Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 February	9 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hargitay[edit]

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

Notability issue Tatwort (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article already includes signficant coverage specifically about Hargitay in the Sydney Morning Herald: Meet FFA's man of mystery. Additional coverage Aussie World Cup bid 'too clean', says consultant, Australia's 2022 World Cup consultant Peter Hargitay refuses to take responsibility for the bidding debacle, Pearler of a gift adds to Cup bid, Australia paid millions to World Cup lobbyists, The man behind our 2022 bid is not exactly shy in coming forward -- Whpq (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Snow. Clearly meets gng. I recognize nom is a new editor. I would suggest he take some time to observe other AfDs before engaging in future nominations.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Current article is partly WP:AVOIDVICTIM. If the article were to meet standards for BLP, only two sentences would remain. And these two sentence would be BIO1E and therefore a reason for deletion. Subject of the article has indeed been mentioned in several newspapers. However, some of these have been removed due to legal problems: For example: This story [1] does not appear in Sunday Herald's archive anymore, other stories are subject to legal disputes as to be seen here: [2] or here [3] and here: [4]. Article bears potential for legal dispute.Tatwort (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural Note: Your nomination counts as a delete !vote, so it not necessary state "delete" explicitly again; subsequent commentary is normally prefaced with a boldfaced "comment". -- Whpq (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Issues of details which are not directly related to the reason for notability per WP:AVOIDVICTIM are things that can be taken care of through regular editting, and do not necessitate the deletion of the article. With respect to WP:BIO1E, that guideline does not preclude a standalone article on an individual related to an event. The newspaper sources noted above show coverage that spans a period time (notabiltiy is not temporary), and includes articles that cover him as the primary subject. -- Whpq (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I concur with the above comments by Whpq. And urge nom to cross out his boldmarked "Delete", and replace it with "Comment."--Epeefleche (talk) 15:38, 13 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) 11:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathic Medical College Latur[edit]

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

None of the information in this article is verifiable, except perhaps its address. There is nothing on Google News.Thus it cannot be readily determined if this is a bona fide educational institution and thus meets the notability criteria for schools/colleges. Nominated with some reluctance, mainly to see if this article can somehow be salvaged after the many years of its existence as a quasi-advertisement. Coretheapple (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: could not find any reference in government sites too (gov.in, nic.in). May not be a hoax, but notability not established either. Seems to be a promotional page. First version of the page had 6 external links, but now some are dead now, rest are just listing name and address of the college, no other information.--GDibyendu (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Organization notability requires (1) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale; and (2) Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources. This organization appears to fail both those criteria. --Noleander (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a mainstream school or university and fails WP:GNG amd WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:50, 12 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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wanz[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Notability (music) Dfnj123 (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep A very notable artist featured in "Thrift Shop" that has become a universal hit single topping US Billbord Hot 100, Rap and R&B charts, has reached #2 in the UK, was or still is #1 in Australia, Canada, France, Norway, New Zealand also charting in Top 5 in Belgium, Ireland, Netherlands, Switzerland and on and on. Wanz has had a long musical career prior to the famous song. To establish the huge level of interest in this notable artist, please also refer to the number of those who consult the Wanz page through http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Wanz who want to know about him specifically independently of what they find in the song and Macklemore pages of Wikiepdia. The statistics show between 3,000 and 4,200 consultations of this specific Wanz page DAILY. Hardly non-notable... Here is what Billboard magazine described him [5] in the article dedicated to him as an artist: "Wanz Q&A: Meet the 'F-ing Awesome' Singer in 'Thrift Shop'" also informing its readers of an upcoming EP werldwayd (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was featured in the song "Thrift Shop." Passes WP:GNG. Sources are sufficient. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A few news mentions (Popdust.com, New Straits Times, mynorthwest.com, and the Billboard piece) plus featured credit on a charting single seem to be enough to establish notability. squibix (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We could quibble about exactly how notable Wanz is (most of his fame of late is derived from the one particular performance in the Macklemore song), but it would be extremely dubious to say that he is not notable at all: there is undoubtedly significant coverage of him and his role in the song, coming from independent and reliable sources (Billboard in particular closes this case for me). An additional interview that can be used as a source for notability, which I don't believe has been mentioned, is the interview in XXL Magazine on the 9th of this month. — chro • man • cer 18:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here's the aforementioned XXL interview as well as a CBS Radio write-up. There appears to be enough in-depth coverage on this person in reliable sources to support a standalone article, and keeping makes more sense to me than, say, merging into the "Thrift Shop" article. Gong show 09:11, 12 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) 11:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monoatomic gold[edit]

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

This seems to be an irredeemable conflation of several topics. One is the fact that ordinary atoms of elements such as gold can be arranged in very narrow structures (chains or wires); this is interesting but does not imply the existence of "monoatomic gold". Another is that in some contexts single atoms of gold may be encountered, especially as ions. The last is the idea that there is a magic form of gold produced by alchemy that has unlikely properties. This article does have many references, but they either refer to the first two meanings (sometimes simply in bibliographies) that do not merit an article, or are not reliable.

This article has been deleted in the past, but as a stub. A proposed deletion was declined. It also seems like a backdoor way to rescue the recently deleted article on the alchemist in question. Bovlb (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably mention that this article was previously a redirect to Gold. Bovlb (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources about monoatomic gold -which are mainly about aliens or the "secret" meanings of ancient scriptures- are not even close to being reliable and some might very well be hoaxes, thus it fails WP:GNG. Even the publications which expose these types of pseudo-scientific things did not find the subject notable enough to publish an article about it. For the scientific term, there are eight book sources currently cited in the article but they mention monoatomic gold chain, wire or nanowire even less than a handful of times. There are some academic papers published on reliable journals on monoatomic gold chain, wire or nanowire, but the information can be merged to Monoatomic and/or Molecular wire. Nimuaq (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This form of gold is very important for the development of extremely advanced computer architecture and and energy containment fields. Goldfringer (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete - made up nonsense William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's not even wrong; it even fails WP:FRINGE. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Bearian. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:36, 12 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) 11:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Sarin[edit]

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

No indication of notability through the inclusion of reliable sources. No reliable sources are apparent after a search. dci | TALK 20:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cleaned it up just to see what we had, and notability is, indeed, highly questionable. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 23:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is reliable,however,more sources required.It should not be deleted as reliable media sources,though not sufficient do exist . 115.244.203.252 Talk
Even without regencies,the person is very prominent on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.244.203.252 (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article in valid in lieu of the related people as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.125.8.99 (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing there. The internetz evidence an effort to create notability for this apparently extraordinarily beautiful woman (according to her own website), but there is nothing in any reliable source. We really could have speedied this: the claims are so inflated as to be absolutely unbelievable. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Postgraduate student. That's it. At the moment there is absolutely nothing there.--Zananiri (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PM Kulkarni[edit]

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

Biographical article of a non-notable professor. The subject fails WP:PROF. No coverage in any reliable sources, just profile pages. Name has been mentioned in a newspaper article but the topic of discussion is different. — Bill william compton^Talk 13:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Many google books links show him as author or co-author.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:17, 8 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per David Eppstein. Google links are, well problematic, because there are a lot of people with the same name. In particular, the Google Scholar link gives articles by somebody who does not match this bio. Ray^Talk 16:44, 10 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) 18:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rapydscript[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Mentions I can find are all by the author(s) of the language. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 08:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 08:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete - no 3rd party reliable sources to establish notability; created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:51, 3 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find no reliable third-party sources for this, so I believe it fails WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:14, 8 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 Speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G12 by INeverCry (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure of deleted article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edge Fog[edit]

