Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 January	16 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. From the opposition, it is argued that notability is clearly established through Google Scholar. I believe that based on the impact of the subject's works, notability is established. I have no prejudice against speedy renomination, however. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hogg[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 15. Snotbot t • c » 23:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. What did you do to try to establish notability? I looked on Google Scholar, and got blown away. The top three results give 6082, 2330 and 1390 citations respectively. For an h-index, it would seem, of 77. St Anselm (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Stunning cites in GS as above. Nominator is reminded that persons who show that they are not able to edit Wikipedia competently may have their editing privileges withdrawn. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 16 January 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) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reclaiming Patriotism: Nation-Building for Australian Progressives[edit]

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

fails WP:NBOOK. could not find major awards, or many reviews. gnews reveals articles written by the author where it states he is the author of the book but no indepth coverage of the actual book. LibStar (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Give the patriot a fair go, too" by James Robertson in The Sydney Morning Herald,31 October 2009 and this in The Australian are both indepth coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reviews in national press and Fairfax indicate notability. Clearer references in the article would be useful. Paul foord (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC) -- fixed and added refs Paul foord (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per A7 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interpersonal wellness[edit]

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

Fails Notability guideline Veggies (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Veggies. This is a neologism invented by the article's author. I PROD'ed the article simultaneously with Veggie's AFD nomination; I think the deletion is non-controversial enough to not need an AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur. Not much that hasn't already been said here. Bagheera (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did a Google Books search to determine if "interpersonal wellness" is used in any contexts independent of that described in the article. It appears that the concept has been discussed in a few WP:RS, especially in the The Praeger Handbook Of Education And Psychology, Volume 1, pg. 342.. The article as currently written clearly is not up to Wikipedia standards (e.g. WP:OR), but a completely re-written article with appropriate sources may have some WP:POTENTIAL. --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not clear that "interpersonal wellness" is anything more than a vague neologism; I don't see a compelling source that establishes this as a technical term with a set meaning. Worse, I found a source using this term from 1994, long before the origin claimed in the entry, and I can find no reliable source that mentions Joyce Odidison in connection with this term (for example, she is not mentioned in the Praeger Handbook reference given above). Hairhorn (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khwaja Wajhullah Shah[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG ●Mehran ^Debate● 07:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the page Khwaja Wajhullah Shah is being marked for Deletion. I recommend that the page not be deleted, as lakhs of followers of this great sufi saint are waiting to contribute to add information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhshaik (talk • contribs) 10:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to my great surprise I achieved a Googlewhack when searching for 'sufi saint Hazrat Shaikh Khwaja Wajhullah Shah Chisti-Qadri wal Arbaiin' - the WP article itself. I strongly suspect this is a spelling issue as sufi saints are generally well described so sources should be plentiful. Urdu help, anybody? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - google 'Khwaja Wajhullah Shah' as the remaining part 'Chisti-Qadri wal Arbaiin' are the sufi orders and the title of the saint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhshaik (talk • contribs) 11:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and there's nothing notable, just 2 results. If that's all then we must Delete, which is why I ask if there are Urdu or other language sources, or other spellings of the name? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2012 (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 00:13, 2 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, Gong show 06:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established. No reliable sources in over 2 week period this article has existed.--Staberinde (talk) 11:02, 12 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!} 22:30, 15 January 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) -- Patchy1 21:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cellular Abroad[edit]

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

Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources given in the article are enough to get this past basic WP:GNG and WP:CORP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 17:12, 26 December 2012 (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 00:06, 2 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, — Yash ^[talk] 04:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is routine and limited. I question most of those links. Only the Cnet one appears to be very good, and even that seems extremely routine amongst everything they cover. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:09, 9 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!} 22:29, 15 January 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. It was relisted 4 times, there's obviously no consensus to delete, but neither is there a strong consensus to keep. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Studia Humaniora Tartuensia[edit]

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

Non-notable journal, publishing a handful articles/year. Not indexed in any selective, major databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this page, I'm of course biased, but I'd like to mention that this journal is included in European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH) journals list.--Morel (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2012 (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 04:06, 26 December 2012 (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 00:40, 2 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, — Yash ^[talk] 04:17, 9 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!} 22:28, 15 January 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. Courcelles 23:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Travis MacRae[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails to meet any of Wikipedia's criteria for notable musicians. External links and sources are weak. Reference to a performance on a local Canadian television show cannot be confirmed. The artist's website is blank and other links listed on the page are dead or have been mostly inactive for years. Searches for the artist and the artist's record labels do not yield any useful information to the contrary. This article has been nominated for deletion twice, both times in 2006, yielding no consensus. But in the six years that have followed, no convincing case has been built. -Makersmarkers (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Not to be discouraging, but any artist who only sells 100 or less copies of their music (per the article) is still at approximately garage-band level. Fails even the most generous standards of inclusion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:56, 10 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!} 22:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:BASIC. I'm unable to find anything about his records that were claimed to be released by the labels Willow Tree and Middle River Records. If this is the Willow Tree Records' website, I'm not sure if it can be considered as a label. Middle River Records might just be a cd/dvd manufacturer and again not a label. I also can't find any independent and reliable third-party source about him. His website domain seems to be expired about a month ago, so he either quit music, and if not, I really hope he's ok since I can't find anything about his recent activities as a musician. I also think his album, The Porpoise and the Whale, should be nominated for deletion as well, because it is at best recorded with his own efforts since there is absolutely no evidence that such an album exists, yet alone significant coverage WP:BASIC requires. It is really hard to understand how this article survived the two previous Afd discussions. In any case, his albums and the record companies should be verified by sources that meet WP:RS before checking if the article meets WP:MUSIC's "Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels" criteria, which should have been done during the two previous Afd discussions - and if not, the article simply fails WP:BASIC. Nimuaq (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was hopeful about finding some sources, given Jeffleeds' arguments in the previous AfD which would be reasonably strong, if they could be backed by proper sourcing. I haven't been able to confirm that there are articles about MacRae in Sing Out! and in Alternative Press, although I don't think there is web access to articles from that time. Checking Google News and a library database of newspaper and magazine articles I'm unable to find any sources that would be helpful towards establishing WP:N notability. Without any reliable sources, I'm left recommending delete. The album article can be deleted as CSD A9 if this discussion is closed as "delete". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find coverage to indicate notability is satisified. -- Whpq (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nike sponsorships[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and was unsourced for four years. I added some references, but IPs generally keep adding unsourced names. I kept the original content hidden in the article, but no references have been added and none are probably forthcoming. Similar article to the recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Umbro sponsorships. 72Dino (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nike gets enough advertising and articles like this add nothing to Wikipedia. Would any other encyclopedia have such an article? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Umbro list may have been deleted prematurely. List of Adidas sponsorships survived AfD, as did that one and this one, previously. The equivalent articles for Puma and ASICS should probably be considered as well in a larger discussion. --BDD (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Either that or scoop it up into a broader discussion as suggested in post above by BDD. I'm terribly allergic to all these Wikipedia lists and so much blatantly promotional product placement, as it were. Fylbecatulous talk 18:38, 8 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, KTC (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:23, 13 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!} 22:25, 15 January 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. Courcelles 00:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SBS Transit Service 243[edit]

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

Appears to fail the GNG; it's just a bus route. bobrayner (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:07, 3 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL. Wikipedia is not a travel guide.--Charles (talk) 18:16, 13 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!} 22:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Charles. It would be very rare indeed for a bus route to be notable enough for an encyclopedia article. The only sources provided here are the bus company's own website (not independent) and a message board thread (not reliable). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:36, 16 January 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 00:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certiport's Worldwide Competition on Microsoft Office 2012[edit]

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

Not-notable student Competition of some year. Organized by presumably not-notable company: Certiport. Only 3 affiliated web pages are linked (two on certiport website, third is press release of certiport). `a5b (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google Web search for (certiport "microsoft office" competition) yielded lots of Certiport's own web pages and press releases, but no evidence of in-depth coverage by independent media. Searching Google News for these terms produced nothing. Searching Google News Archives for the same terms yielded lots of press releases, and a few local stories on contestants; the latter included very little background material on the competition itself, generally including no more than a paragraph or so that appeared to be taken straight from a Certiport press release. Fails WP:GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This article could easily be renamed to remove the year from the title and the content refocused on the competition in general, so I looked for sources based on that idea. Looking in the Google News archives, this 2010 CNet article is an OK source. There are a couple results in a Microsoft magazine: 2005 and another from 2005. I also found some local stories like Ammodramus mentioned: 2006 Singapore, 2010 Nigeria, 2011 Nigeria, 2010 Malaysia, 2010 US, 2011 US, and more behind paywalls. It seems like enough information is available in those articles to write a short article without original research, so I'll default to keep, but I don't know if it's substantial enough to really be notable. The company has similar notability - there are some short news articles about it, but not a lot of them. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:56, 12 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hilarious as it would be to think that there's some wacky alternate-universe Olympics out there where the games are things like spreadsheets, this seems to be a non-notable contest with a top prize of just $5K. Article seems to exist as a means of sneaking a mention of Certiport (and some external links, naturally) in through the back door, so to speak. There was once an article on Certiport itself but it was deleted ages ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:10, 16 January 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 revert back to a disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) -- Patchy1 12:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aslam[edit]

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

This article is a BLP with no references. It is outside the BLPPROD process because of its date of creation. This AfD nomination is a procedural alternative. It may be closed early once satisfactory references have been provided, or it may run to term at the discretion of the closer. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Reversion to this version after which the previously sound disambiguation page was hijacked to create this BLP. If the current person happens to be notable that could be split off into Abhishek Venkteshwar or Abhishek Venkteshwar (Aslam) or some such similar name, provided WP:RS citations are added at the same time. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:34, 10 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse reversion suggestion above --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:34, 17 January 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. with no prejudice to renomination (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Khan (Dancer)[edit]

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

Non-notable reality show winner. WP:SingleEvent. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two references added in the article, clears issues of notability. IndiaToday, DailyMail, Divya Bhaskar, Jagran and NDTV are few of many notable National Media who have covered Faisal Khan's victory. Faisal Khan got enough coverage in national media of India, i think he deserves article in WP. By the way, i am not fan of him, i saw his information while surfing Wiki in Faisal Khan's article misplaced there. So i created this article and added refernces so that autoreviewers like you can check for article's notability. Thanks! -- Samkit ^{(Talk/Contributions)} 16:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notablity criterias, only known for winniing a TV show competition. --Phazakerley (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2012 (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 ^{talk to me!} 05:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The argument being made here is "Page is about reality show winner" is not completely true. If you closely cross - examine news stories which covered him, you will find that he came from a lower middle class and despite of his odd circumstances, he has tremondous dancing skill. This fact makes him notable enough to media and people to have a look at him. -- Samkit ^{(Talk/Contributions)} 17:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that dancing skills were for privileged elite alone. He being poor is no notable reason either. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Kid won a major competition and has ample editorial coverage, certainly in India and even in the UK ie [1], passes WP:GNG--Nixie9 (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Single event! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If single event make this article pass notability issue, then it should be okay. -- Samkit ^{(Talk/Contributions)} 05:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No really! He won. So many newspapers wrote about him. Thats obvious. If an accident happens it is bound to be covered by all types of newspapers. That does not mean its passes WP:GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:11, 26 December 2012 (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 01:31, 24 December 2012 (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) 01:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People followed him, journalists covered his story, people outside India read it - all of these happened because he is upcoming dance artist not because he took part in a Reality Show and won there. From my part and view, this is enough for us to have information of him on our open wikipedia. Regards, Samkit ^{(Talk/Contributions)} 09:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He took part in the show and won it. All reports and press coverage is from then. I could not see any press coverage of his post that time period. And we have the information and hence we can make article is not a valid reason. We know many things about ourselves, our friends, neighbours, etc. We don't make articles on them. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - Won a major competition and has ample editorial coverage, certainly in India and even in the UK. Therefore passes notablity criterias. (Comment by User:Ret.Prof)

