served as a redirect to the director's page?Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish release name:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Spanish release name:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep per being a suitably sourced stub C class and, though nice to strive for, there is no requirement that it ever be a C, B, GA or FA. Also, as it had its original Turkish release as Piliç parki and several months later in Spain as Pollo jurásico, we need to search away from English language sources for a non-English language film. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep, time to close. Cavarrone (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The request has seemed to have the desired effect (backup desired effect); the article's been much improved. I'll withdraw on the condition that a little extra work is put into expanding the lede, just so a better overview can be given. Cavarrone, serious thanks are in order, you've done extremely well. Thanks as well to Michael and TokyoGirl79, you really kickstarted the improvements. drewmunn talk 18:07, 28 February 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 and move to Rai Sahiras II. (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Siharus[edit]

Siharus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is one line stub, w/o any citation. Seems to some insignificant person in History of Sindh. I propose a delete. Jethwarp (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jethwarp (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jethwarp (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Jethwarp (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a reference to verify the information there but it is by no means significant coverage and I couldn't find anything more substantive. Stalwart111 09:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the above. There's not enough information here to warrant inclusion. Kabirat (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While the article does not make the fact entirely clear, the intended subject is apparently one of the Rai dynasty rulers of Sindh (probably the one listed as Sahiras II in that article) - and we usually do keep articles about heads of independent states. The couple of things that make me hesitate about voting !keep are firstly that, while sources can be found (particularly if one varies the spelling - Siharas and Sahiras seem to be likely alternatives), most of them are at least several decades old and all seem effectively to depend for their few facts on one Arab or Persian chronicle from several generations after the subject's lifetime, and secondly that the article currently says very little and the title is quite possibly, while a valid spelling of the subject's name, one of the less common variants. PWilkinson (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered too, if the Rai Sahiras II mentioned at Rai dynasty was, in fact, the Siharus in question. A mix-up of vowel-sounds does not seem beyond the realm of possibility - Sahiras or Siharus - but I could find nothing to verify that they were one in the same. But the fact that you had the same concerns is enough for me to change my opinion above to neutral. I'm not comfortable with the idea that we might be deleting an article about a genuine historical head of state. I'm going to have more of a look. Stalwart111 23:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have found this text which suggests Rai Sahiras II and Siharus are in fact the same person - the second-last ruler of the Rai Dynasty who died in battle and was succeeded by his son, Raja Sahasi II. I have moved Raja Sahasi II to Rai Sahasi II. My suggestion now is that Siharus be moved to Rai Sahiras II and expanded with the reference above and books like this.
Comment - In view of above info it seems that Siharus was father of Rai Sahasi II as is also mentioned in Rai Sahasi II article ...as did his father Siharus. However, if that is the fact Siharus can be redirected to it. But one line article on subject is neither maintainable nor expandable, so I would agree to redirect to Rai Dynasty or Rai Sahasi II. Jethwarp (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though as a head of state in his own right he would pass WP:POLITICIAN. The article can be expanded a little bit but he may be destined for perpetual stub-dom. Stalwart111 22:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article Rai_Dynasty#Chronology_of_Rai_rulers_of_Sindh already mentions about Siharus and therefore should better be redirected to it.Jethwarp (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean - if the subject passes our notability guidelines then the article should be kept. Why would we then need a redirect to Rai Dynasty? Are you suggesting it should still be deleted because it is a stub? Stalwart111 09:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Reply).. What I was trying to say is that Siharus article is unwanted fork (WP:CFORK) of Rai Dynasty article. Where in the two lines mentioned in Siharus article are already mentioned. So it is better that it is redirected to Rai Dyansty.Jethwarp (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't see your reply until now. I get where you're coming from. I have no great objection to a merge/redirect, I just think the article has potential for expansion. He (by whatever name) is obviously notable enough for inclusion and the occasional stub doesn't hurt. But if people think having everything in one place is cleaner then I can live with that too. Stalwart111 08:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment - recently, I have been perusing and revising articles spun off from the Chach Nama (the Arab-Persian chronicle you referenced above). I think it would be optimal to try to get some RS that could certify the info contained in the articles, as I feel the subjects are of relative importance and that the topic is quite interesting. dci | TALK 17:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am personally okay with merging this to Rai Dynasty too. I don't see urgent need to have separate stub if all information can be included in article about dynasty.--Staberinde (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I included this list on this list at the new task force, and I think that improvement or expansion may come as a result of activity here. Perhaps it's worth keeping this article intact, and not as a redirect, for the time being? dci | TALK 01:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with that, neither option is really wrong, just merge is imo aesthetically superior to having two line stub. But obviously if someone somewhere manages to find suitable sources and expand that stub, then it would be even better.--Staberinde (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also merge/redirect can be always done later, with no need to start a new AfD.--Staberinde (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and move, per above). Absolutely no reason for deletion and clearly notable, even if there isn't a lot of detailed info on him. Some articles, given their subject's definite notability but shallow source pools, will always be stubs. dci | TALK 04:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I will not dissent from the consensus above. I was going to suggest a redirect to Rai Dynasty. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete; only contributor of substance was User:Christopher S Murray, who has blanked the page. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher S Murray[edit]