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

I don't know if this should be incorporated into an article on film development or should be removed from this project and placed in wiki dictionary. Jab843 (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; create Wiktionary entry. Not notable enough to merit a WP article. A Wiktionary entry is probably the best option. dci | TALK 19:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this one and light leak to Stray light per WP:PRESERVE. The source shows verifiability, but there's no evidence of notability. Diego (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd normally agree with Diego's recommendation, but the article looks like a direct copyright violation of the quoted reference The Filmmaker's Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide for the Digital Age. There's nothing legal to merge, but perhaps a summary could be made on the Stray light page. --Mark viking (talk) 05:05, 13 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Wieber[edit]

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

There are no secondary sources to establish notability. The only two that appear to be are both dead links and the only remaining citations are those generated by Wieber and his colleague, Michael Scott. Nightscream (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Emmy links have been updated, but google should have been sufficient enough to support the article. -Miki

Search engines like Google are not reliable sources, as they are not publishers of material, but merely indicate frequency of search terms on websites. And if you mean that using Google would've turned out reliable sources, I tried using it before nominating the article, and couldn't find sources that I could discern as reliable, secondary ones. As for the Emmys, while I appreciate the fixing of those links, there are lots of winners of Creative Arts Emmys for special effects who presumably do not merit their own Wikipedia articles. Not everyone is Stan Winston. Nightscream (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 5 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) 18:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable individual, if for nothing else the Emmy Awards. Massive popularity of RvD (as well as press coverage of the same) also indicates notability. I'm in the process of adding more citations, but the claim that there are no secondary sources is false. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that there were no secondary sources referred to sources in the article, so it was not "false". It was true, as there were indeed none in the article when I listed the article for AfD.

There are now a number of reliable secondary sources in the article, and I'm satisfied that the criteria for WP:NOTE have been met.

Also, feature-length films are italicized, but short ones are not, they're quoted. This is true for full-length and short-form works in other media as well (Books and chapters, TV series and episodes, Books of poetry and individual poems, etc.).

Keep per above. Nightscream (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I simply meant to imply that the amount of effort between googling and finding a credible source to update the page with was likely akin to reporting it for deletion. -Miki

Since I did both and you apparently did neither, how would you know that? Nightscream (talk) 23:52, 9 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) 18:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Scott (filmmaker)[edit]

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

There is not a single secondary source in the article to establish notability. Nightscream (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –BuickCentury Driver 18:25, 8 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) 05:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Schaffer[edit]

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

I did a search at Google and someone named Jeff Schaffer seems to be somewhat notable; but that's not her. I found nothing to prove that she was notable, and hence I end up here. — Ṙ ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I've added a few external links, including a Harper's profile and a series of interviews with Schaffer and her husband. Not sure that they're strong enough to establish notability yet, but they help. 99.12.243.171 (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. Regards. — Ṙ ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 6 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) 17:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I looked at and began some minor cleanup to the article, and it would seem that on top of her other producing work, in her writing and producing 45 and now directing 5 episodes of The League we have a verifiable meeting of WP:CREATIVE, and through enough coverage of she and her work[6][7] we have a meeting of WP:GNG.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I recognize that she has received attention for the show's popularity but the digitaljournal.com link is the only one that actually mentions her previous work for Disturbia and Worst Enemy. Aside from that, she hasn't achieved much work and The League is her first big break. A Google News search for Eurotrip provided some results, mainly brief mentions. Initially, I found nothing to support her work for Warner Bros. and Working Title Films until I searched again and found this which not only mentions Warner Bros. and Working Title but also working as an assistant at New Line Cinema. The link above also mentions her parents wanted her to become a lawyer so this leads me to say weak keep (my second option would be redirecting to the show but I guess she can be best known for this). Although somewhat trivial, her birth date is unknown and she hasn't won any awards (not that she won't win any in the future). Hopefully, she can become better known and she can establish more notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 15 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) 11:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leonel Alvim Neto[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that his two appearances for Canoas were in a fully pro league. Soccerway confirms that this is not the case. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of in-depth coverage. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any evidence that the article could satisfy the GNG, and it's unclear whether he's played in a fully-pro league (even if he had, it was so marginal that I think we should use common sense and ignore it). Jogurney (talk) 16:05, 12 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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema Museum (London)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY. Google shows nothing. Lacks "significant coverage in independent reliable sources", fails WP:GNG Hu12 (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well, sure, a fixed search string like <"Cinema Museum (London)"> is not likely to turn up many results, given that it's not the actual name of the museum. But a friendlier, while still focused, search strategy like <"Cinema Museum" Lambeth>[8][9] or <"Cinema Museum" "Ronald Grant">[10][11] yields multiple sources in major British newspapers and other potential valuable sources. I've added some. A real and significant institution that passes GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable topic as evidenced by Arxiloxos's improvement to the article. I also did a search engine test in Google Books with the keywords "cinema museum" london and found plenty more results. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per WP:GNG, and underscores that an AFD "find sources" template can sometimes be next to useless. Kudos to those that thought to expand their searches in a manner that found decent results. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And for others who visit this discussion:

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

Keep Passes GNG. Those searches provide sufficient sources. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable enough. Bearian (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. LenaLeonard (talk) 16:51, 13 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 no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love Coma[edit]

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

The band released two albums on minor labels and two members went on to perform in Sixpence None the Richer, but there is no notability here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references to prove notability. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, that's not a valid reason. We are supposed to confirm that there is no notability in the band. If we find notability, we mark it as keep and add references back into the article. That the article doesn't have references means it's poorly referenced, not non-notable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I ment is the band is non-notable with no references to prove it so fails WP:NBAND AND WP:GNG JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two albums, one on R.E.X. Records, members of SNtR, plus Chris Taylor appears individually notable (there's a lot more coverage of him than is currently cited in the article on him, including an entry in Encyclopedia of contemporary Christian music). There are several sources discussing the band, e.g. Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music: Pop, Rock, and Worship, Raised By Wolves: The Story of Christian Rock & Roll. Nowhere obvious to merge, so keep it. I can't see any benefit to the project from deleting this. --Michig (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Allan Powell's Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music has a single column that discusses them on p. 542. It spends a fair bit of space on discussing Michael Roe as their producer who they sound like than covering the band alone. It's about as much space as many other non-notable bands in the tome. The first of the two links is over-limit so I can't see it. The second seems to mention them only in passing. I don't believe that these amount to suitable coverage. WP:BAND 1. "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." What I'm saying is that the covering appears to be trivial. Did CCM, Harvest Rock Syndicate or 7 Ball do any features on them? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can now see the first link and it's a passing mention of the band. Purely trivial. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:25, 30 January 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 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing the WP:SIGCOV required to meet WP:NBAND. Notability is not inherent despite the successes of the band members. The sources Michig found were trivial at best, Raised By Wolves: The Story of Christian Rock & Roll is only a photo Matt Slocum and the only mention of Love Coma in the caption below; nothing in-depth. Mkdw ^talk 00:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suppose this meets WP:BAND criterion 6 "ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians". I suppose the notability of Matt Slocum could be argued invalidating my !vote but Chris Taylor is notable with 32nd GMA Dove Awards nomination. J04n(talk page) 11:24, 8 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) 16:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - meets WP:BAND criteria 6, as per J04n, however the article is little more than a stub, and doesn't really add much value. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough info. Albums weren't on a big label, and Two Tons of Steel is only borderline notable at best. Having just one truly notable member ≠ GNG. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BAND criterion #1. Beyond what Michig already identified, I found several other sources and have added them just now. In addition, both The Dallas Morning News (16 May 1998: G6) and the San Antonio Express-News (1 May 1998: H22) refer to the band as "critically acclaimed" which suggests that there are other reviews available in reliable sources that are likely hard to access because they are from the 1990s. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:43, 10 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) 11:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TravelVegas.com[edit]