(Please sign your comments.) What editorial coverage? News reports of winnings a show are not considered as editorial even if they are technically edited by editors. His interviews post his win are not considered as wide coverage. If all Keep voters want to keep it, please comment on how notable as a dancer he is, maybe by showing how his dancing is still praised after the competition ended. UK papers covered him is no reason to keep. What might be amusing for British people might not be for other global citizens, especially Indians. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:37, 4 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 00:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dance_India_Dance_Li'l_Masters_2#Top_Ten_Lil_Masters - He has not established notability outside of the one dance competition and I doubt he will establish it anytime soon, considering he is only 13 years old. Although he says he would like to start his own dance academy, that is not confirming it will happen nor confirming that academy will be notable. Not all dance competition winners are notable, regardless sometimes how much attention they receive. SwisterTwister talk 20:48, 8 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!} 22:18, 15 January 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 00:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emil uzelac[edit]

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

Unable to establish notability, fails WP:CREATIVE, no independent references, contested prod WWGB (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of the references contained in Emil Uzelac are 100% accurate and notable. I would like to learn more about your fact that the page is not WP:CREATIVE. Emil Uzelac "plays" big part in Open Source community since 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukmk (talk • contribs) 12:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google Web search for ("emil uzelac") turned up lots of in-house WordPress links, but no evidence of in-depth coverage by independent sources. Searching Google News and Google News Archives for the same terms also yielded no evidence of notability. Delete per failure to meet WP:GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is Emil Uzelac but the WordPress Developer, that would be the main reason why there are so many WordPress links. If you kindly search for "Emil Uzelac WordPress" you will find links to:

WPMU - Independent Site
WP Tavern - Independent Site

Having non-WordPress related would be if we search for Wikipedia and don't get Wiki articles first. Does that make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukmk (talk • contribs) 12:19, 9 January 2013

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question, you guys are set on this, delete, no more questions or anything else I can do to keep this page alive. Please let me know if you can. I have not included that Emil Uzelac is descendant of Emil Uzelac would that make any difference at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukmk (talk • contribs) 07:16, 12 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!} 21:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for allowing to continue discussion and for Relisted ·ukmk· 18:21, 19 January 2013 (CST)

Delete - There is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to indicate that the subject meets general inclusion criteria, or that specific for creative people. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist - Thank you for additional information Whpq. Few moments ago I checked your links and could not find anything that does not meet the general inclusion criteria. ·ukmk· 19:58, 21 January 2013 (CST)
- Comment - None of the sources in the article as useable for establishing notability:
  1. is a stats page and is not coverage about Emil Uzelac
  2. is a post by Uzelac, not independent
  3. is his profile page, not independent
  4. is a link to his responsive theme, not independent
  5. is a listing of popular themes on wordpress and simply lists his theme without even mentioning his name so clearly not significant coverage about him
  6. is somebody's blog and is not a reliable source
  7. is another blog and is not a reliable source
  8. simply mentions his name and is not significant coverage about him
  9. have no idea what this is even supposed to prove and is certainly not significant coverage about him
- so in total there are no usable sources -- Whpq (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without independent (and in this case more important reliably published) sources that cover the subject in non-trivial detail, he does not pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:53, 22 January 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 00:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eurohobby[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most of the references are sections of the eurohobby website, and the one that isn't is extremely trivial-eurohobby isn't even mentioned by name, just linked. A google search for eurohobby gives tons of pages on the eurohobby website, and a few unrelated companies, but no third-party independent sources. Google news gives no hits. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I call this double standards - I came across lot of articles on wikipedia related to websites that do not have more than few lines and somehow they are still there here you have some examples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GazoPa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Wools http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubestat

that was just to list some believe me there are tons eurohobby article is already by far better than most of those articles thus why i call the deletion of this page as double standard Eurohobby is the only portal for euro coins (numismatics) that you can find on the web that is in english. Also one of the sources is the Wall Street Journal - I better have one source and very credible than 100 that make non-sense. In case you want non-sense I can add tons of references to euroHOBBY.

eurohobby also have 2000 members that voluntarily joined the website - that also indicates credibility

euroHOBBY is not that linked as this is a niche topic but it doesnt make it less important--Melitikus (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, WP:OSE is not a valid reason to keep a page. Each page must be considered on its own merits. Also, in an article about a website, links to that same website aren't considered reliable sources. The Wall Street Journal is usually a reliable source, but the WSJ article only mentions euroHOBBY without establishing notability. One last thing: my google search for sources was very thorough. I looked all the way to page 20 without finding any reliable, third-party sources. Howicus (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:56, 10 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!} 21:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources. The WSJ article is a blog peice where eurohobby isn't even mentioned by name, but rather jsut exists as a hyperlink. That is a a far cry from the significant coverage needed to meet inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 01:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drawbridge (company)[edit]

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

Run of the mill company that is of no encylopedic value. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems subjective to assert that something is "run of the mill" and further claim that it has no encyclopedic value. What of "run of the mill" locales like "Moisy, FRA" or "run of the mill" people like "Aleksandr Sautin" or "run of the mill" companies like "ECAPS". What specific characteristics does something require to be eligible for the elevated status of "having encyclopedic value"? Brianjoseff (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is subjective because we don't have prescriptive notability guideline for companies. I listed it because it is in that large grey area between being very notable and completely non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Accepted from AfC because Drawbridge is extensively covered in several reputable national news sources, for example Forbes and the BBC. The only confusion was whether the article was about the company or their 'platform'. I would say the subject meets WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reason given for the AfD nomination seems at the level of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. For notability, I think we can use WP:GNG as a guide. In this case, the Forbes, MIT Technology Review, BBC, and TelecomTV references already in the article are all secondary, in-depth, independent and from reliable sources. Reference 5, as a blog from the Guardian, may or may not be reliable, but it's also secondary, in-depth, and independent from a reliable news organization. With multiple secondary sources already extant in the article, the topic of the article is notable and the article should be kept. Mark viking (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:GNG should be used for companies because there are some guidelines at WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH and it is very easy to find references for a company. Companies advertise and make themselves otherwise known. If we were to use WP:GNG for companies Wikipedia would rapidly turn into a business directory rather than be an encyclopaedia. We are in need of a decent notability guideline for companies so we can get some certainty in these AfDs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even WP:CORPDEPTH is satisfied, with the substantial national news sources, isn't it? Believe me, I hate spammy adverts as much as the next person, but the company seems to have caught the media's attention. I'm not sure what the problem is you're seeing. Sionk (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Companies may advertise and make themselves otherwise known, but such information is hardly unbiased. Company pages on Wikipedia provide a valuable service to people interested in a for-profit entity who aren't interested in trawling through marketing material and company copy-write.Brianjoseff (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that argument won't win you many allies here! Wikipedia isn't a free directory or extension for a business's website. Sionk (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That argument was in reference to Alan Liefting's point that "Companies advertise and make themselves otherwise known. If we were to use WP:GNG for companies Wikipedia would rapidly turn into a business directory" and my point was that, if the only information available on companies is information they themselves produce, that is problematic in a "victors write the history" sense. Pages on Wikipedia are unbiased encyclopedic records and therefore valuable to those who may be interested in a company's history, or actions, but don't want to hear it from the company. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I think you may have misunderstood my point. If you need me to clarify further please ask.Brianjoseff (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH with coverage by BBC, Forbes and The Guardian. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Northamerica's argument is rock solid in policy whereas the deletion points are not based in them or lack the explanation on which direct grounds the article lacks. Mkdw ^talk 07:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep - nominator withdrew. (non-admin closure) St Anselm (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Hofmann[edit]

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

unreferenced blp, tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hoffman was a partner with Steve Schott in owning the Oakland Athletics [2][3] and of Ken Behring in the Seattle Seahawks [4]. There are tons of references available to verify each of those facts, and we do tend to have articles about American major league sports owners. On the other hand, it's not clear how much more there is to say about Hoffman.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multimillionaire developer and former owner of two professional sports teams(Oakland Athletics and Seattle Seahawks) is likely to have the quantity and quality of secondary coverage needed to satisfy WP:BIO. Pro sports owners in my city certainly do. See [5] and [6]. Many of the stories found at Google news archive are unfortunately behind paywall so i can't verify depth of coverage free online, but there appear to be articles with substantial coverage, such as "San Ramon Valley Times : ONCE HEROES, A'S OWNERS NOW …Contra Costa - Nov 1, 1998: OAKLAND Steve Schott and Ken Hofmann were heralded as heroes in early 1995 when they stepped to the plate to buy the Oakland A's, pledging to keep the ... .." Ironically, current practice would give each of the professional athletes he employed pretty automatic notability. Edison (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is in piss poor shape, but as Edison says, there's plenty of coverage out there. All we need is someone (possibly myself) to work on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG easily.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recent cleanup work and sourcing (added since nom) demonstrates notability and solves BLP issue. Cbl62 (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Thanks for all who commented and made improvements. Boleyn (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 01:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Hitch[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I would like to remind the nominator of WP:BEFORE - if you had checked Google Scholar, you would see that the top result has 13,311 citations. Hitch's h-index is 43. Please do this sort of check in the future. St Anselm (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- If this were on a US professor (with the much lower significance of the title there), I would have voted to delete. In UK, only the top academcis get the title professor. If two universities successively think him notable enough to appoint him a professor, WP should agree. He has probably published a good number of articles etc, but at presetn we merely have a stub article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Very high cites in GS. It would be helpful if the nominator did not waste our time with more nominations like this. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cole (politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable political activist and third party candidate. Sourcing needed to establish WP:GNG does not exist. The only coverage I see is in context of an election where he garnered 3% of the vote. It fails to go in depth on Cole, meaning he fails WP:POLITICIAN as well as GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Crap, forgot to check the talk page for a past AfD. I don't see consensus changing so quickly. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 15 January 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) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Henry Havelock[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't confirm notability Boleyn (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: google books shows 674 links, will check if something useful can be added here.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~Delete~~: many of the google books links are on another person, a general named Henry Havelock. William Henry Havelock was a different person, who joined Bombay Civil Service in 1847 and was a police commissioner in Southern Division of Bombay, as per this link. Later he became the commissioner of Sindh. But, that probably does not make much of notability.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am also changing my opinion. It seems commissioners were of the highest ruling position of British India for a province, unless there was a position of a Governor. So, notable with that logic. Sindh was a big region, and it had commissioners in the highest administrative position till 1936, from when position of a Governor was created.--GDibyendu (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Per GDibyendu's research above. Also confirmed in brief bio here. Mcewan (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is an AfD for another commissioner of Sind at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Dawes Melville where an argument for inherent notability of the post is being made. Note that Havelock was Acting Commissioner per the bio above. Also the position was only created in 1847. I suspect there may more to say here (by a British Indian Empire expert). Mcewan (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is admittedly borderline, but I think commissioner is an important enough position for its holders to be inherently notable. Although Havelock was only acting commissioner, he did hold the appointment for a year and the fact he was appointed acting commissioner suggests he was already the second most senior official in the province, which makes him pretty senior to begin with. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I would suggest that those governing Inidan provinces, even on an acting basis are notable. The problem with this article is that it is a mere stub, and tells us nothing of what he did as Commissioner. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I now concur with above opinions on inherent notability. Mcewan (talk) 15:49, 19 January 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. Tone 21:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce King Hallock[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't confirm notability Boleyn (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The substance of the article is identical to its one source: see the Talk page for discussion of its uncertain Copyvio position. AllyD (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Effectively the article says that the subject worked in aviation. If there is any claim to notability it is in building his "Road Wing"; I don't think that is sufficient though. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. AllyD (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references, and according to this aircraft enthusiast who read a grandson's biography, Hallock's designs were "just run of the mill constant chord swept 'wings with tip fins". Clarityfiend (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. EricSerge (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 01:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goodyear Silents[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't confirm notability Boleyn (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GBooks and GScholar show multiple sources to confirm the significance of the Goodyear Silents sports teams in deaf culture, see e.g. [7] ("The Goodyear Silents football team was the pride of the deaf community between 1917 and 1922 . . .") and [8]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of references. In addition to Arxiloxos' Signs Of Resistance: American Deaf Cultural History, 1900 to World War II pp. 77-79 and Illusions of Equality: Deaf Americans in School and Factory, 1850-1950 p. 79, there's also Deaf Jews in Sports: The Goodyear Silents Championship Football Team Had A Jewish Fullback and season by season records[9][10]. The Silents are golden. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, thanks to the research above.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The research efforts by Clarityfiend and Arxiloxos demonstate that the subject passes general notability guideline. Cbl62 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A good example of a notable subject that satisfies the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG and WP:ORG, but would have been easy to overlook without the efforts of Clarity and Arxiloxos to do some digging. The resulting encyclopedic content is well worth the effort, and provides interesting material regarding deaf athletes in the context of American football----thanks, guys. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just when you think you've seen it all... (not that I believed that anyway). AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:55, 18 January 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 Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In#Recurring sketches and characters. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Farkel Family[edit]