Christopher S Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established through significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. I've looked for sources to support content, but have been unable to verify assertions of importance or significance presented in article. Hoping others may have access to content in order to support notability. Cindy(talk to me) 05:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. The article's only significant author has blanked the page (repeatedly). So tagged. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 05:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Papudo earthquake[edit]

2008 Papudo earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Earthquake did not have lasting consequences, it's not worthy of an article. Lester Foster (talk | talk) 02:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm not having very much luck finding any reliable sources to build an article with. This USGS shakemap listing shows that there were a few earthquakes around December 18, but they were not a 6.8 like the article says, but more on the moderate side and were located offshore (to the northeast of Santiago) and so would have had less impact on any towns or villages. I don't think we need this one. Dawnseeker2000 03:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I can't find any news about this earthquake other than the reference in the article. The reference also says that there was no structural damage or injuries. There is nothing very significant about the earthquake, and the origin time is wrong, the magnitude is 6.2 and not 6.8, the depth is 18 or 19 km and not 10 km. [21][22] I think it is useless. Seismologist76 (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Search among Chilean media. The earthquake was perhaps not big enough to get the atention of The Guardian or the New York Times. Dentren | Talk 21:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any serious search en Chile earthquakes have to be in both Spanish and English. Here is local TV covering the event and here is local newspaper doing it. Here is nationwide newspaper La Nación (Chile) covering it. The earthquake was also covered in the site of Chile's largest newspaper, El Mercurio. I think this should be enough to keep the article. Dentren | Talk 21:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for providing the links to the Spanish news articles, but what I've read there only reinforces my stance. The articles state that there were a number of moderate earthquakes with mostly light felt intensities. The one article states that for each event "There were no personal misfortune or damage." This series of earthquakes doesn't align with Wikiproject Earthquake's notability guidelines and I just don't see a need to keep it. Dawnseeker2000 02:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dentren, are you serious? Chilean media reports every single earthquake (may it be strong, may it be light) that is felt in Santiago or the central area of the country. This so-called Papudo earthquake only prompted some ONEMI authorities to give some advice (something which they seemed to forgot completely by Feb 2010 haha) Lester Foster (talk | talk) 04:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not the local news (WP:NOTNEWS), and if an event has no WP:LASTING consequences, we shouldn't have an article on it. Mkdwtalk 05:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tablero da Gucci[edit]

Tablero da Gucci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has zero citations, and there's only one menition of it on gBooks, and most hits appears to be just hobbyist sites. I'm not at all disputing that this game exists and has some popularity, but if we don't have any serious coverage of it then we don't have any way to verify any claims about the game, and folks are free to make up fake backstories, argue about the rules, etc without any real recourse for accuracy. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone finds a reliable source. Or transwiki to wikibooks:Card games, where the tolerance for original research is higher. But I am not willing to take responsibility myself. Hans Adler 21:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Without any significant sources, notability, and coverage, there is no way to verify if any of the information in the article is accurate. JoeMeas (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grgo Saric[edit]

Grgo Saric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG as the subject has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Also fails WP:NSPORTS as the National Soccer League was not a fully professional league. Hack (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 25 February 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) 07:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vilify (song)[edit]