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

An article covering a non-notable website, failing WP:WEBCRIT. The USA Today reference doesn't cover the company, just the app, and doesn't support the "invests heavily on emerging technologies" claim. — Bill william compton^Talk 16:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spammier than a Hormel factory. --Jayron32 16:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - There isn't enough coverage for the company itself. There may be some coverage for the app, but nothing convinces me to keep the article as it is. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:43, 10 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. Deleted by Orangemike (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lashzone[edit]

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

Completely non-notable website. No claim to significance, importance or notability. No independent sources whatsoever. Speedy deletion contested. Interestingly, the db tag was very quickly removed by the same editor who very quickly removed the db tag from another article about a nn website created by the same user who created this one. I still think this article is very much a speedy deletion candidate, but no harm in letting it go through AfD I suppose. bonadea contributions talk 15:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see some very small signs of notoriety in the form of local news articles at Oxford ([12] and [13]) but I don't see much else beyond that. Mangoe (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like just another essay service. No apparent indications of notability, just an apparent willingness to engage in self-promotional spamming—behavior that we shouldn't reward in the real world or on Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speed Delete A7 no claim to any significance. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 02:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article should be kept, controversial website and have some issues with oxford the oxford student online --Hihimanshu70 (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? They're notable because they sent a flurry of spam a couple of weeks ago, and thereby earned a mention in a student newspaper? Guys, I just found a way to get my crappy startup company an article in Wikipedia! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I see; you have a clear, undisclosed conflict of interest. Hihimanshu70 is being paid to create these spammy articles about spammy, otherwise-non-notable companies. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find sufficient evidence that this site meets WP:GNG or WP:WEB at this time. Gong show 09:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per GongShow. Andrew³²⁷ 18:04, 13 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 Chicago Cubs#Radio. MBisanz ^talk 01:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pat and Ron Show[edit]

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

I had suggested this article be merged to Chicago Cubs Radio Network in June 2012, and nothing's happened. Now, I'm thinking there may not be enough content worth merging. The radio pregame show for the Chicago Cubs is not notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The whole article is mostly unsourced, so I would not merge from existing content. However, I think I found enough tidbits that it is worthy of a redirect to Chicago Cubs#Radio, if not an outright keep if there is a Cubs fan who wants to do the work. If not, we can redirect now and WP:SPLIT later if it ever becomes too big. Some sources (mostly from WP:Highbeam) include their usual talk about attendance [14], hair on fire incident [15][16], show "became as big as the games themselves" [17], "comedic banter with Santo came to be called ‘‘The Pat and Ron Show.’"[18], Santo's replacement in Pat And Ron show[19], dynamics on the show between the two[20].—Bagumba (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge after reviewing Bagumba's comments. There is quite a bit of original research involved and it shouldn't be a standalone article as is. Dreambeaver(talk) 22:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article states that WGN Radio is heard around the world. Until sources are presented that are not part of the parent company, especially from outside the state of Illinois, I consider this topic unencyclopedic for WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that sources should be independent to show notability; there is no guideline that "local" is not allowed; lots of politicians, for example, would otherwise not be notable. While Chicago Tribune and WGN are part of Tribune Company, most that I listed above were not from Sun-Times. There was also this from San Jose, CA.—Bagumba (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't had a chance to examine this article and its issues in any depth yet, but I note its similarity to an AfD regarding another sports broadcaster team: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom and Jerry (announcers). I will return to comment further later, but in the mean time someone might some common discussion points with the prior AfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:20, 11 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) 11:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kloodin[edit]

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

Non-notable website. Speedy deletion contested, but there is in fact no real claim to notability/significance in the article, and there are no independent sources. bonadea contributions talk 15:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow. A social media site that is proud of its four regular users, and which has no coverage except in its own press releases. Tempted to go all 'rogue admin' and delete this right now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Haha, per TenOfAllTrades. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The social networking site is currently the only active article based neworking site from USA that has such a large user base. Also the four user talked in the page have been edited to its administrators.--Hihimanshu70 (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now I see; you have a clear, undisclosed conflict of interest. Hihimanshu70 is being paid to create these spammy articles about spammy, otherwise-non-notable companies. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Nothing notable about this site. Andrew³²⁷ 18:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice, neat article, but too soon.--Auric talk 18:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - non-notable advertising. Canterbury Tail talk 19:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - blatantly promotional paid article (the client brags about this article on the author's website linked above) about totally non-notable website. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - advertisement masquerading as an article. Why was it not G11'd? ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Paid editing contract is here [21]. Pure WP:PROMO with no established notability. Qworty (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues with it being a paid editing job, I'm perfectly okay with editors writing stuff for money if others wish to pay them (no I'm not a paid editor) as long as they stick to the guidelines and policies. This article just fails notability and is very advertising orientated. Canterbury Tail talk 12:39, 14 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 speedily deleted by User:INeverCry under criterion G2. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 22:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dividing Fractions[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Dawynn (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a test page? No sign of importance, breaks almost almost all Wikipedia standards. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete/redirect as duplicate of Fraction_(mathematics)#Division. Could speedy delete as G2 test or A3 no content, but it's blatantly a duplicate. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I have tagged the article per above. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:56, 8 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) 18:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Bouchaib[edit]