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

unref article, tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I couldn't find reliable secondary references for notability, but YouTube videos and entries at tv.com show the topic as verifiable. There is already a paragraph on the skit at Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In; a redirect there is probably best. Mark viking (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I grew up watching "Laugh-In" reruns; these characters are really not anywhere near the level of notability that would justify a dedicated page (quite frankly, I can't really think of any characters from the show that would meet notability). Redirect should work just fine. Benscripps (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:01, 16 January 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 as G12. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Factors Chain International[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; unref Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article text matches their website; I've flagged it for CSD G12. AllyD (talk) 21:13, 15 January 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN MLS ExtraTime 2002[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't confirm notability Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep Sources listed in the references include links to reviews on GameSpot and IGN, as well as to a few magazine reviews. Passes the GNG. Someone another 20:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a few magazine review does not confer notability per WP:GNG; we need in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable third-party sources - which this does not have. PS the call for a 'snow keep' with the first !vote is hilarious. Giant Snowman 12:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gamespot review, IGN review PLUS magazine sources were already linked to when it was nominated. This should not have been nominated for deletion, it should be snow kept, you're easily amused. Someone another 15:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you actually read WP:SNOW. Giant Snowman 15:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He probably meant "Speedy", not "Snow". Sub that in, and everything else he says makes complete sense. Sergecross73 msg me 15:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"we need in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable third-party sources" This is precisely what reviews are. If you take all the "in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable third-party sources" and lump it into a big "invalid" category, then of course you won't find any. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a truism to say that "<place concept here> does not confer notability". The word "confer" means "bestow", and notability is not bestowed. Unscintillating (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass WP:VG/RS and WP:GNG in my opinion, much more could be written in reception as that is an important part of notability when it comes to computer games. Govvy (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Meets the GNG. No policy or guideline was cited as a reason to delete. Seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is this eligible for speedy keep? Giant Snowman 19:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Critical reviews in gaming sites have traditionally been sufficient to meet WP:N and there has been several AFD's where a video game article has been kept due to reviews from notable gaming sites. That said there is work that needs to be done, the reception section needs to integrate what was said in the reviews instead of simply being a list of the reviews.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Reviews given and magazine sources. I'd recommend Bolyn following through on WP:BEFORE and/or looking up on what are considered reliable sources for video game articles, as there have been a number of these I've seen now that have the sources to be kept... Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All references are reliable per WP:VG/S. Zappa O Mati 23:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. The reviews make the videogame notable. Jucchan (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep As per above. Unscintillating (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep - nominator withdrew. (non-admin closure) St Anselm (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Emsley[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 15. Snotbot t • c » 17:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added various references to the article. The one that I think is of most relevance here is the 2009 "Laudatio for Professor Clive Emsley": "one of the foremost exponents of criminal justice history. (...) intellectual leadership (...) unique role in developing the field of criminal justice history research worldwide (...) all groundbreaking, and many still standard works in the field". AllyD (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the foremost British experts on criminal and policing history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spedy Keep. Notable as author, at least. Reviews in Guardian, Telegraph and History Today]. Extensively cited. Mcewan (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the above. The sources brought forward by Mcewan would be sufficient on their own. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination Thanks to AllyD for the improvements, and to all who commented. Boleyn (talk) 22:06, 16 January 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 Theodore Roosevelt High School (San Antonio). (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Design and Technology Academy[edit]

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

Unreferenced article, tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Theodore Roosevelt High School (San Antonio) of which this is a magnet program. TerriersFan (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. This exists, and it gets some coverage, but there's no reason for this little two-paragraph stub to be its own article, when it fits naturally and completely within another article, and that isn't offset by any overwhelming notability here. Courcelles 02:03, 22 January 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 Billy Meier. MBisanz ^talk 00:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talmud Jmmanuel[edit]

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

It says something about the obscurity of this hoax by UFOlogist Billy Meier that the best source I could find about it was in the preface of a woo-woo self-published commentary on the Book of Enoch (see [11]). There's a very brief, fugitive reference in a scholarly work on "visitors from another world" religion, but by and large the references to this are from other books in its milieu. Perhaps there's room for a brief mention in Meier's article but I question at this point how we would source it; his article is way too long as it is. Mangoe (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Billy Meier. Billy Meier's claims have some following within the UFO and New Age communities, so "Talmud Jmmanuel" is a somewhat frequently used search term (the article was viewed 2305 times in December 2012). However, my searches did not uncover the sort of WP:RS required to justify its existence as a separate article. --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete and redirect to author - unless there is some reason for a non-sourced article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merged material still needs sourcing, and I agree that Meier's article is sufficiently long. No RS, no article. All the best, Miniapolis 00:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. Low notability; sources are not adequate to build neutral content. bobrayner (talk) 15:46, 16 January 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. Tone 21:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Medical Operating System[edit]

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

Article on a non-notable software with no references to support its notability. A quick google search also fails to verify the existence of the operating system let alone its significance. Propose speedy if applicable. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 15:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable software project. Hairhorn (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as not notable. GregJackP Boomer! 03:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources, no indication of notability; created by an SPA as likely spam/promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:28, 17 January 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. Per consensus based on notability for schools as chronicled in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES ('Outcomes' itself is neither am essay, a guideine, nor a policy). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A. J. C. Jooste High School[edit]

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

IMO this fails the basic notability guideline on Significant coverage and Sources requirement. A google search just generates a name and address listing across multiple websites, nothing useful that can fill out this article Gbawden (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the usual reasons. Verified secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Tidbits I've picked up around the web indicate that this is an Afrikaans-language school (thus, there may not be a lot of content about it in English) and a boarding school, largely enrolling rural children from a large area. In particular, see the Facebook page and this Lions Club newsletter (page 3). It may be a "combined school", enrolling children of all ages (not just high school). --Orlady (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As an Afrikaans-language school it is not realistic to expect Google hits in English. We must strive to avoid systemic bias and, as with all high schools, experience shows that with enough local research sources will be found to meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It may be a verified secondary school but the Wikipedia requirement for notability is to have reliable sources. Facebook is not a reliable source and granted it may be an Afrikaans medium school but until such time reliable sources become available its not notable. There is no blanket notability for schools or any other subject on Wikipedia Gbawden (talk) 06:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually the school is either notable or not notable; the current lack of sources means that notability has not yet been demonstrated; entirely different. Experience shows that with enough local research high schools invariably can be made to meet WP:ORG. However, though we delete subjects that are not likely to be notable for lack of sources we don't delete those that are likely to be notable; we tag for improvement - this is the way we develop the encyclopaedia. In any case, trying to get a potentially notable new article, without evidence of e.g. searches in Afrikaans, the day after creation, is not good practice. TerriersFan (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete; it seems like a bog standard secondary school. Keep if notability can be established through being a public school (in the proper sense, HMC membership or similar) or a significant number of independently notable old boys and girls. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. EricSerge (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Almost all secondary schools can be found to be notable if enough research is done. I see no reason to think that this will not be true of this school. Considering that this is an Afrikaans-language school unlikely to have extensive coverage in English, those of us who work primarily in English may have difficulty finding sources on this school. --Orlady (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 02:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rohrbach an der Lafnitz[edit]

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

This Article Has No Content, and has not been modified in over 15 days. If the article had more than one sentance, this would not be a problem Rileychilds (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as stub unless someone demonstrates that this isn't a real place. Mangoe (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nomination does not state a valid basis for deletion. The article does have content (including not only the brief but informative text but also an infobox and a source) and it is about a municipality in Austria, a type of article that is invariably kept. Note that the German article about this community at de:Rohrbach an der Lafnitz has more information. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A valid stub article waiting to be expanded. Populated places are usually considered inherently notable and this one demonstrably exists[12]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As stated in Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), "legally recognized, populated places" are inherently notable. The official website of this settlement is in the infobox. The fact the article is a tiny stub is unimportant as regards notability. It (and all too many others) should be expanded, not discussed as a deletion candidate. Note also the many interwikis, and the wealth of material available for expansion at de:Rohrbach an der Lafnitz. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously and a WP:TROUT to the nom for failure to understand our policies or to read and adhere to WP:BEFORE. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:22, 18 January 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 2013 in UFC#UFC on Fox: Henderson vs. Melendez. Looks like it has already been merged in enough detail. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on Fox 7[edit]