Vilify (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy declined but album is a debut album. May be a possible redirect but as of now it looks like this is a nn song and also a recreated article that has previously been deleted. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect, probably to Device (Device album) (although I'm not certain if that is notable - it's not out till April). This song isn't notable; it's had little coverage beyond announcements of its existence and it hasn't charted. It also doesn't seem to have been officially formally released, though these things are a bit different to the days of vinyl/CDs. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Album art and references have been added. Song is debut single of band whose lead singer is also a member of an already reputable band, Disturbed. Songs that are upcoming singles have been common for well known bands and side projects of well-known artists. Single is set to be released in 12 hours. No need to delete or redirect at this point. --Coltsmetsfan614 (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a single, has a cover, available for free download, and from a band that already has an article, as well as an article of the album that it is from. NO reason at all to delete it. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Failing WP:NSONG is a reason to delete. But we could Userfy/Incubate until it's notable, if people want. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article contains references to multiple "published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label," (CraveOnline, Loudwire) therefore passing WP:NSONG. --Coltsmetsfan614 (talk) 1:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Redirect or Keep - Pointless to delete, as the song is very likely to chart and get plenty of coverage pretty soon. There's not much to say yet, but the band/album itself is a high profile release featuring many high profile artists, so it's a pretty safe bet there will be plenty of coverage for its debut single eventually. Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Music video for single has been released, and reference link to said video has been included in the article. --Coltsmetsfan614 (talk) 6:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article should be kept because it is the debut single of a band that, while new, is fronted by an established lead singer in David Draiman (of Disturbed (band)). The song is sure to chart, and a music video has already been released. The song page has references to song reviews from established sites Loudwire and Artist Direct. The article will continue to develop as more reviews come out and more chart information is made available. Please keep. --Coltsmetsfan614 (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Why was this relisted? Not a single person has !voted for "Delete" - there's a pretty clear consensus that this won't be deleted. This discussion really should have been closed - a new "redirect" discussion can just be started on the article's talk page if people really want to keep pushing for it... Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with Sergecross73. I don't really see the reasoning behind the relisting. I just wanted to make sure that I had a chance to sum up my point in this discussion. Can we make a move to close this discussion and leave the article as is? --Coltsmetsfan614 (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:NSONGS asks: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." - All I see for this single is a few very minor on-line bloggish reports. the single was released on 19 Feb 2013. Both craveonline and loudwire sources were published before the official release date, perhaps making them more of a PR effort, rather than independent reviews. Most of the Keep comments above were posted around the release date. Two weeks have gone by since the release. What has happened in the two weeks since it was released? Did it chart? Has any major reviewer reviewed it? Did they get invited to perform the single in some major venue? Why have no major sources commented on the single since around 23 Feb? --Noleander (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The CraveOnline article was posted after the band released a "making of" video on their official YouTube page prior to the release of the singe. The Loudwire article was published before the official release of the song because the song leaked two days prior to its radio release date. The song charted on the US Active Rock chart this week and was featured in Loudwire's Top 20 songs of the week for the week of Feb. 24th through March 2nd. I'm still voting to keep. --Coltsmetsfan614 (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2004 Iraq KBR convoy ambush. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Maupin[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Matt Maupin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject's service was honorable and his death is tragic, but this seems to be WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. His information should be merged into 2004 Iraq KBR convoy ambush the event that lead to his capture. EricSerge (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

541st Medical Detachment, Forward Surgical (Airborne)[edit]

541st Medical Detachment, Forward Surgical (Airborne) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does this organization meet the notability criteria as described at WP:MILUNIT? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 22:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 20:04, 2 March 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tasneem Tafsir[edit]

Tasneem Tafsir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is too short and limited context does not specify importance of the page... Content has to be increased Ajayupai95 (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


A big help, at least to me, would be for you to find the source that specifically states the author's methodology and add it as an in-line citation to the last line of the first paragraph. A section on how the work has been received would be great as well - praise and criticism, reviews, that sort of thing. I'm not up on my Quran-related scholarship, so I don't know quite how such works are generally reviewed, if at all. But more detail is good. Remember, this is an article about the book, not a copy of the analysis - that's what the book is for. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the helpful hint Ultraexactzz. I went ahead and added a review section from a new source. I also included inline citation.Kazemita1 (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Short I can deal with; that's why we have stub tags. I can't judge the independence of the references, but they each seem to discuss the work in more depth than a simple "This exists, buy it" manner. The text needs some work, but I'll see if I can pick at that a little. Caveat - this is based on the google translation, in part. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as all given sources seem like promotional material, likely from organizations to which the book's author is connected. I don't see the notability factor here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the article and now there are two inline English citations from independent sources in the article. As for notability, check the review section that I just added. You can also take a look at the author's page in English Wikipedia or -if you are speak Farsi- see theinterwiki link for this book in Farsi Wikipedia.Kazemita1 (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good work on Kazemita's part on the fast sources, though the article itself could use a rewrite for aesthetical purposes. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:42, 3 March 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. WP:LISTPURP (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 02:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of points of interest in Kansas City, Missouri[edit]