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

With only one acting role, no evidence of having a major fan base or making any contributions to the entertainment industry, subject completely fails every criteria of WP:NACTOR. Winning an award makes no difference because WP:NACTOR states nothing about awards and nominations, so even if an actor wins a million awards for one role, if that one role is all they did, they still fail the notability guidelines. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to French Wikipedia he's been in a lot more than 1 film or TV show (there's no requirement that actors can't be notable for being in one film anyway), Winning a Prix Lumières, one of the most prestigious awards in France and all of Europe for that matter easily lends this person to notability as well as passing WP:CREATIVE - "has won significant critical attention". A combination of prestigious award recognition and some coverage [22] does indicate this person is notable. --Oakshade (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can you actually verify that he acted in all those films the French Wikipedia article states? It is just like the English one being that anyone can put whatever they want without providing sources, so don't assume that him having an article on other languages of Wikipedia make him notable (in a perfect world, all of Wikipedia would operate together so that whenever an update is made to an article in one language, the same articles in all the other languages would be updated as well, but sadly, this is not the case). IMDB and other movie-related sites, though not always reliable on their own, only show him acting in one role, so even if he acted in the other movies stated, the fact that no one has updated any of his online profiles and information should be an indication that he either lacks a huge fan base or those films are not notable. Also, you should be looking at WP:ENTERTAINER, not WP:CREATIVE for him because he is an actor, not a journalist, filmmaker, photographer, etc. Those are two very different notability guidelines. WP:ENTERTAINER clearly states an actor must have done significant roles in MULTIPLE, not ONE, films, shows, etc. Usually for actors who have only one notable role, we redirect their articles to the film, show, etc they were in (e.g. Julia Winter, Hatty Jones, Carrie Henn, who also won or was nominated for a few notable awards for her only film role, and various Power Rangers actors). The problem here is that we do not have an article on this subject's only notable role yet. Minimally passing WP:ANYBIO alone is not enough to warrant notability. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The overlap between what is an "entertainer" and what is a "creative" person is blurry and can never be properly defined. Acting is a very creative profession. You'll notice under WP:ENTERTAINER is also includes "opinion makers", but WP:CREATIVE includes "authors, editors, journalists". The definition of "opinion maker" is almost always synonymous with either "author", "editor" or "journalist." I have no interest in the minutiae of always changing tiny subset clauses of subsections of sub-guidlines (see WP:LAWYER). Start an AfD of Peter Ostrum if you truly believe one needs "MULITPLE" significant roles in films to have an article. If a person received one of the most prestigious awards in Europe as this person has, they have received critical recognition. Whether the creative profession of actor is listed under "WP:CREATIVE" or not, I'm using common sense (a clause trumping all sub-WP:BIO guidelines for the Wiki-lawyers) and not going to ignore that fact. --Oakshade (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The additional films not mentioned in the normally comprehensive IMDb page for him seem to be Algerian TV (many clips on YouTube). They were added to the French page by an IP. At the moment we have no corroboration, but that might just be linguistic difficulty. Gossipy story here. I would want something more than just the one film and "best hopeful" award for notability. Mcewan (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Results from Lexis search show mentions in two roles: Mascarades (covered in Guardian, Variety, the Oxford Times, and Screen International), Le Dernier Passager (a short film, which are often missed in IMDB, covered in press releases as a finalist for a Cannes related award by Canada's National Film Office--no individual award suggested). Those films are also listed at Africultures here which has three reviews mentioning him. Couldn't find much Algerian reliable source coverage (but do not know Arabic, so...), but he is listed as a "famous actor" here [note not-RS] (with a dig at an old version of the wikipedia article). I'm leaning towards Keep at this minute because of two Cannes-award affiliated nominated films he has acted in. But there certainly isn't much to expand content of article in English or French sources that I could find. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Thought about it, and roles in two nominated films seems to pass everyone's interpretation of the notability criteria, see above. (I have no opinion on whether information should be merged if a page is made for Mascarades) AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I connected several broken links between French and Arabic wp and added Arabic names. Sources in French (and if you search in Arabic dozens in Arabic) confirm mentions, gossip column stuff, not just listings of Bouchaib in 3 Algerian soaps on his Agency resume http://www.agencesartistiques.com/Fiche-Artiste/308972-mohamed-bouchaib.html. Besides that his Lumiere award in a film that also won an award... obvious keep. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:09, 6 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) 11:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per In ictu oculi -- and those additional connections were helpful. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per new connections, and the award and appearances in nominated films. Mcewan (talk) 15:47, 12 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 Glossary of professional wrestling terms. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pop (professional wrestling)[edit]

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

Article does not cite any sources. Cut out a lot of original research, but doesn't seem to make the article any more notable or relevant. Suggest either deleting or merging into Glossary of professional wrestling terms – Richard BB 10:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect be bold and do it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Glossary of professional wrestling terms. There are no sources in the article and the topic does not seem to warrant an article.Folgertat (talk) 18:06, 12 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 FreePBX Distro. MBisanz ^talk 01:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schmooze Com Inc[edit]

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

Fails wp:gng and fails wp:corp. Previous G11 tag denied and no non-PR refs forthcoming. UnbelievableError (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible delete - Despite performing multiple detailed Google News searches including "FreePBX", "PBX", "Tony Lewis", "Wisconsin", "communications company", etc., I haven't found anything useful aside from additional news.tmcnet.com links here and here, both from 2008. If additional sources can't be found then I think there isn't much notability for this article. SwisterTwister talk 21:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 1 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) 10:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into FreePBX Distro . I think that's the only thing the company actually does, and the distro is probably notable. One article is justified for the two of them, and we have no firm policy about which one it should be. I suspect the name of the distro is the more recognizable, in which case that's the title of the final article. If I'm wrong, the merge should be the other way round. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 9 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confluence: The Journal of Graduate Liberal Studies[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Moribund journal/magazine. No indication of notability, no independent sources (apart from library catalogs)." Was de-PRODded referring to a discussion on the article's talk page. However, that discussion does not provide any valid argument establishing notability for this publication. Does not meet WP:GNG or any other potentially applicable guideline. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The journal is interdisciplinary and as such does not fit into a neat category as others do. The fact that it is included in LOC and WORLDCAT helps, and, as discussed on the previous talk page the journal was deemed borderline notable by consensus. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being included in Worldcat or LOC does not contribute anything to notability. And the way I read that talk page, I don't see any consensus about even borderline notability. Apart from yourself, everybody at that page seems to argue for lack of notability. But let's see what the rest of the community thinks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious Existence is not notability; The journal site gives no information about indexes, and neither does the worldcat entry. so I need to check. However the New York Public library reports it as caving ceased with v.16 2011; their web site shows the dates is at v.16 2010. The site however refers to a 2012 issue. I suppose, like many small journals, they're irregular. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:19, 19 January 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:21, 25 January 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) 10:53, 1 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) 10:06, 8 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 List of schools in the Auckland Region. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Park School[edit]

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

Primary school. Zero refs. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards, though there is slight standard non-notable, run-of-the-mill coverage and it certainly does exist. Delete of stand-alone article (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gadfium 20:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. gadfium 20:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mount Wellington, New Zealand.-gadfium 20:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in the Auckland Region Propper redirect link per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Mkdw ^talk 20:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in the Auckland Region per precedent documented in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mount Wellington, New Zealand#Schools as the most logical location for the schools entry NealeFamily (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it is all unreferenced and fails wp:v, I would think we would not want to merge the existing text.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:45, 4 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) 10:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in the Auckland Region per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It's just a run-of-the-mill primary school. There's really no verifiable information worth presenting anywhere. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:04, 8 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) 05:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Dream Makers (TV series)[edit]

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

As with WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 11:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 28 January 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!} 05:10, 1 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) 09:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the program is scheduled to start on 24th June [23], but it may not currently meet notability guidelines. Funny ^Pika! 17:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just TOOSOON and CRYSTAL. Channel 8 Mediacorp show crufters really need to stop creating these articles way too soon; we're not an WP:ADVERT service for their programming. Nate • (chatter) 21:20, 8 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) 05:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-English-language Stoked voice actors[edit]

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

Very incomplete, lacking sources, and non-notable. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 11:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 28 January 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!} 05:12, 1 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) 09:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOTDIR. I'm not sure the primary article - Stoked (TV series) is particularly notable per WP:GNG, let alone this mainly empty list of people who've dubbed voices for the program. Funny ^Pika! 18:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Funnypika; see also WP:LIST. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly specialized list for failing WP:NOTDIR and WP:LIST. Doczilla _STOMP! 07:20, 13 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 rename to Anti-Concorde Project and remove the biographical information. I will tag the article for cleanup to encourage editors to restructure the article accordingly. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Wiggs[edit]

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

Although many of the article's claims are referenced to sources, these are claims about Concorde and super-sonic air transport generally. The only references to Wiggs and his activism in the cited literature appear to be in his own book, thus I cannot see how the putative subject of the article has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as mandated by WP:N. Rather than a piece about Wiggs, the article appears as a WP:ESSAY and a WP:COATRACK on which to hang anti-supersonic arguments. In short: no evidence of notability of Wiggs as an individual. FrFintonStack (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ or restructure and repurpose. The fact that the Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick has accepted the archives of the [[Campaign against Supersonic Transport]] (or whatever its correct name is) suggests to me that it is notable; and that is what at least half the article is about. Whether its founder is also notable is a differnet question. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to The Anti-Concorde Project and remove the biography, if thats an option. The campaign against Concorde is notable - it always gets a mention in any documentary or information about the plane. The article is not being used as a soapbox as Concorde no longer makes a noise. Periglio (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Periglio. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:18, 3 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) 09:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and cut stuff about Wiggs. The biographical info about Wiggs is very poorly sourced, but the anti-Concorde campaign and criticisms of Concorde generally appear to be notable topics - even if most sources aren't online. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
move/rename to appropriate title for anti-Concorde material. Right now one seems to be a coatrack for the other, not sure which way, but the anti-Concorde stuff seems to be what is notable. Mangoe (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will now support rename to The Anti-Concorde Project. A summary of the bio-stuff might be kept (but not the whole) in the repurposed article. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:51, 11 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) 18:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anchalee Voogd[edit]