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

Event not officially announced, doesn't even have a title, little or no prose, should go in 2013 in UFC instead once official announced Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought I would do this, but I'm submitting this article for deletion. I first considered a merge request to 2013 in UFC but the article doesn't even quality for that page because it is not officially announced to happen. So the article fails WP:CRYSTAL. Even it was officially announced, an event article with that little prose should go in an omnibus article, at least until there is more information. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ - Fails WP:CRYSTAL. No objection if it is recreated after card is offcially announced. --LlamaAl (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Basically per nom, once there is reliable information about the event, that information should go into 2013 in UFC, but right now, there's just speculation about an unannounced event that fails WP:CRYSTAL. CaSJer (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This should be redirected to the 2013 in UFC page, the information is already there and I feel like there's enough there to warrant the spot in the omnibus. Later on down the line when the event is closer and more detailed a standalone article would make sense if the card keeps the announced matchups, but for now it's not ready for that. THEDeadlySins (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2013 in UFC. Event is 3 months away and could change. Byuusetsu (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is officially announced now, see http://www.ufc.com/event/FOX7. The event should probably be called UFC on Fox: Henderson vs. Melendez to match other event titles on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oskar Liljeblad (talk • contribs) 08:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge into 2013 in UFC per above. The most critical preliminary information (date, venue, main-event) have all been officially confirmed by the UFC, as has the co-main, and are being advertised on the UFC's website, but there's still a lot that can happen between now and then. It can be split off later if developed appropriately and clear guidelines for MMA event articles ever happen to materialize. Beansy (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge into 2013 in UFC now that the event has been officially announced. CaSJer (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge into 2013 in UFC. --LlamaAl (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is UFC on Fox: Henderson vs. Melendez now. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge into 2013 in UFC. Kevlar (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge — into 2013 in UFC. Someone could WP:SNOW close this discussion. Poison Whiskey 01:07, 19 January 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 World in Motion . MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Screeming Custard![edit]

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

This band appears to fail WP:N and WP:BAND. Extensive source searching on Google News archive and Google Books is not providing coverage in reliable sources. There is one source in the article that contains a quote, but this appears to be a passing mention. Per the article, the band released two EPs, but they were self-released, sans an important indie record label. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"They released two Eps on their own Pauls Mums Front Room Records and a couple of flexi discs given away with fanzines" - that's pretty much a declaration of non-notability so delete -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ No evidence of notability on Google, Google Books, ProQuest, Nexis UK, Gale NewsVault. At the time they may have got a few mentions in fanzines and maybe a brief appearance in one of the weekly music magazines, but none of that content is searchable - unless someone in the band has actual press clippings we can't do anything but conclude it's non-notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like these? --Michig (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really what I would call significant coverage myself. Getting minor press coverage in the Melody Maker isn't really significant compared to, say, getting a single reviewed in it, and several of those clippings are merely trivia or one line mentions. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the referencing isn't good, but there might be enough there. I'll have a proper look later. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article's crap, but that isn't a reason to delete it when it can obviously be improved. There are articles/interviews from Melody Maker, Music Week and The One, an article from NME, live reviews from Sounds (2), NME (2), Melody Maker (5), single reviews from Melody Maker, Sounds (2), and Music Week. That's plenty. --Michig (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ for the same reasons as Colapeninsula said. Aside from the Sounds Magazine quote in the article, and a one-liner in a book search, all other hits are unreliable. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there's enough coverage from enough different sources to support an article. --Michig (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a merge / redirect to World in Motion (which is what they seem to be most notable for) might be a suitable compromise? --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete No sources in article like it is now. Only one editor doesn't even explain who Paul is. MarioNovi (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment While there may be enough sources to establish notability, this is still disputed at the moment. Normally, confirmation of the existence of suitable sources would be enough, but editors remain unconvinced. Because the news clippings are hosted on a SELFPUBLISHed site as images, personally I think that at least some of them could do with being included as refs within the article for good measure. I've done this sort of thing myself with articles in the past, but don't have the time to investigate/do it now, hence the relist. -- Trevj (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Trevj (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On the basis that this needs a complete rewrite, which I plan to do from scratch, I have no objection to this being deleted. --Michig (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons already stated.Hoponpop69 (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is to keep, regardless of the nominator's behaviour throughout this discussion (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased Britney Spears songs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously nominated for deletion which resulted in no consensus as it had FL status at the time. The list was recently removed from FL status as consensus found that various of these "sources" were dead links (failed WP:V) and WP:SYNTH violations through the suggestion that the songs were actually recorded. Without venturing into the history of the article any further, this list is a violation of WP:NOT#INFO and the items in the article are WP:ROUTINE coverage of songs that were leaked over time, with no substantial and lasting notability that would warrant an article for this kind of topic to exist. Till 13:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Much of the information is sourced to a variety of reliable sources. (I'm less keen on the inclusion of songs that are only sourced to publishers, because that doesn't really show anything, and doesn't count as a reliable source, but an article doesn't get deleted just because a portion is problematic.) The info could exist happily on the main page of an artist with a shorter career. Entries here do not need to be notable recordings, they only need to be a part of Spears's career which is verifiable. Information about what songs she was given or wasn't given, songs she turned down, songs she recorded that weren't deemed releasable, and who subsequently recorded them, offers useful information for understanding the progress of her career and her changing musical style. If writers, editors, publishers, and readers all believe Spears's career is important, then we can cover it - it's not WP's business to tell people "this is trivia, read something else". --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But it is Wikipedia's business to enforce policy, regardless of whether this article is WP:USEFUL for understanding her career. This article consists of various dead links that fail WP:V, copyright violations that violate WP:CV and WP:ROUTINE coverage of songs that leaked over time, nothing of substantial signifiance. Wikipedia does not and should not document each unreleased song of an artist that was leaked or in this case listed on a songwriting website. Till 02:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per Colapeninsula. (A list of unreleased Britney Spears songs is hardly indiscriminate.) Oculi (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per precedent and failure of references to establish that this is actually a list of unreleased Britney Spears songs and fails both WP:LINKVIO and WP:SYNTH.

Links to AfD discussions :-

List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs (2nd nomination)

List of unreleased songs by Nicole Scherzinger

List of unreleased Brandy Norwood songs

List of unreleased Rihanna songs

List of unreleased Spice Girls songs

List of unreleased Lady Gaga songs

List of unreleased Usher songs

List of unreleased Coldplay songs

List of unreleased Kylie Minogue songs

List of Mariah Carey b-sides, bonus tracks, and unreleased songs (2nd nomination)

List of Ace of Base unreleased songs

List of Christina Aguilera B-sides and unreleased songs (2nd nomination)

Unreleased Van Halen projects

List of unreleased Cher songs

List of unreleased Sissel Kyrkjebø songs

Bon Jovi outtakes

There's probably more but how much precedent do I need to find?

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of unreleased Britney Spears songs/archive1 where I wrote and now repeat :It's impossible to prove a negative, but for an example of an incorrect listing, if you search "Bob Dylan" under performer at ASCAP, there is an entry for Endless Highway, because it was performed by The Band on the joint album Before the Flood. As far as I am aware there is no Dylan performance, recorded or live.

With regard to registering a song, you will will see what is required at ASCAP - you will note that no proof of information is required.

I did start running through the references and here are my notes to where I got to:

1. US Copyright office. Does not confer the title “unreleased song” on any piece of work. Only that there is material that Spears or her advisers thinks might have a copyright. (it might be a poem or a lyric, therefore not an “unreleased song.”

2. Ditto. BMI/ASCAP. Only confirms that there is a song which the Britney Spears people think that performance royalties might be due. Again does not confer the concept of “unreleased recording” but of "performance." It should be noted that these two organizations collect songwriter royalties for the performance of the song - NOT the recording of the song (important distinction).

3. MTV Buzzworthy. MTV Networks. This site has links through to YouTube which has the 3 unreleased songs available. If the song has not been released by Spears/Record company then it is not legal, it is WP:LINKVIO.

4. The Sun. Asks the question, “Is Britney singing?” This does not make this an “unreleased recording.” It makes it a “possible” unreleased recording. Again there a soundfile which, if uploaded without permission (irrespective of who copyright owner is) is LINKVIO.

5. MuuMuse.com has inbedded links to SoundCloud - although the file is no longer available. There is also 10 lines of lyrics for “Everyday” which could/is interpreted over and above fair use.

6. Vulture/New York Magazine. Again inbedded links to mp3 files – although no longer available.

7. Hip Online. Confirms that BS and the Neptunes worked on an unreleased unnamed ballad, No mention of song title.

8. USA Today. OK.

9. Billboard. Another “leaked track with embedded link to unauthorised YouTube.

10. Animation World Network refers to an advert called “Can Caper” NOT a song however.

--Richhoncho (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Some unreleased songs from artists may not be notable, but her's clearly are. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This !vote doesn't hold any weight at all. I could easily go to the Afd of a business-related article, and say "Some companies may not be notable, but this one clearly is". They are WP:ROUTINE coverage and copyright violations as pointed out above. Till 02:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The evidence is in the article. I don't have to bother arguing about it, as it's quite obviously present. If someone can't see it, they just can't see it. No sense in arguing with somebody who isn't gonna understand no matter how many times they have been told. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 15:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually you do have to argue about it, that is how consensus is established. Afd is not a headcount. Your ignorance towards the quality of the sources does not help your argument either. No offense, but like the majority of your !votes at Afd, they really don't hold any weight. Till 01:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Not again please.~~ I see that this topic is indeed notable, per WP:LISTN. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not again what? The deletion process began days ago, and any user is permitted to relist a discussion that was closed as "No consensus". Till 02:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was a sarcastic comment :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 15:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid grounds advanced for deletion. That some artists' unreleased songs are not notable hardly shows that all of them are; that some of the article sources may be inadequate cannot show that all of them are. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several leaks received media coverage and the article has enough reliable information to pass WP:GNG, similar to List of unreleased Michael Jackson songs and List of unreleased Madonna songs. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 02:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Policy. I understand others may still want to keep this list and that is their right. However, it is still my contention above that 9 out 10 references do not establish that these are unreleased songs, and, more importantly, not all the references adhere to WP policy. If anybody wants to keep the list, then it is up to them to ensure the list adheres to WP policy at the minimum and/or rebuts my claims.

Furthermore, my view is that "unreleased" is meaningless, if BS sings a song in her kitchen while a child's recording, is that now "unreleased?" - what does "unreleased?" mean? It could mean any song (whether recorded/sung or even heard by BS or not!) that has not been officially released. How meaningful an article is that?

I cannot for the life of me see the validity of a list of unreleased songs if there is no List of songs recorded by Britney Spears. If such a list existed. then, subject to my comments in my original post, parts of this should be merged there and the quality of the BS articles rises, not decreases.

Earlier this month I put merge tags on the "unreleased" articles that also had a "list of songs recorded by." One of those has been now merged by another editor. If the nominator hadn't pre-empted me I would listed all the remaining "unreleased" articles in a bundle at AfD at some time in the future. Not many remain now, most have already gone because the fanbase has moved on.