List of points of interest in Kansas City, Missouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per my reasoning at the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of points of interest in Albuquerque, New Mexico. This article has seen a past AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sites of interest of Kansas City. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep like the last time we did this. No new arguments have been introduced (we handled the "travel guide" argument last time). No new reason to delete, should be closed unless a new argument surfaces.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTDUP. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See the first half of my argument. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:LISTPURP. The article is almost all blue links, except for 3 red links. The topics listed therein that have Wikipedia articles are likely to be inherently notable. Afterward, a merge to Kansas City, Missouri could be discussed on talk pages. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 04:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's over No need to relist the last AFD was a keep, and this one is at worst "no consensus" -- there is no reason to overturn or change from the previous AFD. Let's move on.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful to see all the notable places in a location. Notability can be established by items listed having blue links to their own articles, proving those entries have already met Wikipedia's requirements for notability, or they are listed as historic buildings/sites by the state or federal government, or are a museum, a notable park, whatever. Discuss things on the talk page if you see anything you don't believe should go there. Dream Focus 01:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The nominator has withdrawn his nomination and there are no other arguments that the page be deleted. Concerns about the quality of the article appear to have been addressed by editing. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chartered Institute of Marketing[edit]

Chartered Institute of Marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

advertisement The Banner talk 01:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I was helping user:EdWalker58 clean up and improve the article as a learning opportunity. It should be deleted as-is, but I feel there are good odds he will make a decent article within a reasonable time-period. CorporateM (Talk) 01:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are members of this organisation really the best people to be writing the article considering WP:COI ---- nonsense ferret 19:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI is currently defined based on the motives of the editor. I was the one that suggested he improve it (seeing its current state) and his motive is only to learn Wikipedia's rules. I wouldn't accuse anyone of having a COI for membership, unless they were in a leadership role at the association. Being a member is basically just like being a customer. CorporateM (Talk) 20:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Chartered professional organizations are of encyclopedic interest. --Michig (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps, but then they should create a proper article, not an advertisement. The Banner talk 14:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree normally. Wikipedia is WP:NOT advertising and a page this awful is not an improvement to Wikipedia, even if the subject is notable. Articles like this diminish Wikipedia's credibility with readers and cleaning it up would only encourage more spam for volunteers to clean up repeatedly. CorporateM (Talk) 14:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 16 February 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, MBisanz talk 00:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since the comments above, CorporateM has done an excellent job of cleaning up the prose. It is no longer highly promotional in character and is more encyclopedic in tone. The first four references in the article are secondary and in depth and refs 2-4 look independent to me; the first I am not sure about independence. The fifth reference is primary, but useful for verifying the conditions for the certificate. The multiple independent reliable sources along with the notability conferred by Chartered professional organization status show the topic is notable. With a notable topic and the problematic prose replaced by neutral content, there is no longer any reason to delete this article. --Mark viking (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll keep it on my watchlist, but for now I request speedy close as keep, as nominator. The Banner talk 10:48, 25 February 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. Sorry, I neglected due diligence. - Altenmann >t 06:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lorcon[edit]

Lorcon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

a nonnotable software project - Altenmann >t 00:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added three secondary references to the article. They all discuss lorcon in the context wireless auditing/hacking. There are also Python and Perl libraries web pages that discuss the lorcon library. I don't know if the python library page is reliable; for perl, CPAN is curated, but modules aren't fact-checked like a professional new article world be. I also found a number of hits in Google Books and Google scholar. At this point, the multiple secondary sources look like a marginal keep to me. But I'm on the fence, so no recommendation yet. --Mark viking (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Schmidt Mikkelsen[edit]

Peter Schmidt Mikkelsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subjects notability is not established. Nominated earlier for speedy deletion under the category autobiography. atnair (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 20 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 00:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 19:18, 3 March 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) LlamaAl (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stelios Ioannou[edit]

Stelios Ioannou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability of subject is not established. atnair (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 20 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 00:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Player satisfies WP:NBASKETBALL for having played in the top professional league in Greece, the Greek Basket League, which is the Greek equivalent to the National Basketball Association. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Too bad NBASKETBALL has the ambiguous "or a similar major professional sports league". I dont know the league well enough, and I dont read Greek to see if he meets GNG (I can't find sources in English). Not that it is required, but it would sway me if Greek Wikipedia had an article.—Bagumba (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'll ping an editor who reads Greek to see if he can flesh out the article, but a preliminary search on Greek Google for his name and "basketball" returned gobs of GHits. The note I'll say about NBASKETBALL is that while it may be "unfortunate" that the ambiguous language exists in the standard, there really isn't much question that the top Greek league is a "similar league" as the Spanish and Italian leagues listed in the guideline (which is not true of all European leagues). Euroleague and FIBA both rank the Greek League as one of the strongest in Europe, typically higher than the Italian league in truth. Rikster2 (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout (drinking game)[edit]

Blackout (drinking game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could not find independent 2nd party sources of this combination of beer pong and flip cup. Curb Chain (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per complete lack of sources. Oreo Priest talk 17:00, 20 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 00:33, 25 February 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pliney Gardner[edit]