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

Article was proded for over a month but never deleted. Tag taken down without explanation. This article started as a vanity page and has been edited down. It's currently a unreferenced WP:BLP as the one reference is dead. Person fails WP:GNG.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ...William 02:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William 02:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...William 02:44, 1 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) 09:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. If the only claim of notability is being declared ineligible to compete... honestly, I don't think we need an article about this Living person that consists of just that. Total lack of sources is also a concern. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:05, 13 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) 18:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford Hill[edit]

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

The subject of this article is not notable. Of the four references and one external link listed at the bottom of this article, only one actually mentions "Bedford Hill" as the name of a neighborhood, and I couldn't find any other sources that mention this neighborhood. --Julian (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination. No references or cites, never heard the term name outside of this article. Fitnr (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Found a few businesses in the area that use the name, but a few trade names can hardly amalgamate into a notable geographic term. It doesn't seem to be a noteworthy unofficial monicker either. I find more hits for Westchester, not the same. JFHJr (㊟) 04:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bedford–Stuyvesant, Brooklyn Under WP:GEOLAND, Populated places without legal recognition, and where another legal name already exists, it does not have WP:SIGCOV to warrant the reliability of the name as well as the verifiability of the article content. Mkdw ^talk 08:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 2 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) 09:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the subject clearly isn't notable. -Joeholmes (talk) 03:03, 11 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) 11:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Short (writer)[edit]

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

Article is an unreferenced BLP (one historical link appears to be nonfunctional) tagged for nearly 3 years as such. What appears to be the article's subject very recently has deleted most of the article including the multiple tags, leaving an unreferenced stub of one sentence. Attempts to Google information about the subject revealed no reliable sources. This seemed not to be a candidate for a speedy. Jus da fax 08:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found a few of the articles he wrote for Time and a brief mention here, but nothing that would show that he's particularly notable. He's one of hundreds of journalists that work for notable publications but fly firmly under the radar.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and Tokyogirl. He won a couple of awards (the same one twice) but the award itself seems not to be notable enough for an article. I couldn't find anything else that would confer notability. Stalwart111 09:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, per nom and above.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; unsourced BLPs must go. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 12 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) 11:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey gomez[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Bio about an american actor who "has starred in a number of films, such as Machete, Bandits, and The Cell". The only source given is a sparse IMDb profile which fails to back up the claims. No notability apparent under WP:GNG or WP:ACTOR. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am harvey gomez agent, we are currently under-going updating the IMDB pages for all the films Gomez has been featured in — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Joybox11 (talk • contribs)
- Dear Joybox11, please read WP:COI to understand tthe relationship created by your being Harvey's agent and your interest in the article. Also, please know that what Harvey may be doing in the future does not create a suitable notability for Wikipedia UNLESS that work is the recipient of significant coverage in reliable sources. And please note, while we at Wikipedia consider it as reasonable as a starting point for our looking for reliable sources, we do not consider a listing in IMDB to be reliable nor a sign of notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing a lot of reliable sources for the actor. As such does not seem to meet WP:NACTOR. Concerns about a WP:COI as above, but that's a here-nor-there AfD point. Mkdw ^talk 08:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have contacted Yahoo Movies, Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, and more sites who are updating Harvey Gomez' profiles and information. Please be patient as it should be updated by Monday 2/11/13. For now, I will update Harvey Gomez' Wiki to the reliable sources of films he has been apart of.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.230.24.130 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 8 February 2013

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability under WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Information at database websites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes is insufficient; per WP:GNG, there needs to have been coverage (news and periodicals, in this case) directly about the subject. People have to be covered out there before they are covered in here. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per being at best TOO SOON , and perhaps redirect to Imperial Sugar, a notable firm of which he is part owner. While Harvey may well have been in a handful of projects ending in 1997, mere listings in film databases do not confer notability. His family's company may be notable, but Harvey currently is not per Wikipedia standards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should not be deleted, all information has been updated, and this page has 7 reliable sources/references. As you may see several movie sites have Harvey Gomez listed and all the movies he has been apart of are listed, and I am not mentioning IMDB, If you google Anna Luna, Machete II or any of the other films you will see Harvey Gomez has been apart of them, and they are reliable. I do not think this should be deleted, however maybe it could be edited again with more sources. If this is the case, we can add more references for Harvey Gomez. I am Harvey Gomez publicist and we are updating all his information for all these sites, please just give us a week to get all updated. Do not delete please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.11.16.26 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 9 February 2013‎
Please read WP:Identifying reliable sources to understand that, while useful for expanded searches, IMDB is NOT considered a reliable source. Also, the James C. Kempner bio at Forbes website does not state that Harvey has any relationship with the Imperial Sugar company. And while we can accept that Harvey has been in the asserted projects, his simply being in a film or TV show (as an infant) does not impart any notability. For that we need a properly reliable source speaking about the role and actor in some sort of useful detail. Does Harvey have a cult fanbase? Has Harvey won any notable awards? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Harvey does have a great fanbase, I am in the process of finding more information for sources. Please bare with me. Harvey has not won any awards, he stopped acting when he was 14, and now that he is 23 he is starting to act again. Would press release work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.11.16.26 (talk) 15:58, 9 February (UTC}
No, press releases are not valid sources. See this for more information. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
okay well I am currently getting news articles and more coverages from sites. please be patient — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.11.16.26 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 10 February 2013‎
Pertty much you have seven days to bring forward the reliable sources required. And as much luck as I wish you, it is likely that the article will be deleted after this AFD has run its seven days. Do not be discouraged, as it is never an intention to chase contributors away from Wikipedia. IF this artricle is deleted, you may request it be placed in a user workspace/subpage for continued work out of mainspace... and IN a userspace, you can add sourcing as available, and seek input from experienced editors as to whether or not the topic has become ready for a return. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:34, 10 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lutus[edit]

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

Sourcing is very weak here. Does not demonstrate the level of independent, notable coverage required from multiple reliable sources to just a Wikipedia article per WP:GNG rules. DreamGuy (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best, he could be briefly mentioned on the Apple Writer page.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ... I agree that the article should be deleted. On reading its long history, one sees several two-phase efforts to (a) delete all its references, then (b) move to delete the article on the ground that its claims had no references. Then someone would restore the article to its original state, but this time, the removal effort will probably succeed (and I encourage this outcome). The article was never that strong to begin with, but the valiant efforts by any number of SPAs over the years have turned it into a disaster. I am personally embarrassed by the article's present state, and I am equally embarrassed by the behavior of its editors.