--Richhoncho (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to point out that the question isn't if the artist is notable, it is if the content belongs or not in an encyclopedia. Anyway all artists, in my opinion, should be considered notable, because even if Britney clearly is wherever you live, in China or Japan for example most people don't give a shit about her. In contrast, they have their own Chinese and Japanese artists that you don't know. So I vote for covering every artist that a reasonable number of people has heard of. And no, I don't like Britney Spears. I think she sucks.187.65.148.179 (talk) 15:28, 13 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted per request on my talk page, previously closed as "keep" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a good close. I'm confident that you'll be back in a few days to perform such action again. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 15:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is how ASCAP links can now be formatted. Look how easy that is! I'll try to get them all like that on the weekend, so that won't be a problem anymore. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Status, yes, I know that the ASCAP links can be reformated and I have no objection to anybody trying improving the article. My question is, How does ASCAP confirm there is an "unreleased song?" still remains unaswered. As you think it does, can you explain how I have got it wrong? Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of the songs that are just sourced from ASCAP, for example, should be removed. As you are right, that doesn't provide that evidence. But, a lot of her unreleased songs have received coverage from third-party media sources. From the amount of them, I feel as if that shows that her unreleased songs have an amount of notability. I will work this weekend on fixing the links and personally going through them to see which ones can really be sourced properly. I will also see if I can find any additional sources for some of them (and remove that hideous Leak date section, who added that?). I was going to go through the list sooner, but I've been pretty busy. I wish I would have been able to get to it before it was delisted from FL status, but I can understand why it was. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy reclose with original outcome. The original close was perfectly correct, and Till is acting like an uncivil ~~lout~~ [13] who accuses anyone who disagrees with him of ignoring policy, just wasting community time and patience. Hectoring, badgering, and general undercompetence should not be indulged ad nauseam. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stroke out "lout", as it has several different meanings, and people can take it different ways. (To me, it means an aggressive person). — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- No one is going to close this early as various issues with the article have been left unaddressed. Afd is not a headcount, and it's not as if the majority of these "keep" comments hold much weight regardless. Till 05:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just wanted to note that is is an AFD nomination, not a GA or FLC review, to state that "concerns" have been unaddressed. If the topic is notable, then the article is kept, regardless of its current state. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is partially true, however, I have brought up the issue of WP:LINKVIO and it is every editors duty to ensure such links are removed. I can't see how anybody can close this AfD with the matter being unresolved - Whether this is by proving I am wrong or removing those links is another matter. To go on as if the matter had not be raised and not been dealt with is not in the spirit of WP. It really isn't about who agrees with who, but improving WP and ensuring its legal obligations are met. I'd happily be wrong every time if it improved WP. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The WP:LINKVIO concerns don't belong to AFD. They are very problematic and this needs to be solved, but AFD is about notability. If the topic is notable, then it can stay. Which sources we can and cannot use is a matter of editorial discussion that can't (and may never) affect the notability of a topic; it affects the article's quality (it was delisted because of that). — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        These concerns absolutely belong in this discussion. Afd is not only about the notability of topics, per WP:Deletion. Till 01:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Just another red herring. The source can be cited without linking to it, of course, and the fact that a page may contain a copyvio doesn't mean its content can't provide verifying information. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        WP:DEL-REASON contains all the reasons to why an article should be deleted. I personally believe it shouldn't, but I won't die if this is eventually deleted. I see that the Linkvio issue is not enough to warrant the deletion of any article in general, unless all sources available to showcase the notability of the topic fall under Linkvio. It is, again, just my personal perspective of the situation; I have no personal feelings for any of these "unreleased songs" lists. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hahc for that, I copy below from WP:DEL-REASON, the highlighting is mine.

Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):

Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion
Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria

Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation is not the same as Linkvio: Copyvio relates to how the article is written (plagiarism and close paraphrasing), while Linkvio relates to how the sources include content that has not the necessary permission from their original owners. The first one (copyvio) is a clear reason for deletion while the latter (linkvio) is not. DEL-REASON highlights the first one, but ommits the second. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still a red herring! That a page cannot be linked to over copyright issues does not mean its contents don't support verifiability or demonstrate notability, or that the entire article must be deleted rather than cleaned up. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure what in the article is a copyright violation, can you specify? — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here what some of WP:COPYVIO says, please refer to my list of comments about the references above for context. However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that we are discussing sources means that the items of the topic are notable, which is enough to meet the correspondent notability guideline for lists: WP:LISTN. Which sources should we use to avoid WP:LINKVIO is another issue, but it cannot be used as an ad hominem argument to state that the topic is not notable because the sources in the article are copyright violations. We have yet still to prove that all possible sources are copyvios, but I should be correct by stating that this is not the case. Also, because this is a list, WP:ROUTINE cannot be applied here. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point entirely, I trust not deliberately. However, every editor is duty bound to remove any Linkvio. If this is done, then it is no longer a referenced article. Assuming goodwill I am trying to discuss here and not actually massacre the article. Very difficult when I am dealing with editors who appear not to care what can happen to Wikipedia.Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns and removing linkvios is totally acceptable and a good course of action. My point is that linkvio does not deminish the notability of the topic; sources can be replaced, and we can keep only the "unreleased" songs that has been covered without the possible linkvio issue. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then please remove the linkvios as you know you should. I won't because I wish to avoid the accusation of vandalism. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I won't remove anything because I have no personal interest in this article. I just voiced my personal opinions and that's all I am willing to do. It is the responsibility of the creator or constant contributor of the list to do such things. Of course, anyone else can do it too. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will you ever stop nattering on about this, or whining that it's everybody's duty but yours to fix things? LINKVIO prohibits direct linking to copyright violations ("do not link to that copy of the work". It does not prohibit linking to sites that may link to or host copyright violations, or citing them as references without links. If your ersatz interpretation was correct, we'd have to remove all links to flickr and Commons. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am keeping on about it, because up to your post, everybody has ignored me and not try to rebut me (even though I made it clear that my interpretation may be wrong), therefore this isn't a discussion but a bunch of "keeps" irrespective of any policy, guideline or other. I can only assume I am dealing with a bunch of POV-pushing BS fans. The relevant words, which are clear and you say are wrong are, However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Commons is not relevant and I have no idea about Flickr. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, differently from other similar lists (such as the exemples posted by Richhoncho) this one appears to be decently sourced. Cavarrone (talk) 08:10, 18 January 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) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iloilo Business Park[edit]

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

Delete, coverage is from connected sites and the two sources I see from outside media looks to be routine and thus fails GNG Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iloilo Business Park (Place) exists....no need for deletion...I'll try to find more media sources or websites that could support the article - cpparreno

Please note that the fact that something exists does not make it inherently notable. My backyard exists, but does not deserve an entry. PianoDan (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequate secondary sources. PianoDan (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can see coverage from reliable sources like no less than The Philippine Star. That's enough for me. Some cleanup and expansion to the article could be appreciated, however. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As someone who worked on the predecessor articles for this article (that being Mandurriao Airport, where the business park is located, and the Iloilo International Airport that succeeded it), I can say that there are enough secondary sources for this to pass GNG muster. The article needs to be cleaned up though. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 7 References to support article, 6/7 of which are reliable media sources. More clean up of the article to follow - cpparreno 11:47 AM 16 January 2013 (GMT +8:00) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpparreno (talk • contribs) 03:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added an external link : http://www.megaworldcorp.com/Projects/Office.aspx - official website of the Megaworld Corp (developer) of Iloilo Business Park - Cpparreno (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:50, 16 January 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 00:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bhangu farm[edit]

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

Unsourced and with no indication of WP:notability. Google searches find nothing significant - most of them appear to have been created by the creator of this article. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails the notability criteria for farms... הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 20:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2012 (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) 01:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Populated place. Also this is a village, not just a farm.--Auric 08:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you have any references to confirm this? There are currently no references in the article. noq (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going by the article text "a rural village area" and "established in the year 1949". Other than a copy in WikiMapia [14], everything else seems to be SP. There may be several places known by this name. See [15], [16], [17], [18] and [19]. I'm confused.--Auric 12:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we cannot have an article on a topic unless it has coverage in at least one third-party reliable source per WP:V. The article does not cite any such sources and I haven't been able to find any. Indeed apart from Facebook and Wikimapia, the only mention of the article title I can find at all is [20], which is evidently referring to something else ("Bhangu Farm House" is located in Punjab, whereas the subject of this article is in Uttar Pradesh). Hut 8.5 12:23, 4 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 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) 10:16, 15 January 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. Tone 21:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaatrai Konjum[edit]

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

Delete: No source given. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP need not have articles on all movies. How do we know that this one will be notable, given that shooting itself did not start when this article was added? WP is not a place to announce future movies.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Imaginative film; probably a hoax. The creator's user page reveals that they are highly imaginative. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 04:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Imagination aside, that user's page is set up to appear as a WP:FAKEARTICLE... an issue that itself needs to be addressed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete under WP:NOT YET (films) I'm not quite willing to call this a hoax, as there do appear to be Tamil language sources found when searching in that language.... but being unable to translate, I am unable to determine source content. This may well be an issue for WP:CSB. If someone can translate, I would be most appreciative. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes, it's a hoax. Schmidt, I believe you searched for "தில்லாலங்கடி", however that is not the transliteration of Kaatrai Konjum but of Thillalangadi. No, there is no such film in making. There are no sources anyway. Johannes003 (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I'm glad to stick with a delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's unsourced and also looks like a hoax. Torreslfchero (talk) 13:35, 18 January 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 WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ponnambalamedu[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability - the one source is from blogspot - and not mentioned in either of the articles about the phenomenon or the temple to which it links. Possibly Original Research. DePRODded by original editor without comment, though adding the blogspot ref. PamD 09:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A preliminary google search indicates that the place does exist and the religious event mentioned in the article seems to be conducted there. So, OR may not apply here. From personal experience, I know that the place exists and "locally, the most important religious event" happens there. I know my personal knowledge is useless here. The only question is if the place is sufficiently covered in reliable sources. I'll try to dig up sources if any, if I find time. Suraj T 09:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suraj, you seem to have added a RS; apparently this is the name of a mountain, (the source calls it a "summit"--is "mountain" the correct interpretation?) and all mountains are notable if they can be verified. It would be good to have some additional geographic information.
I note the editor responsible for this article has been trying to achieve a personal goal of having written 100 articles by adding multiple unsourced articles, or articles sourced only to the subjects' websites. They've been warned many times; I've just given a final warning, and I will block if it continues. There is no reason why we should have to deal with this sort of editing. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's a hill. And it's 1170m above mean sea level. Uncle G (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some material to the article with sources. The topic itself seems notable to me (though I have recused myself from voting, pending further digging for sources). To an outside observer, as in the case of the nom PamD, the initial state of the article and google searches will not have given a hint of notability, as the topic is bogged down by blogs and spammy stuff. The sources I added might help further expansion with specific keyword searches.

@DGG, It is actually a hill, as pointed out by Uncle G. I have been searching for geographical info, but I've not come across any yet. Will add if I find any RS.

@Uncle G, can u give me a link to the source of the altitude of the hill? I didnt come across the height inspite of specific keyword searches.