Pliney Gardner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article suffers from problematic sources. The first and third sources only mention "Gardner" or "a man named Gardner". The second source mentions a gunman named "Pliney Gardiner", but that's it. The only thing I could find about this "Gardiner" was that he was probably once married to a person named Eleanor. As it stands, most of the article appears to be a work of the author's imagination. FallingGravity (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 17 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 02:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My view isn't as harsh as the nominator's. However the subject seems to be a very minor figure, being known as a gangster and then a saloon owner. That and repeatedly telling us what a bad, tough character he was don't really make him notable, even if the sources were better. But give the author credit for trying. BigJim707 (talk) 04:02, 18 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 00:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above. Neutralitytalk 11:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I tried searching for the two books at Google Books and I found a result for Gunfighters, Highwaymen & Vigilantes: Violence on the Frontier but not for the second book (no relevant preview). I also found this which at some point says "It was owned by a man named Gardner". Despite performing multiple Google News and Google Books, there really doesn't seem to be much about him and he didn't accomplish anything notable. The first reference supports he shot a man to death in 1859 but the charges were dropped and it only mentions him that one time. SwisterTwister talk 21:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to The Y's. J04n(talk page) 11:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Fauntleroy II[edit]

James Fauntleroy II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apart from being a member of the production teams The Underdogs and The Y's and being a member of the hip hop group Cocaine 80s, James Fauntleroy II holds no stand-alone notability. Status 03:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 03:57, 21 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 00:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nom that James Fauntleroy II has failed to achieve a considerable level of notability to deserve his own article. From now, everything that might be said about him, could be done in the pages of the groups he's a part of. — ΛΧΣ21 02:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Y's article. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, Merge to the Y's. Dan56 (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lessons from a Sheep Dog[edit]

Lessons from a Sheep Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No external references, no indication of notability. Foofish (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 04:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there was an article for the author, I'd absolutely suggest that this be redirected there. However as far as the book's independent notability goes, I was unable to find anything to show that this is ultimately notable. I do see where the author created a film based around the book, but I can't see where the film became notable either. There might be more sources out there that were lost to the sands of pre-Internet time, but until someone can find and produce any proof of these sources, I'll have to vote "delete" on my end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:21, 19 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 00:28, 25 February 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guaranteed Music Variety[edit]

Guaranteed Music Variety (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does this subject meet Wikipedia's notability criteria? Certainly there are slogans and brands that are notable, but I didn't see any reliable sources to add to this unsourced article. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 04:12, 18 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 00:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete unless there are sources that say it is a distinguished radio format rather that marketing buzz. - Altenmann >t 00:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No secondary sources, plus the topic seems trivial. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable subject, no sources available online. The most that could be done is a merge to Midwest Communications but the total lack of references suggests not to merge (is it important in any way? No evidence exists). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to ABBYY. J04n(talk page) 13:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ABBYY Business Card Reader[edit]

ABBYY Business Card Reader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

cant establish notability, number of links to people/companies selling the product overwhelms my ability to find RS. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – The company ABBYY is notable per Wikipedia's criteria, so I suggest merging a summary onto that article.[23] Praemonitus (talk) 17:48, 23 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 00:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-The article refers to an existing software of a famous and leading company. The topic is notable.--Goldenaster (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC) — Goldenaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete It's trivial. At best should be a redirect. {{user|Goldenaster has made 12 edits, 10 of them !Keeps on AfDs. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I'm a new user... I thought I could express my opinion here. If I am in breach of any rule of WP you can certainly delete my comments in this talk! Thanks--Goldenaster (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not many new users manage to find their way immediately to AfDs, let alone consistently !vote Keep. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading Finnish exonyms for places in Norway. At the beginning of the article was written "Please share your thoughts on the matter" followed from this link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnish exonyms for places in Norway. I expressed my opinion and I've seen that at the top of page there was this link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. On this list I have chosen, between different articles, the ones that interested me, and I expressed my opinion on some of them (four or five if I remember correctly). This on ABBYY was one of the ones. Sorry but I didn't know I couldn't do it.--Goldenaster (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I hadn't thought of that explanation. You can !vote, but have you read WP:NOTABILITY and the associated pages that refer to particular types of articles? Your reasons for !voting should relate to our criteria for notability, otherwise they should be ignored. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Praemonitus. Company is notable, product is not. Storkk (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect - as above. Neutralitytalk 11:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - to ABBYY article, which already has a products section. As above, company is notable, product's notability is not sufficient for separate article. Dialectric (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per above. a13ean (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thumpstar[edit]