For comparison, after small articles like this are deleted for not being substantial or well-referenced enough (an objection with some merit), here's what I see as the future of Wikipedia: Here Comes Honey Boo Boo. Does anyone have a problem with this 1600-word article? Maybe, to make room for it and articles like it, we can delete a few more accounts of notable scientific and technical people. Lutusp (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's some kind of weird OWN stuff happening on that page. No changes are accepted at all. Thus, there's an "info box" that contains just a name and a link to his personal website. There's stuff about a boat voyage, and a link to his free book about it. And the sentence about moving to Oregon and living in isolation. The only notable thing in the article is the authorship of Apple Writer, and some of the awards. Only 4 people on WP are shown to have the Vollum. WP doesn't show anyone else for scientist of the year. (Editors protecting the Lutus Page from any edit should really be contributing to the wider project by sourcing and writing articles about those awards. The Vollum seems like it might be notable.) Nothing else is notable at all. This is just a heavily padded vanity article. Removing padding leaves a tiny stump. Sourcing is weak. Notability is tenuous at best. Editors exhibit problematic OWN and other behaviours. 31.126.206.226 (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article has links to free (beer) ebook and to non-free (beer) printed book. That link is aggressively restored. The article would be really thin if the only notable thing is left in. 178.111.60.107 (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lutus here. I repeat my prior request: please, either delete the article or freeze it against future vandalism -- I don't care which. Other editors in this conversation have claimed there's a notability issue. Obviously that's a matter of judgment. One editor above says "Only 4 people on WP are shown to have the Vollum." For the record, here's a partial list of past Vollum Award recipients: Linus Pauling, Steve Jobs, Linus Torvalds, Bill Gates, and Paul Lutus. There are obviously many more less well-known but deserving recipients in this prestigious award's 38-year history.

Another editor claims that "Sourcing is weak." On the contrary, every claim in the article is sourced, except one -- that I wrote a solar system model used by JPL during the Viking Mars mission. But that claim is sourced, with supporting documentation, here. Obviously I'm not going to edit my own article, nevertheless, every claim in the article has a source.

On the issue of notability and for comparison, here's an article about one of my age-contemporaries in software development: Bill Budge. Not a technologist as I am, but a game designer. No technical or scientific track record. I emphasize this is not meant to disparage Mr. Budge, it's only meant as a comparison. So, one might ask, given our respective backgrounds, what's all this deletion activity surrounding Paul Lutus' article, but none about Mr. Budge's, which has similar content? The answer is that I am a vocal critic of the practice of psychology, and this has resulted in any number of SPAs attacking my article over the years, hoping to reduce my public visibility.

Another editor says "This is just a heavily padded vanity article." So delete the article -- but before you do, read Budge's article. Ask yourself whether my article, and Budge's article, and a hundred similar Wikipedia articles, differ in this trait. Then ask yourself why my article has been singled out for deletion. And don't get confused -- I'm not arguing for this article's retention. I want Wikipedia to either delete the article or secure it against vandalism, and as I said above, I don't care which. Thanks for reading. Lutusp (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. My use of the Budge article is only to show that it's being treated differently, not to argue that "other stuff exists". Again, I would be very happy to see this article deleted, or frozen against vandalism. But please -- one or the other. The outcome is appropriately in the hands of others. Lutusp (talk) 20:50, 15 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 speedily deletion. Kubigula (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid dicks in the mouth syndrome[edit]

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

Article is about a random topic that does not belong. Cmckain14 (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already tagged the article under CSD-G3 as pure vandalism. An admin will delete it shortly. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 02:36, 8 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Taxi[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY. Google shows nothing. Lacks "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" WP:GNG Hu12 (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks more like self-promotion than an attempt at creating an article backed up by third-party sources.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Delete per nom. I also tried to find independent verification earlier and wasn't able to come up with much. Additionally, the article was tagged for speedy deletion when it was created ([24]) but when the creator deleted the tag nothing further was done. squibix (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 12 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) LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crumber[edit]

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

Unnecessary article. Multiple issues including orphanage, and needs more links. Not to criticize, but I believe a table cloth could do a better job. Kevin 12xd (contribs) 02:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete for what has been said above. Inline citations needed from third-party sources.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The table crumber may be humble but it is ubiquitous, important to the art of fine dining service, and notable, as found by the consensus in the 2006 AfD. Unfortunately no one added sources to the article back then, but it turns out that such sources do exist, such as a 2010 Baltimore Sun article that tells the interesting story of the invention, patenting, and manufacture of the modern Baltimore-born-and-made product.[25] I've added some information and a few sources to start. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new additions to the page.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources added by Arxiloxos show notability. It's true that the article needs more links to it and links to other articles, but these are surmountable problems WP:SURMOUNTABLE and the article should be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unnecessary nomination. Warden (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, due to additional sources. The article has sufficient bluelinks, and I de-orphaned it with an incoming link. Miniapolis 21:36, 13 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 Speedy delete. Article deleted under A7 by User:Bbb23. (Non-admin closure)Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa YAVUZ[edit]

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

Bobherry talk 01:01, 8 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HydrixOS[edit]

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

No references, no evidence that this was ever notable. A search for sources brings only Wikipedia mirrors and noise. Keφr 00:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find much - as far as I can see it is a project that never really got off the ground - I haven't seen enough coverage anywhere that suggests it was ever notable - again and again I come across mirrors of the wikipedia article ---- _nonsense ferret 01:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 12 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 no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nemo (file manager)[edit]

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

Non notable software package, released in September 2012. A recent fork of Nautilus (file manager) which already has an article.

in my WP:BEFORE the only thing I found was http://www.zdnet.com/linux-mint-developers-work-on-gnome-file-manager-fork-7000002232/ Gaijin42 (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gaijin42, I had just left you a comment in your talk page a few minutes ago. Regarding comments about this file manager in magazines, news reports, etc I'll post a few found through this search (aside from the one you posted):

In English:

http://www.webupd8.org/2012/08/nemo-linux-mint-team-forks-nautilus.html
http://www.webupd8.org/2013/01/latest-nemo-file-manager-from-git-gets.html
http://www.webupd8.org/2012/12/what-to-expect-in-linux-mint-15.html
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/09/linux-mint-explain-nautilus-fork-call-new-version-a-catastrophe
http://www.ubuntuvibes.com/2012/09/install-nemo-in-ubuntu-1204-nautilus-34.html
http://www.dailyflux.com/linux-mint-cinnamon-1-6-arrives-forks-nautilus-nemo-file-manager/
http://www.techlw.com/2012/12/nemo-file-manager-for-ubuntu-or-linux.html
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Linux-Mint-founder-calls-Nautilus-3-6-a-catastrophe-1699677.html
http://www.muktware.com/4091/linux-mint-team-forks-nautilus-brings-out-nemo

In Spanish:

http://www.muylinux.com/2012/09/05/linux-mint-nautilus-3-6-catastrofe-fork-nemo/
http://kuboosoft.blogspot.com.ar/2012/08/nemo-pero-no-el-pecesito-viene-linux.html
http://linuxzone.es/2012/12/18/prueba-nemo-el-gestor-de-archivos-de-linux-mint/
http://www.espaciolinux.com/2012/09/linux-mint-nemo-cinnamon/
http://lmde-frannoe.blogspot.com.ar/2012/09/linux-mint-deja-nautilus-por-nemo.html

and one in Hungarian :)

http://linuxmint.hu/blog/mirt-lett-nemo-a-nautilusbl/

Are these links enough to prove notability?. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my personal opinion, they are fairly WP:ROUTINE coverage from linux fan sites that cover every minor twist and turn, new release, and new rumor. They are just release notices pretty much. No major in-depth reviews, no discussion of lasting impact or influence etc. (It would be unexpected to see such articles so soon in any case, as the package is so new). However, it is certainly not up to just me, and others may consider them sufficient. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly find this file manager as notable (or even more considering the distro it stems from) as the rest that do have articles, ie: Nautilus (file manager), Konqueror, Thunar, Dolphin, PCMan and ROX-Filer. Given how new it is, the fact that it has had that much coverage also points, in my opinion, to a sufficient enough notability. In any case, let's wait to see what other editors think. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, so the fact that it is part of a major distro doesn't really mean much (though that enhanced visibility does mean its more likely to get articles written which WOULD eventually show notability). On the other hand, it seems like the bar for linux software packages might be pretty low. On the other-other hand, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS so I dunno. in any case we agree we need the input of others :). I do appreciate yo ubeing so cordial in our discussion though, i certainloy have been on the other side of this, and know what it feels like! :) Gaijin42 (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, I always welcome good faith edits even if they intend to remove a good couple of hours of hard work (just kidding :) If the article is found not suitable for its inclusion in WP I'll just keep it sandbox'd until/if it attains notability (or not). Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NOTTEMP. "Routine news" is for when one event is covered by media in the place of a few days and then forgotten; this is not the case here, since the reviews span several months. Diego (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think it is notable and should be kept. -Brendan Kehoe Brendankehoe (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. Why is it notable? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think its notable given the extensive coverage it has received in several technology oriented media as I presented above. I could be wrong though. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 02:07, 7 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, KTC (talk) 00:02, 31 January 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, 8 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 The Warrell Corporation. J04n(talk page) 23:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Dutch Candies[edit]