Edit: Nevermind, got what I was looking for, and included it in the article.Suraj T 10:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination: after Surajt88's splendid work this article bears no relation to the dubious blog-sourced stub which I nominated for deletion. Thank you for your work! PamD 14:02, 16 January 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 00:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Expiration[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every song is not notable. No sources say this one is. Borock (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stub with a track list and one reference that states that you can buy it. Fails WP:NSONG. --Ben Ben (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry, no evidence of notability -- not all songs are notable, even if the band is notable -- see WP:NOTINHERITED. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 23 January 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) Mediran (t • c) 10:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abctales[edit]

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

I'd love to include this. On the evidence, I do not se how we can do so. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be a number of secondary references for this web site:

news article from The Argus
news article from Spiegel online (German)
paragraph at booktrade.info
short article at The Telegraph (UK)
para graph in the book Book Lovers: The Good Web Guide
short paragraph in The Writer's Digest Guide To Query Letters
mention in Lonely Planet Guide to Travel Writing

Given all the reliable secondary sources, with entries 1, 2, and possibly 4 qualifying for indepth, I would say they this web site is already notable. Mark viking (talk) 05:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added some of those references to the article. Enough coverage in reliable sources to be notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:28, 16 January 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. Consensus is to delete (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of scream queens[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Original research. The sources given are unreliable and do not show relevance for inclusion (and hardly any would possibly be found). Musdan77 (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All except one of the items are sourced from IMDB, which is not considered a reliable source. I would also suspect that most of the entries just report that the actress in question appeared in some movie. It's up to (somebody) to deduce that the movie is a horror movie and the actress is the leading lady in danger, and add them together to say she's a scream queen. There's already an article on scream queen. There could be a link there to some kind of fan site on the topic. Borock (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
UNDECIDED!!!, leaning toward delete (to the accompaniment of screeching violins). I can scare up a few references,[21][22][23] but for now, these could fit in Scream queen. If someone more diligent (or interested) could find some more, I'd say it would be enough for a standalone list. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm finding some sources, but most of these offhand refer to them in general as scream queens. Some only have one reference to them being a "scream queen", occasionally with them saying that they don't see themselves as a scream queen. It's easy to say that someone like Adrienne Barbeau is a scream queen, as there are tons of sources referring to her as such. We can even call Beckinsale a SQ as she won an award titled that. But then we have people like Andrea Bogart that have only been called a scream queen in passing and never really on a regular basis. I do think there's merit in a list of scream queens, but I think that we need to elaborate what exactly makes them a scream queen. It's always been my understanding that merely being in horror movies does not make you a scream queen. Being a recognized face does, whether it's for a good or bad performance. This list seems a little too subjective, saying that repeated or visible (but to whom?) roles makes one a scream queen. I'll source what I can, but afterwards we need to trim the list down. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I've said this, but I'm also removing anyone that I've seen that specifically has no RS that specifically refer to them as a "scream queen". So far my only rule for inclusion in the list while I'm looking for sources is that they have to have been called a "scream queen" at some point in time. Even the article for scream queens says that you have to be more than just an attractive actress in horror movies, so I'm thinking that asking for an actress to have at least one RS that refers to them as a scream queen in some aspect (as opposed to someone who is just associated with horror films) isn't really that much to impose as a requirement for this article.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My concern about a citerion that requires a particular term to have been attached to members of a list - such as scream queen in this case - is that it tends to be culture specific (and often fixed in time as well), whilst the article is supposed to be about a category of actor with much wider applicability. This list seems not to include Hammer Films actresses, those who appeared in other European horror films (of which there are a great many), Japanese and Korean actresses and so on. Yet some of them will be more notable for participation in horror films than some of those currently included. --AJHingston (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really good point. The term is so incredibly loosely given and applied that part of the issue of this list is that we'd pretty much have to define what a scream queen is, what the limits are, and whether or not it's a title that expires once the actress in question no longer stars in horror movies or in movies at all. Even if the list were to state that it encompasses actresses once referred to as scream queens, there is a big argument to be had as to whether or not a brief reference in an article or book counts. If we count actresses that have never or infrequently been called "scream queens", then where do we really limit the list? At one point the list listed Mila Kunis because she was in four films that might be considered horror movies. Piranha and American Psycho 2? Sure, I can count those as horror movies. Boot Camp and Black Swan? Eh, not so much. Those aren't really the types of film roles that are considered to be "scream queen" type roles, especially not Black Swan. I guess my vote might be delete after all since the definition of what makes a scream queen a scream queen is so subjective to one's personal perceptions and culture. I know that there are big debates on whether or not half of the people on the list that have been titled as scream queens would even be counted as such when you consider how specific the term used to be.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:35, 15 January 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) Mediran (t • c) 10:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia–Mauritius relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. this article relies on a primary source with vague details as "Cooperation between the two countries ranges from cultural exchanges, to trade in goods, financial assistances, capacity building in various sectors.". keep votes should show actual evidence of third party coverage and not simply say bilateral relations are notable. LibStar (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The overall topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources and passes Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Source examples include (but are not limited to): [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – if the article has only one reference is not a good reason to delete it. Also if it is too vague, it can be expanded. [32] [33].Kingroyos (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - they're both primary sources. and a one hour meeting is hardly adding to notability. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The two countries have no special relations that make this article more than WP:ROUTINE. Howicus (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hello Howicus: what's your personal criteria for "special relations," as opposed to other types of relations?" Please consider providing further rationale, as it is possible that the closer of this discussion may otherwise not provide much weight to your !vote, because it's somewhat ambiguous. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that special relations have to be more than just trade for a separate article to be merited. Every country trades with the other countries in their areas. To merit an article, there has to be something exceptional about the relations, such as a treaty, or disaster relief, or some international incident. Incidentally, this discussion and others like it are making me think that it might be a good idea to develop a firm consensus on notability of bilateral relations. Howicus (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing your perspective. Just so you know, it is appreciated. Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I looked at the first few of NorthAmerica's refs, and they satisfy GNG IMO. --99of9 (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. 99of9 (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Northamerica1000. Yup, there's many sources from google news if you try to find it. Plus, this article are still young and need more attention from other editors to expand it. — иz нίpнόp^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 19:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:51, 16 January 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. Tone 21:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Wood Productions[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources provided are a combination of user-generated content, social media (Facebook, etc) and the company's own website. No third-party media coverage to establish WP:CORPDEPTH to be found. Company has not produced or contributed to the production of any notable works. Created by a sock-puppeteer dedicated to promoting the subject. Stalwart111 03:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article with this title was deleted on 3 January (2nd nomination) and this article was created in its place. CSD was declined because the article creator argued that this was a different subject. Without being able to see the previous version, this is difficult to qualify. Regardless, this subject (new or not) would seem to also fail notability guidelines. Stalwart111 03:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - could we have the history of the previous article restored to see if it's G4-worthy? Lukeno94 (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was sent here from DRV because the G4 deletion was (possibly) not appropriate.[34] Thincat (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but AllisonID is one of the sockpuppeters, and she was the only one who called for the undelete. Of course, I'm sure the admin looked at the deleted history. Anyway, this should be Deleted as it fails WP:GNG due to the lack of in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we should simply discuss the article on its current merits, such as they may be. Thincat (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I didn't see it at DRV. I was involved with the other DRV for that day so never paid any attention to the one for this article. I brought this here after the SPI relating to the article creator and after noticing the previous AFD. But I'm glad it has all come together. Would be good to have a history restoration for the edits pre-deletions. If it gets deleted again, I think we should ask for the title to be salted. Stalwart111 11:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The independent sources are inadequate (and my own search has not turned up anything more). However, if User:Luisa Pisani (after she has been unblocked) or anyone else, wants the article userifying, I don't see why not. Thincat (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, LP has now been indef'd per NLT so... But, yeah, if someone else wants it in their userspace. Stalwart111 12:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no coverage outside IMDb, and the one TV special and 3 Russian films there are not enough for notability. Mcewan (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP, no evidence of the required significant coverage in reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 16:00, 21 January 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. This is a horrid article, and the topic itself reads more of WP:HOWTO and full of WP:OR, and belongs more in a dictionary of economic concepts than of a notable encyclopedic topic. Realistically, this should be merged somewhere, but as a minimum there us currently no consensus to delete it at this time (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tax choice[edit]

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

No sources have been provided that the name is used, and very few of the sources can be verified to discuss the same topic. I would accept a merge somewhere, if relevance is established, once the quotes are removed or placed in footnotes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For outside editors...here's the context...competence vs good faith. Rubin, the very FIRST reference...Your Money, Your Choice...uses the term "tax choice". But the term itself isn't important because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Whether the term is "tax choice" or "individual earmarking" or "taxpayer sovereignty"...it's all the same concept. A concept which is notable enough to warrant its own entry. Again and again and again, your edits are extremely counterproductive, unhelpful and disruptive. Please stop editing outside your area of expertise. --Xerographica (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you provided some references, there is no evidence that the topic is notable. It's not mainstream economics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the first reference is an essay, rather than even a column. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "mainstream economics"...therefore...it should be deleted? --Xerographica (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can I strongly (impartially) suggest everyone holds off on the personal attacks. Suggesting someone is not qualified/expert enough to edit a particular article/subject area is specifically listed at WP:OWN as unacceptable behaviour linked to WP:NPA. I note warnings and blocks have been handed out only recently for the same. On the article itself, I personally would like to see less WP:OR (SYNTH) type content and more references that cover this term in particular. Bringing together similar refs/ideas and building an essay that tenuously links them is not enough to meet WP:N. We really need to demonstrate that this is a commonly used term to describe a recognised idea. Stalwart111 13:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So from your perspective...we should just ignore a lack of technical expertise? Do you know how I can readily identify a lack of technical expertise? It's when people focus on "terms" rather than concepts. As I mentioned, Wikipedia is not a dictionary...

Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history.

In his article at the Atlantic, Daniel Indiviglio did not once use the term "tax choice"...but he discussed the exact same concept that this Wikipedia entry is dedicated to. Same goes for Brittany Binowski's article over at Forbes, Jack C. Haldeman II's science fiction in ANALOG, Russell Baker's article in the Gainesville Sun, Nobel Laureate James M. Buchanan's book with a chapter on the subject and so on and so on. They are all talking about the SAME exact concept...but none of them used the term "tax choice". So I have absolutely no problem agreeing that perhaps the term itself isn't notable...but the concept itself is notable enough to warrant it's own entry. With that in mind, if you want to argue that the entry should be renamed to a more notable term...then I'd have no problem with that...because...again, the term itself isn't what's important here. --Xerographica (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained (on your talk page) the difference between policy and a user essay (an opinion), especially that essay which seems to have encouraged (in this instance) a breach of policy (WP:OWN and the related WP:NPA). You may still agree with that essay but that's not valid justification for launching personal attacks. Just avoid those sorts of comments and perhaps strike the one above - I'm sure we can all move on. All that aside, it doesn't really matter what the concept is called here, as long as it is reliably sourced. It's already quite WP:OR-ish and there are no inline citations so its not clear which refs relate to which parts. That's not a deal killer, but for an already abstract concept, it presents a problem. The problem is that for a subject you openly agree is called different things by different people, the concern is that there is some WP:SYNTH involved. Perhaps it would be worth trying to move those refs inline. That way other editors could make a proper judgement about whether the concept is sufficiently notable. Stalwart111 21:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And as I just explained on my talk page...it would be a violation of the Good Faith policy for anyone to assume that I was being a dick for being a dick's sake. I genuinely believe that Rubin and Rich are harming Wikipedia. If you truly want to make an informed decision on whether or not I'm delusional...then you're more than welcome to help edit the tax entry with Rubin and I. As it stands, I've shared a plethora of RS...and Rubin didn't bother to read them or provide any of his own. Yet, he will be the first to undo any edit that I make that is based on RS.