Thumpstar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of importance, content is minimal and writing style is confusing... Needs to be cleaned up or expanded in case it has to be retained Ajayupai95 (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 20 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 00:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree the prose is funky, but a search shows this is a fairly popular product, and we do strive to document notability even in products, so long as we're not being part of advertisement drives. I'd even say this should be an article for the company. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Kokology. J04n(talk page) 13:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Cube (game)[edit]

The Cube (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence found for notability outside of a few mentions in blogs. a13ean (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The game is not notable, its author however Annie Gottlieb is pretty notable though, because she received media coverage about her work on the book which dictates the game. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 06:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article can be redirected to a more suitable article, than I'm all for it. If not than delete. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:52, 10 February 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, ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:09, 18 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 00:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Of the two references, one is primary and the other doesn't mention the game. I could find no reliable secondary sources for the game and no reliable reviews of the book. The topic is verifiable, but not notable enough for a standalone article. A merge to an Annie Gottlieb article would make sense, but I didn't find an article on her. This game is a type of Kokology game, so it would make sense to merge to that article and provide a reference to the book; this article is already in the See also section of the Kokology article. --Mark viking (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The references are insufficient to establish notability under WP:BIO. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hazrat Sayed Mehboob Ali Shah Chishti Nizami[edit]

Hazrat Sayed Mehboob Ali Shah Chishti Nizami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find sources to establish notability for subject or BAZME CHIRAG-E-FAQIR CHISHTI INTERNATIONAL. I note that much of this article is not about the subject. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article has NO references, except mention of a website with no link. Tapered (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it seems like a fan page by User:CHISTHI.ZA consisting entirely of original research. Notability or even accuracy of the claims regarding the person in the pictures both seem sketchy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:38, 24 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 00:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- seems notable can be improved. Shabiha (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question - how can you say he seems notable without providing sources? If you didn't look for them, you can't know what the actual facts are about him, if you did and found some sources showing notability you should provide them, and if you didn't find any... Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's been about three weeks and nobody has been able to prove the subject's notability. What happens next? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep-This Sufi is enough notable.I have added references and sources to validate my claim.Most often even notable Sufis dont have official pages on internet that does not mean they are not notable.Here there are sources and references.His Sufi shrine is located in South Africa not so much Muslim concentrated country. Shabiha (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at other !votes of yours, it appears that you haven't read, or possibly have read and disagree with, our guidelines at WP:People. Having an official website, or even not having one, is completely irrelevant. We have specific requirements about notability that are described at WP:People, which ones of those does the subject meet? Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are absolutely no references verifying any of the claims sufficient to substantiate any of the commentary. Until those issues are remedied, strong delete. Kabirat (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ek Hazaaron Mein Meri Behna Hai. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deivam Thandha En Thangai[edit]

Deivam Thandha En Thangai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of notability. Doesn't meet WP:N or WP:GNG Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 16:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:07, 18 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 00:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Phil Bridger. Difficult to expand on that. It's a dubbed version of a TV show that has its own page. Clear redirect. Storkk (talk) 10:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Phil Bridger. JK (talk) 13:58, 2 March 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AZ.pl[edit]

AZ.pl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to clearly fail WP:GNG; no reliable sources support the company's notability. Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a company. It's doing its job. Not a lot more to say. Peridon (talk) 15:50, 18 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 00:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

V K Mathews[edit]

V K Mathews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable person Davidjohn13 (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only cited assertion of notability is winning a state (not national) leadership award. Wikipedia is not a directory, so should not list every minor-league company chairman. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 20 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 00:17, 25 February 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. J04n(talk page) 13:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

L. V. Vaidyanathan[edit]

L. V. Vaidyanathan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vaidyanathan has 29 articles in Web of Science that have been cited 440 times (h-index = 13). Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:NBIO, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEPThis person is notable enough.the article is also concise and well referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidjohn13 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The account above appears to have been blocked as a sock. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Unless you base your !vote on policy (e.g. WP:NPROF) and indicate how notability is met, your opinion risks to be ignored. --Randykitty (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 20 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 00:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The citation record and the achievements listed in the article are not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the tribute to him in one of the major journals in the field, as cited in the article: when academics die, we are more likely to find material of this sort, which makes it unnecessary for us to evaluate the details of the citation record--because a RS has already done that. DGG (at NYPL) 20:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)
  • Comment DGG, the tribute is, as far as I can see, not published in any journal but just on the website of a society (unless you are referring to the journalogy link in the article, which does not work for me). --Randykitty (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a signed article on the website of a learned society--I consider it a sufficiently RS. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Described alliteratively as "the Socrates of British Soil Science" in source cited. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Soft Delete. Because of low participation in this discussion will treat the nomination as an expired proposed deletion, with the understanding that anyone who contests the deletion may request undeletion for any reason J04n(talk page) 13:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dom Kane[edit]