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

Contested prod. This candy company fails WP:CORP. It is not subject to non-trivial secondary coverage from reliable sources, and there is no evidence of notability. Another editor agreed, and the article was deleted, only to be contested a few hours later. — ξ ^xplicit 00:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a look at Google News shows a few articles, but many are behind a paywall at the York Dispatch. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH (having done Google and News searches--the York Dispatch ones do not seem in-depth, and it's basically local news). Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to The Warrell Corp. and expand to cover the company's brands. The parent company appears to be quite notable, the subcompany is not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:55, 7 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, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is borderline A7 territory: There's nothing in the article that makes any assertion of importance at all. --Jayron32 00:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Move to The Warrell Corp. as suggested above. Sources like this, this and this suggest WP:CORPDEPTH could be met for the parent company, even if individual sub-brands or products remain non-notable. Stalwart111 01:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your comments. Sources 2 and 3 are press releases. Not sure what to make of 1. Never heard of US Business Review. A "corporate profile" is not necessarily independent news coverage. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that analysis of 2 and 3 - they look just to be articles from confectionary industry magazines. They aren't the New York Times, sure, but I don't think they are "press releases" - at least I can't see where it says as much. No idea what the US Business Review is. To be honest, I just picked three random articles from the first page of Google results as a comparison to the lack of results for the subject sub-group. Article 1 (regardless of origin) is at HighBeam and there's a list of "related articles" from a whole bunch of sources listed underneath, all about Warrell Corp. Stalwart111 21:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, well 2 is mostly PR quotes from the company involved. 3 is based on a local newspaper story, likely sourced from a press release. Neither is independent in-depth coverage required by WP:CORPDEPTH. I doubt 1 is independent of subject. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, most industry magazines have that sort of tone - they tend not to run negative (or even neutral stuff) about their own industry. And a lot of local press is based on press releases; from companies, organisations, politicians, etc. There's not a lot of hard-hitting editorial there. But that doesn't make them automatically non-RS. Anyway, there's enough there (with the rest of the list of related articles included) for me to consider the parent company notable. It doesn't need to be those three sources. And others are free to disagree of course. Stalwart111 02:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I didn't say the sources fail WP:RS. WP:CORPDEPTH is a different standard. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, understand that - I referred to it above. I'm not aware of any instance of industry-specific publications being rejected as being not independent enough, so for me the other natural question is about whether it meets WP:RS (linked in the first line of WP:CORP on that basis). Whether specific publications offer a depth of information, collectively, to establish CORPDEPTH would probably need a HighBeam account to put beyond doubt - someone who can properly assess those additional 10 or so sources. Like I said, it's enough for me, but you are free to disagree of course. Stalwart111 22:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. "Independent" coverage is part of WP:CORPDEPTH. I don't think it's a good idea to ignore this criterion--it's crucial. Many industry publications just reprint warmed-over press releases, or publish "advertorials." The issue of independence, and whether press releases (or press release-like material) count towards notability, comes up repeatedly at AfD. Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does. Like I said, I'm not aware of any instance of industry-specific publications being rejected as being not independent enough, simply on the basis that they focus on one industry. And I'm not aware of any documented concern (like a guideline or user essay) calling industry-specific publications into question generally on that basis. But I would be interested to read one. Anyway, we're discussing the potential notability of an article that doesn't exist. Ha ha. Stalwart111 08:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who voted to create The Warrell Corp.. You can change your vote. The reason I said that sources 2 and 3 are not independent and in-depth is because I read them and they are mostly PR quotes. I did not raise the issue that they are industry publications--you raised that. Sources 2 and 3 do not contribute to notability under WP:CORPDEPTH because they are "brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business" and mostly "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources." Again, it is not too late for you to change your vote. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree with that assessment of them because they are industry publications and because that is simply the nature of industry publications. And I did raise it - because you suggested they were "press releases" which is clearly not the case. Those sorts of publications report on industry news and generally include quotes from the companies in question. But I've never seen an argument made that such publications cannot be counted toward CORPDEPTH on that basis. In fact, vendingmarketwatch.com has been used as a source for about a dozen articles here, and candyindustry.com has also been used (though not as extensively) in other confectionary-industry articles. And even if we dismiss 2 and 3 we can still fall back on the list of potential sources attached to number 1 which includes this article that suggests they won a business award and this one from another industry publication that looks to give some history of the company. I remain of the opinion that a case could be made that The Warrell Corp. is notable and that creating it is a better option than keeping the subject article. Stalwart111 21:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, you don't think that WP:CORPDEPTH should be applied to "industry publications?" Even though WP:CORPDEPTH explicitly rules out brief announcements of mergers, as well as quotations from the company's PR, to establish notability, you would ignore the explicit content of WP:CORPDEPTH because it is an industry publication? I think that's just wrong. Also, I don't think that winning the Central Pennsylvania Business of the Year award (2004) does much to establish notability. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of a strawman argument. You suggested they shouldn't count towards WP:CORPDEPTH because of their content, prefaced on the suggestion that the content of "many" such publications lacked independence. You suggested the content of both was of the sort specifically highlighted at WP:CORPDEPTH - I disagree. I don't believe those are the sorts of sources that WP:CORPDEPTH was designed to exclude and I've not seen a consensus anywhere to suggest otherwise. I believe it was designed to exclude press releases and regulatory-style company announcements, but not genuine industry-specific editorial about company acquisitions that include quotes from company representatives. Stalwart111 01:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. I did not "preface" my vote, or other comments, on general characteristics of industry publications. I did not even mention industry publications until my fifth or sixth edit to this page, after you brought up the issue first. Even then, I did not say that industry publications in general should be excluded. I was just responding to your comment. I'd be happy to see thousands of citations to industry publications, provided that WP:CORPDEPTH is applied. WP:CORPDEPTH is the consensus of the community. It says that brief announcements of mergers, as well as quotations from the company's PR, do not establish notability. It does not say "please ignore these rules for industry publications." The sources 2 and 3 you provided were brief announcements of mergers, mainly based on company quotes. Please post a link to where it says in WP:CORPDEPTH that the rules do not apply to industry publications. If you can't do that, your point has no basis. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Many industry publications just reprint warmed-over press releases, or publish advertorials." I took that to mean that, in your opinion, many industry publications just reprint warmed-over press releases. I disagree with that general characterisation and I continue to disagree with your assessment of the sources in question against WP:CORPDEPTH. Even if I didn't, there's a list of others to pick from on HighBeam. Even if there wasn't, we'd still be talking about an article that exists only in theory. You are free to believe that merging content into a new article isn't a good idea. You remain entitled to your opinion that my reading of potential sources is wrong. You are clearly not going to convince me, nor I you, but attributing to me an argument that I have never made and then demanding I make it with evidence is a pointless exercise: straw man. I'd say I've had enough of flogging a dead horse, if it weren't for the fact that this horse hasn't even been born yet. Stalwart111 03:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart, do you think WP:CORPDEPTH applies to industry publications? Yes or no? Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm. Seriously. Stalwart111 05:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart, this has been a WP:CIVIL and even interesting discussion about policy, but you're starting to stray away from that. You said I attributed an argument to you that you never made. Fair enough. So I asked what your views actually are. Do you think WP:CORPDEPTH applies to industry publications? Yes or no? Cheers. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better to discuss this at WP:RSN where it will get the necessary attention. But I'll say here what I would say there. that while it is perfectly true that "Many industry publications just reprint warmed-over press releases, or publish advertorials," most are a mixture of content based on PR, and content that is editorially responsible. The good content is a RS for N; the other content is not, although it is an indication that at least the editors thought this particular press release was worth reprinting--they do after all depend upon the perception of the trade that the material they include is significant enough and accurate enough to be of interest. More generally, there is no individual publication of any sort, let alone any class of publications, that is an unquestionably reliable source in all circumstances, and very few newspapers or magazines that are totally free from being influenced by PR. The individual article needs to be examined, to see whether it shows some degree of independent assessment. I have not yet done that in this case, but am about to. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, I agree with every word you've said. My own evaluations were about the individual articles themselves after I had read them. Cheers. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep and move as suggested. I agree with you, LC, that as far as I can see none of the individual articles look impressive. But looking at the total article list at [26] it seems obvious that the people in that industry think the company important enough to be worth covering. Another way of putting it, is that except for famous firms, this is the best we can expect, and if we wish to include manufacturing firms in unexciting consumer industries that are just notable, we need to accept sources like this. If this were a field that is exceptionally well covered by the general press, like athletics or politics, it would be another matter. Sources in different fields are different. I think that to be rational rather than mechanistic, an analysis on the basis of 2RS=N needs to take account of what can be expected in the subject area. I know some other people do not agree, and judge everything by the standards of the fields that in the past have traditionally been important to paper encyclopedias. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, if you mean the articles listed under "Related newspaper, magazine, and journal articles," these are mostly boring press releases turned into short news articles. One is about the new peanut brittle machine. Another is about adding 38 full-time staff. Two are about acquiring a brand of caramel. Then there are two about internal promotions, no doubt sourced from press releases. And there is also the prestigious Central Pennsylvania Business of the Year (2004). These are explicitly excluded by WP:CORPDEPTH, viz, "routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued." These are the rules that I think we should be following. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this stub to Camp Hill, Pennsylvania (since the Warrell Corporation page has been deleted). Miniapolis 15:39, 17 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) 18:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Monday[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Monday is an international org of some notability with local groups and events for mobile technology in quite a wide range of cities. A google search gives an overview of the various cities where MM has a presence, and the level of activity, which in itself is notable, IMHO. Egil (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIGNUMBER. Notability is established through mentions in third-party reliable sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tempted to agree with Egil, but I can't seem to find anything for WP:NGO other than self-published websites, passing mentions and a number of PRs. Funny ^Pika! 23:24, 8 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:52, 31 January 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 00:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not covered in secondary sources. Dreambeaver(talk) 22:47, 8 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) 18:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ariella Levy[edit]