Regarding the tax choice entry...if editors want to make a truly proper judgement regarding the notability of the concept...then they'll do what I have done and make the effort to read through all the sources that I have provided. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If there's content on that entry that you doubt...then please just post your concerns on the talk page and I will be happy to provide you with the RS's. Then it would be up to you to decide whether it's worth your time/effort to create an inline citation for that source. I definitely agree that the entry could use a lot of work...but deleting it certainly won't improve it. --Xerographica (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the first bit on your talk page. I agree that deleting it won't fix it (obviously) and there's no requirement for you to do the fixing. But you seem keen on keeping it and part of WP:CONSENSUS is convincing other people your argument has merit - mine was just a suggestion on how that might be done. There's no doubt there are reliable sources, but I think the query is going to be whether or not they verify the content of the article in question without original research. Stalwart111 22:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"My" argument is really simple. It's all the reliable sources that establish that this concept is indeed notable enough to warrant its own entry. If there's OR...then throwing the baby out with the bath water doesn't seem like a very effective way of dealing with the problem. --Xerographica (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Comment It seems that there is a real topic here, even if "tax choice" may not be a common or best search term. There are a number of reliable sources in the references, some secondary from reliable publications. Conceptually, tax choice is a type of Participatory democracy and in particular a kind of Participatory budgeting. "Participatory budgeting" garners about 260K hits on Google with the top hits appearing to be on topic. Given this, it may make sense merge an abbreviated form of this article with the Participatory budgeting article. The article it self needs cleanup. Lengthy quotes are appropriate for a monograph, but not a concise encyclopedia article; they should be removed and replaced with short summaries and associated citations. The article prose is strongly pro-choice and needs a more neutral presentation. Mark viking (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a type of civic crowdfunding. Participatory budgeting has taxpayers pool their money...and then anybody can vote on how the pool should be split up. Taxpayers would still have a vanishingly small say with how their taxes are spent...therefore we would still have the problem of rational ignorance...and public goods would still be inefficiently allocated. Tax choice is the idea that people should have more of a say how their own taxes are spent in the public sector. In other words...taxpayers would be able to "shop" for themselves in the public sector. It's based on the demonstrated preference concept while participatory budgeting is based on the stated preference concept. Any help with the style problems you noted would be appreciated. --Xerographica (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification of the distinction between Tax choice and Participatory budgeting; my merge suggestion is not the best choice here and I have stricken it.

Expanding upon Stalwart's explanations, the reason some of us Wikipedia editors are hung up on the article title is this: encyclopedias like Wikipedia are deliberately unoriginal. If there is a connection between, e.g., Haldeman's story and Buchanan's public finance article, there has to be some verifiable evidence out there that this is true. This evidence comes in at least two forms: there might be reliable secondary sources such as review articles or news articles that make the connection, or the sources themselves may explicitly refer to the same topic and associated jargon. If "tax choice" is not mentioned in these references as a (topic/movement/branch of political economy/etc) and there are no reliable sources connecting the references, then that connection cannot be made as far as Wikipedia editors are concerned, even if obvious to a domain expert. Making such connections without any sources backing them up is original research (see WP:OR) and such content is ripe for deletion. Mark viking (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the concept is exactly the same. With our current system...you and I would go to a restaurant...you'd give me your money...and I would order for you. With a tax choice system...you'd go to the restaurant and order for yourself (See the entry that I created for Scroogenomics). Haldeman's story is talking about people ordering for themselves...and that's exactly what Buchanan talks about. The only difference is...Haldeman tells a story that anybody can understand while Buchanan tells a story that only economists can understand. But it's the same exact story. Well...no two stories are exactly the same but both address the same exact concept. Should you order for yourself...or should other people order for you? Tax choice explores the idea of ordering for yourself. But this "problem" of not understanding the connection between sources isn't solved by deleting this entry...it's solved by much discussion on the entry's talk page. The reason the entry is such a mess is because, honestly, I'm a terrible story teller. The worst. That's why I prefer quotes...that's why I LOVE quotes. But Wikipedia works because we can improve the story together...and it doesn't work when a notable concept is deleted because one editor has not shown any interest in actually working together to improve an entry (what concerns has Rubin posted on the talk page?). --Xerographica (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete - at this point, the article as written (aside from formatting problems and a pseudo-pop style) suffers from a combination of crippling failures: the lack of evidence that anybody but the author recognizes all of these as a single unified concept, making this term a non-notable neologism; and a heaping pile of original research and synthesis. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:10, 9 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of sources provided, just not formatted and styled as an encyclopedia article. Style and format shouldn't govern whether to keep the article. Even a stub with See Also section is preferred to deletion. --DHeyward (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An expandable stub is better than deletion. A list of (possibly) irrelevant quotes with (mostly) irrelevant "See also" entries, and (probably mostly) irrelevant "further reading" (not references), is not. OrangeMike gave the best argument for deletion; it would require a reliable source to connect all the quotes and "references" to the concept, and none is forthcoming, because of the excessive number of quotes and "references". A stub, with a few relevant quotes and references, connected by a single reliable source, might be appropriate. I would still question notability, but then, at least, there would be something there which was not a violation of Wikipedia principles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Well sorted and documented, although needs more common main links to demonstrate as an idealized theory concepts and business terms, however more input concepts on the article is needed, such as diagrams to show a useful choices a consumer makes to decided in their life and statistics, while it may be useful to merge with other section topics for business transactions budgeting, recycle management, or reform articles .--GoShow (............................) 19:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Found a few more reliable sources on the subject...

Listokin, Yair - ‘I Like to Pay Taxes’: Lessons of Philanthropy for Tax and Spending Policy 2012
Baker, Russell - Taxpayers' Choice The New York Times. 1990
LeBoutillier, John - Check Out This Check-Off Newsmax. 27 Mar 2001
Anderson, Lincoln - Velazquez: Funding war should be taxpayers’ choice The Villager. 2007
Yglesias, Matthew - Giving Taxpayers Choice Could Boost Satisfaction With Big Government And Boost Social Spending Think Progress. 19 April 2011
Jimerson, Jeff - Initiative helps boost taxpayers' 'choice' Walloa County Chieftain. 20 June 2012.
Severe, Kenneth - Give taxpayers choice of whether to raise salaries The News Tribune. 11 Jan 2009
Taxpayers’ Choice Debt Reduction Act
Opt Out of Iraq War Act of 2007

--Xerographica (talk) 06:03, 23 January 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 WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nortel products[edit]

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

A list without any sort of annotation that is already covered by the Nortel article. This is another one in the stable of problematic Nortel related pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep Although there is still an issue with an over-abundance of individual articles on every Nortel product, a list article on their overall product line is entirely reasonable. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I can see the possible value to those maintaining or reading such articles --No unique names 04:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the list of products within the Nortel article is a bit unwieldy in the middle of the prose; it would be better to spin it out and merge it into the "List of Nortel products" article. isaacl (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Nortel is notable, and it is, then a list of its notable products is also appropriate as a list article. The linking to individual articles means "annotation" is not a requirement. Thincat (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons expressed by Thincat. Nortel and its products are notable given their prominent role in telecommunications infrastructure. - Mr X 02:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clear out the list from Nortel otherwise redirect this to that list. This is a much more discriminate list than one like that which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nortel related articles. Ryan Vesey 02:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. Withdraw as nominator and WP:SNOW and lets all move on. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:31, 16 January 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) Mediran (t • c) 10:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

J&D's Down Home Enterprises[edit]

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

Non-notable company per WP:CORPDEPTH. Spamish. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They've managed to get their bizarre products featured on, amongst others, Oprah Winfrey. None of this is going to make me sample them, but it's evidence of notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notable company; it passes WP:CORPDEPTH:

"Bacon in a bottle: It's "holy" to fans." The Seattle Times.
"Entrepreneurs ‘Decided it Was Time to Make the World Taste Like Bacon'." Kitsap Sun.
"Talk Is Cheap." The Wall Street Journal. (Six paragraphs of coverage.)
"Start a company with $5,000? How the Bacon Salt guys did it." Puget Sound Business Journal.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:07, 16 January 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) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Penticton V's[edit]

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

This article about a hockey team appears to be non-notable, specifically with WP:NHOCKEY. Most noteworthy events performed by this team, according to the article, were actually performed by sister team Penticton Vees; for example, they qualified them to go to the 1955 World Ice Hockey Championships, but according to this source their sister team did this. According to an internet search, there are no reliable sources to indicate significant coverage for this specific team; in addition, most results relate to the Penticton Vees rather than the Penticton V's. The only references available about this team specifically are from Blogspot and Wikia, both self-published sources; so I propose deletion at this time. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 01:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the issue here is that the title of the article is spelled wrong. In the Penticton Vee's article it talks about the senior team (which would be this team) as having gone to the championship. It would be exceedingly rare for us to send a junior team instead of a senior team to the championships in so much that I don't believe it has ever happened and the junior team didn't exist in 1955. And since world championship teams are clearly notable it should be kept. -DJSasso (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the information over and renamed the article to Penticton Vees (senior) to clear up the confusion. -DJSasso (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per DJSasso. Two different teams have used Penticton V's as their name, a senior team that competed in the 1955 World Championship and a current junior team. Both meet NHOCKEY. Patken4 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per D�jSasso. Very notable hockey club from when senior hockey was at its zenith. Will make for a great article. DMighton (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:03, 16 January 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 00:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LightHouse Ohio[edit]

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

Business incubator for high school students founded by college students. Inherently this isn't an organization with large scope. (Remember, notability relates to the organization, not its members.) In the absence of substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources, this is not a notable company/organization. —C.Fred (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Username of creator suggests a serious COI, and they have since been blocked. -- Patchy1 05:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A COI is not a good reason for deletion. Failing WP:GNG and WP:ORG is, though. Of the six references used in the article, four are not independent of the subject of the article and can't be used to establish notability. The Atlantic article never even mentions LightHouse which means it does not constitute significant coverage of the subject of this article and can't be used to establish notability. The last article from Patch.com constitutes significance coverage from an independent (from what I can tell) and reliable source but is only a local source. A Google News search provides no sources at all that are related to the subject of the article and a either does a Google News Archive search. None of its members appear to be notable but even if they were, that wouldn't make the organization notable. While this is a neat idea that students could really benefit from, this subject doesn't appear to be notable under any notability guideline. As someone who has a bit of experience in this field, getting themselves noticed would be beneficial to their program and would help prove notability. In any case, they should make sure to read WP:COI and make sure that they're not damaging their image by editing the WP about their own organization. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per consensus and the fact that this article fails GNG and ORG, while I understand the frustration of this article's creator who can't defend his article, that doesn't change the fact that this article goes against wikipedia guidelines. I suggest the creator of this article copy and information and sources and put it somewhere it's allowed and anyone who needs the information can go there. Longevitydude (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OlYeller. GregJackP Boomer! 23:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:00, 16 January 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. Courcelles 02:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JaxEdit[edit]