Dom Kane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this person is notable - no serious coverage from reliable third-party sources. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 20 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 00:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources can be improved - the fact that his work has been played on the radio doesn't, I feel, confer notability. Deb (talk) 12:56, 1 March 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Ward (Irish footballer)[edit]

Keith Ward (Irish footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 20 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 00:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Non-notable semi-pro footballer, no international appearances, no notable awards or achievements. Fenix down (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as he has not played in a fully professional league, at senior international level, or been the subject of non-trivial coverage from multiple independent sources, failing WP:GNG and other guidelines. C679 20:19, 25 February 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. J04n(talk page) 12:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rajamanthri Walauwa[edit]

Rajamanthri Walauwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, notability not established. Yworo (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge as was proposed over a year ago, to Walauwa, which is itself an unsourced mess.... 99.136.254.88 (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A 200-year-old manor house in Europe would certainly be considered to be notable. No reason to make an exception for one elsewhere. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:46, 21 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 00:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If RS can be added, however the article needs to be cleaned up. Cossde (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite the difficulties in sourcing , it seems clear this is a notable manor house. It would not in my opinion make sense to merge it into the general article on Sri Lankese manor houses, any more than we would merge a borderline notable castle into the article on castles--it would be excessive weight. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 5 March 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) Mkdwtalk 22:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: The keep camp argues enough of WP:NSONG has been met including WP:N. The delete camp has legitimate concerns about the quality of sources but it does not change the fact that the song is notable under Wiki guidelines. A merge argument was mentioned but against WP:NSONG repeated content is a content editing issue and the article at present appears to have enough for a standalone article. Mkdwtalk 23:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hummingbird Heartbeat[edit]

Hummingbird Heartbeat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage, and the section that has significant coverage derives from a primary source. Everything else is in the context of the album. Till 00:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, the songs from Teenage Dream already have quite a bit of a mention. This page re-hashes a lot of that material with a dodgy release sourced from The Music Network which in itself is a reliable source but Australia is not a music market where radio-only releases and there's no other coverage regarding its supposed release. Not really likely to grow beyond a stub. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - substantially sourced, Google search of song reveals over 800,000 results. NYSMy talk page 15:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep was released as a single, has charted, has a music video (that isn't included in the article), has the possibility to be expanded more.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that this article meets our notability guidelines. It is a single that has a considerable amount of coverage, apart from the chart positions it snatched. No reason to delete. — ΛΧΣ21 00:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article cannot "meet our notability guidelines". The function of an article can, but that's it. The song does not have a considerable amount of coverage per the indepth analysis of the sources. Till 02:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that it charted. What we are here for is a lack of indepth coverage from third-party sources (see nom statement).
  1. Contains 2 short lines about the song ("There's a song called 'Hummingbird Heartbeat'. He gives me that 'Hummingbird Heartbeat', she said."). No significant covreage.
  2. A YouTube video, not a third-party independent source.
  3. Contains 1 line ("Even 'Hummingbird Heartbeat', which sounds like an 80s hair metal anthem (including the easy-to-sing chorus), sadly falls a bit short of the mark."). No significant coverage.
  4. Gets 2 sentences as part of an album review. No significant coverage.
  5. A music sheet source. Not independent/no coverage
  6. Same as 5
  7. Album liner notes. Not independent of the topic.
  8. "Popcrush" isn't a reliable source
  9. Verifies an apparant chart position on radio. No significant coverage.
  10. Same as 9
  11. Gets 2 sentences like all the other tracks on the album. No significant coverage.
  12. Has 1 sentence about this song ("The title cut and “Hummingbird Heartbeat” are also top-down bangers")
  13. Contains 1 line ("The catchy, uptempo "Hummingbird Heartbeat" is perhaps best in line with the album's five No. 1s.") No significant coverage.
  14. Verifies a poor chart position. No coverage. Till 02:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Combing through what's in the article doesn't do any good to verify if a song is notable. The article clearly isn't complete.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find anything significant outside of the article. Till 02:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Clearly within the scope of expansion and notable as a standalone individual article. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously didn't bother to read any of the text above, because if you did you would realise that the song is not notable and failed to attract significant coverage from third-party sources. Till 05:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Till, in the politest way possible, stop being a patronizer and don't jump into conclusion regarding whether I read or not and I still believe it should be kept. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 14:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And FYI, its a collaborative consensus, your "I didn't find anything significant" is of no significance here. If the community believes it should be kept, it should be kept. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 15:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it's your first time here: consensus is reflected by policy regardless of how many people vote "keep". The fact of the matter is that none of the keep !votes have addressed the issue of the song not attracting any third-party significant coverage. Till 15:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Singerman[edit]