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

Unref blp; tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: would qualify for WP:BLPPROD if it wasn't for the creation date. -- Patchy1 08:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard, sources added. -- Patchy1 02:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Have replaced the bulk of the article, which was removed without comment, by an IP whose only 3 edits were that removal, on 19 Dec 2012. There are a couple of refs, but both seem broken today. Notability not yet established but needs more of a look, using both names (article was created under Linovski in May 2008 and moved from Linovski to Levy with edit summary "new name"). PamD 08:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curiouser and curiouser: she seems to be still using the Linovski name and there is no evidence to support the move to Levy! Still not apparently notable, but a strange page history. PamD 09:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject isn't noteable; coverage and contributions aren't significant. Majoreditor (talk) 00:05, 24 January 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 02:56, 31 January 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 00:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Going by her name on her website above (Ariella Linovski), all I could find were links to her presentation at Oxford [27], Belfast [28] and two academic acknowledgements [29]. Ghits were links to blogs or her Twitter account. Funny ^Pika! 22:14, 8 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 Newa people. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newa games[edit]

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

A search on Google Books/news/etc for Newa games/Newar games brings up no sources. The page creator admits on the Talk page that there are no sources, and although they (using a new account) have tried to add references, one is to another WP page and another is to a dictionary definition. Mabalu (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:44, 18 January 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky. Seems like the kind of article that A) we should have B) is very difficult for an English speaker to find reliable sources for and C) probably is primarily documented in paper sources. If this material could be verified I'd strongly urge us to keep it (meeting WP:N or not) but as it is I'm not sure what to do. Clearly doesn't meet our guidelines and I can't find a way to even meet WP:V. But the topic is clearly highly encyclopedic. Good luck. Hobit (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Hobit (talk) 14:07, 30 January 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:10, 31 January 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 00:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources found, really grasping here: There is a family in London that plays Dhun Kasa and Gha Kasa. Something that may be a reliable source is the Hodgson papers in the Social Anthropology library at Cambridge, in which there is apparently some material on Newari games. ECS Nepal has an article on Nepali Street Games that looks useful. A Lonely Planet guide to Nepal has a paragraph on bhag chal and also mentions a game called carom. A likely picture of carom is at Visual Geography in the first picture of the gallery. The third and fourth pictures show an unknown board game not mentioned in our article. A pamphlet on bhag chal claims that there are secondary references in the form of (1) Murray, H. J. R. A History of Board-Games Other than Chess, p. 112. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952, and (2) Parlett, D. The Oxford History of Board Games, p. 194. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. For traditional games handed down orally, notability is a tough proposition. Like Hobit, I'd be willing to bend the rules for notability in this case. I don't think we need notability, but we need verifiability to at least get the facts straight. I think we can get there for bhag chal, but I am not sure about the others. --Mark viking (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - maybe a merge and redirect to Newa people? There are already sections on there for dance, music, art, etc. Mabalu (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there's already a section on it there - which is basically just a link to this page, so room for a condensed version of the current page? Seems like a suitable solution. Mabalu (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Writing quality poor; I support Mabalu's suggestion. Karrattul (talk) 17:25, 8 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) 18:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charmila (actress)[edit]

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

not remarkable enough Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 11:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep New article proposed for deletion by nominator just ONE MINUTE after creation.[30] Certainly there are language difficulties when sourcing articles about for Malayalam actors, but this actress meets WP:ENT and sources appear available for expansion and improvement.[31] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep. MQS articulates the case nicely. WP:DANNO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 7 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 00:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per MQS - if the people who PRODed this actually put any effort into improving the article, instead of being-trigger happy and giving the original creator no time to fix the article, we wouldn't be here. Trout Ushau for PRODding the article TWICE (after the first, it should've been obvious that it would not be a non-controversial deletion), the first time a single minute after creation. The page curator needs scrutiny - an article created by a blocked user should only be speedied if it was created in violation of their block IIRC, not if it was created 4 days before the block. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Among the films she acted in, 4 are notable enough for WP: Kabooliwala, Keli (film), Adivaram and Thirumanassu. That should make her notable enough. She seems to have portrayed female lead of the last three. I have created the page Charmila and redirected it here as there is no other article with same title. Would request page movement in the other direction if this Afd is closed with 'keep' as consensus.--GDibyendu (talk) 18:15, 8 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.