Aaron Singerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is very poorly referenced - citations come primarily from the website where Mr. Singerman is the editor, along with a somewhat sketchy bodybuilding blog. A check in the Google search engines finds nothing to support any independent proof of notability, as per WP:BIO requirements. It is an entertaining article, but it fails to meet WP:GNG standards. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 20 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 00:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator. This reads like a vanity article. Wefihe (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Rife with NPOV issues, majority of citations are first party promotional links. The rest are hardly WP:RS (blogs) Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 10:41, 5 March 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) — ΛΧΣ21 03:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadiel Rojas[edit]

Sadiel Rojas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor league basketball player, no indication of notability. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 22:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 20 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 00:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to PhaseWare. J04n(talk page) 12:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PhaseWare Tracker[edit]

PhaseWare Tracker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable product that amounts to a small ad for it Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: as someone who edited the article to remove a ton of marketing fluff. This product might be worthy of a mention in PhaseWare. Toddst1 (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Marketing "fluff" is highly subjective. There are dozens of other less notable applications with full articles here: Comparison of issue tracking systems. The Wikipedia policy is good, but must be applied with equity and uniformity. PhaseWare is well known in the North Texas area, frequently featured at HDI meetings and conventions, its CEO was featured in Bloomberg news, and it is used by Coca-Cola, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Envoy Mortgage, la Madeleine restaurants, UTC, and several hundred other large companies (several in the Fortune 500). -Gdr05a (talk) 4:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with the nom that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Notability is not inherited, even if notable companies use it. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 20 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 00:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just clarifying here that I was not the one who said marketing fluff was subjective - that was Gdr05a. I !voted to delete based on lack of demonstrated notability. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I added reference to Bloomberg Businessweek in the article to increase notability. -Gdr05a (talk) 9:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment That one of its creators may be notable doesn't make the subject here notable. It's not conferred. In other words, if a band is notable, not all of their albums are notable. If an author is notable, not all of the writer's books and articles are notable. If a company is notable, not all of its products are notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yet, it IS notable, even excluding the additional reference (which mentions PhaseWare and what it offers). Certainly as notable as dozens of similar articles: Comparison of issue tracking systems. For similar, yet less notable articles see: Trac, BugTracker.NET, among others. PhaseWare is notable and PhaseWare Tracker is its main product (analogous to Windows in relation to Microsoft). Good moderation policy necessitates applying guidelines fairly and uniformly. The article, as it stands now, is accurate, condensed, referenced, and notable enough. -Gdr05a (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the product is notable, find some sort of references to prove that. While I trust that you know it's notable, I can't seem to find anything to support that opinion. Mentioning PhaseWare and what it offers in an article about the company doesn't meet the notability requirements. An article about PhaseWare and what it offers does. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into the article on the company as the obvious solution. Walter is right, but fortunately merge is a way of handling the situation. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Merge to PhaseWare. There's clearly not enough here for a standalone article but it's a plausible search term. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Myroslava Kot[edit]

Myroslava Kot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As currently written, I see no indications of notability for that artist. Author of a book, honorary citizen of a small town, that doesn't seem to add up to much so far. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • She has made the biggest embroidery collection in Ukraine. With her help about 20 (!) embroiderers became Ukraine People’s Masters of Decorative and Applied Arts. Her works are in numerous museums in Europe and North America. There's much to write about her but most of the resources are in Ukrainian:). Shall I add them? Fijalkovich (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you should. The language of a source is irrelevant, its quality is what matters. (There will always be someone else around who reads the language and can check the sources, if there is a request for that.) --Hegvald (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, although it be preferable if you could expand the article's content, too. A large list of external links in Ukrainian is not going to be that helpful for determining notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the assumption that better sources will be added, but it really would be desirable if you added specifics about the museums that have her work, since this is one of the standard criteria for artists. DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 23:13, 18 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 00:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sourcing is on the weak side (perhaps in part because of the language barrier) but I think it's enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 26 February 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Airlines (Spain)[edit]

Executive Airlines (Spain) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable business aviation provider. This corporate charter airline fails WP:CORP as it has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Therefore, the article should be deleted. FoxyOrange (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as we have articles on other similar airlines, but at the present time the article fails to establish the subject's notability. I started the article by moving the information about it out of Executive Airlines, a similarly named but unrelated airline. I also just found some third party articles that may be helpful to establish notability: [24] (note that there is coverage of both airlines here). -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 23:15, 18 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 00:06, 25 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_February_25&oldid=1142632384"