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

delete, appears to be non notable software/programming. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete unsourced online editor - just another web site. noq (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage in independent reliable sources found; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT at this time. Gong show 02:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find reliable, secondary sources about the topic. Fails general notability guideline. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above, also, created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject does not meet notability criteria. Have placed welcome note on talk page to give help, as creator's account has been dormant 2 years.—Baldy Bill (talk) 21:27, 17 January 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 Bingo (U.S.)#The business of bingo. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drag bingo[edit]

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

Speaking as a gay man, I can confirm that all "drag bingo" really means is a bingo game hosted and called by a drag queen — it's not a notable phenomenon in its own right, but just a cultural variation which warrants little more than one or two lines in another article (in exactly the same way that my childhood hometown's newest cultural embarrassment, "porketta bingo", only merits a couple of lines in meat raffle instead of having a separate article of its own.) Consequently, I just can't for the life of me figure out why we would actually need a separate article about it, rather than a single line in bingo's main article which acknowledges that some gay bars have bingo events hosted by drag queens. Delete or redirect. Bearcat (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As someone who's gay himself I don't think you being gay is why you know what drag bingo is, before a few seconds ago I didn't know what this was... and I'm not really happy that I know what this is now... Regardless this is an extremely non-notable topic and doesn't deserve more than sentence in the bingo article. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bingo (U.S.)#The business of bingo, where this topic is already mentioned. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already mentioned because I added it there about ten minutes after nominating this...but yeah, I'd accept redirection too. Nomination revised accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bingo (U.S.)#The business of bingo. I agree with Bearcat. Appropriate for the Bingo (U.S.)#The business of bingo page, but not it's own. Sean Egan (talk) 18:54, 18 January 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. Although few commenters, the discussion is extensive enough. The consensus appears to be delete - although, this does not prevent a future USEFUL and validly-sourced article from someday in the future being created (not today, not tomorrow, but when notability is established (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe gamelan[edit]

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

Part of a spam cluster. Previous group deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viscount Bells. This was previously nominated as part of a group at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stone marimba. That closed with a suggestion to relist individually
No real claim to notability. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Mix of bad sources, original research, linkspamming and promotion. Refs used are not independent reliable sources and include multiple links to article creators business. This is not really an article about the instrument but a coatracks to talk about "Percussion legend Emil Richards". Named by him as part of his personal collection but there is no good evidence of any wider use. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes, the WP:COATRACK does resonate with the theme of the article. A proper article about this western gamelan instrument could be of interest, but I couldn't find any decent sources for it (only 550 to choose from, and nothing solid in that list). Of course we never saw any such instrument in Java or Bali. At best WP:TOOSOON but coatrack is about right. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article isn't encyclopedic in tone but the topic is encyclopedic. It could be stubified or perhaps merged to Emil Richards for the moment, but deletion is not the best way forward, and will just lead to more recreation. The solution is to develop good coverage of the topic(s). Disagree that it's purely part of a spam cluster, but there are definitely possible COI issues that nobody seems to have addressed, remembering WP:AGF (diffs please if there have been attempts I've missed). Happy to work with the contributor(s) to resolve the issues. Andrewa (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively redirect to Emil Richards but IMO even this is premature, see below. Andrewa (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to keep this but there just aren't (yet) any usable sources that I could find. If you know of any, list them here or add them to the article and I'll vote keep. If not, keep is simply the wrong vote. A redirect to Emil Richards is potentially misleading (we'd have to change it if an article on this topic becomes possible). Of course the content can be merged there, you can do that today. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you looked for usable sources? Just to save the rest of us reinventing the wheel?

The issue is not that the article needs fixing, that is agreed. The issues are, do we want an article covering this instrument (not necessarily dedicated to it), and if so how best to proceed. The keep vote is correct if the answer to the first question is yes, as I believe the evidence (scarce though it may be so far) suggests.

Exactly how would a redirect to Emil Richards be misleading? Agree that we'd have to change it if we later decided to split the content back to this title, of course we would, so? How is that misleading? It makes the split far easier and more informative, by preserving the earlier edit history, again saving us reinventing the wheel. Andrewa (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:40, 11 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. What reliable sources do you think justifies Wikipedia having this article? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but the fact that you can't find any doesn't seem to count for much, frankly. You haven't said where you've looked. At least one of the many percussion stubs you've AfD'd recently has turned out to be a very noteworthy instrument, closed as keep with a very strong consensus, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boomwhacker.

Have you consulted any offline sources at all? Which? And could you link to the online searches on which I'm guessing you base these AfDs?

The charge that this is Part of a spam cluster was also part of both of the previous AfDs to which you refer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viscount Bells and then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stone marimba.

It's unfortunate that nobody challenged this charge of spamming on the first occasion, which deleted six articles by strong consensus, and gave very little help to the newbie who just didn't know how to respond but tried hard, and has worked hard on these articles. There is no evidence that they are a deliberate spammer, they just didn't appreciate our standards of tone and verifiability. Now we will need to go to WP:DRV to recover their contributions.

The second, listed as Next bunch of a spam cluster and making similar baseless claims on the motives of the contributor, was closed Please relist individually; it might lead to a clear conclusion about at least some of them. That's what has brought us here.

I don't wish to disparage User:Duffbeerforme, who is obviously a well-motivated and hard-working contributor. But I do wish to suggest that this particular campaign of AfDs is premature. The contributor has a large and valuable dead-tree library, and simply did not realise that citing these paper sources would be more appreciated here than links to drum shop sites and the like. It's an understandable mistake, in that a website is more easily verified. Andrewa (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boomwacker is a different issue. I'll concede thet it looks notable. It is an unfortunate victim of another crossfire where I was wrong.

Re the others.

Where have I looked? Google, Google News, Factiva.

You've chose to focus on the one that is outside the main concern, every article other than Boomwacker has been supported by a link to the authors shop. In most cases two links to the creators store. aEch page contributed to has been a mix of OR and self published promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The contributor has a large and valuable dead-tree library, and simply did not realise that citing these paper sources would be more appreciated here than links to drum shop sites and the like.of" ?WP:V. ?

Sorry about the stringing. Replying to User:Duffbeerforme above, Wikipedia:Verifiability is a content guideline concerning the article space, and very relevant to this discussion, but I'm not quite sure what your question is. Andrewa (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have called attention to that particular AfD simply because it shows that your methodology for deciding to raise an AfD is faulty. Agree with most of the rest of this.

But you have now made another unsubstantiated and unhelpful charge: The supposed link between LA Rentals and User:Xylosmygame.

At the top of your edit box for this page should be a stern warning that reads in part commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive. Yes, it can be a hard line to draw. But unsubstantiated charges of spamming and COI are unhelpful. The first thing to do is to contact the user, ask them to disclose any COI (or alternatively to refrain from editing the article in question), and point them to the relevant content and style guidelines.

And this doesn't appear to have happened. There's been some discussion at User talk:Xylosmygame but it seems to start at the presumption that this is all worthless spam. And now you have raised AfDs in which the spamming charge is in the first sentence of the rationale, and continue to raise the (possibly valid) COI charge based on zero investigation of that particular point so far as I can see. It's guesswork.

You have raised some valid points both here and on the user's talk page, I agree with many of them. But others are a little over the top at this stage.

My hope remains that we'll end up with a large number of redirects to a section in the Emil Richards article. On the evidence, and on the recent merge decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L.A. Percussion Rentals, that seems the way to go for now. Andrewa (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the above should be including Boomwacher, not except. He put a link to his business in there too.

The connection between the editor and the company is substantiated. The editor previously known as User:LAPercRentals has let us know. See the "COI contribs from Xylosmygame (talk · contribs)" section here. They were also told about policies on COI. His reply was a rant about how he was an expert, how he knew best and how he'd done his own original research.

I did my investigation and I resent your assumption that I hadn't.

Is there any spamming? Someone thought so here "rv linkspam, inappropriate refs". Somene else thought so here "Redirect to existing info about tuned anvils (and less spammy, too!)". Yes there has been spamming, it might not have been the intent (I have never said it was) but it was the result. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link to the now blocked User:LAPercRentals and to User talk:DoriSmith/Archive 13#COI contribs from Xylosmygame (talk · contribs) (I'm assuming that's the section you meant to link to).

It does appear that I was mistaken about your research and the spamming. But please note that I did ask for these links very early in the piece, and you have only just provided them. So frankly, I think you have nobody but yourself to blame for the assumption.

And I still think it possible that you're being a bit hard on this new contributor, and hasty in nominating the articles for deletion. They have made mistakes but have also shown every willingness to comply with Wikipedia policy when it's been pointed out to them.

I'm attempting to contact them offline, to follow up the claim that there are dead-tree sources to support these articles. What I'm particularly looking for in the case of the pipe gamelan is secondary sources that report its usage on recordings on which we have articles. If sources can't be found, then deletion is certainly an option. Depending on the sources, redirection may also be an option.

Are there other relevant wikilinks you can provide? The problem with offline discussion is that I may be restricted by netiquette and privacy considerations in what I can report back here.

We also have a problem in that the best example of the spam is in the deleted userpage User:LAPercRentals, which is now only accessible to admins. Note however that the user was blocked for an inappropriate username, not for spamming, and that they have apologised for both mistakes, while strongly and perhaps rightly protesting at the pending deletion of all of their contributions. Andrewa (talk) 20:04, 18 January 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 FK Borac Banja Luka#Supporters. (non-admin closure) Mentoz86 (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lešinari[edit]

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

Topic doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines, references provided are a blog and fanpage plus a local tabloid. C 679 20:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 20:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No signs of notability. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FK Borac Banja Luka#Supporters - possible search term but no independent notability. Giant Snowman 09:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:11, 11 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per Snowman. Not unreasonable as a search term, but definitely not enough coverage for independent notability either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - half the content seems to be duplicated there anyway. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:04, 17 January 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 01:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Bullough[edit]

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

College sports reporter, recent graduate. Nothing that might make for notability. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC). DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you go with that mind set, then no sports announcers should be included. There are many articles that discuss sports reporters and announcers, including Brent Musburger and Verne Lundquist, that announce sports but did not play sports. Why is this any different? Because he is on one TV station, BYUtv, instead of a major network like ESPN or CBS? There is no difference. This article provides the personal background of a specific individual who is currently calling sports and acts as a sideline reporter for many games throughout the season. Additionally it uses multiple sources to give it credit, unlike most other biography pages here at Wiki. He may not have the rich background of sports announcing that others more famous do, but that doesn't make the article spam, nor does it make it worthy of deletion. Bigddan11 (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, he deserves not to be deleted. Ashbeckjonathan 21:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)User:Ashbeckjonathan

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2012 (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 01:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I do think that being on a major network as compared to a single college's station makes a difference. Bigddan11, the answer to you argument is that when he becomes notable, then there can be an article. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See, I will completely disagree with you on this assessment no matter what you say. Dave Barnett started at Raycom Sports, a regional syndicated group, before ever moving onto ESPN. He has called a ton of live sporting events, though he has done it mostly on a regional level outside of his time at ESPN. I don't see anyone saying he should be deleted because he has moved back to regional level broadcasts instead of remaining at ESPN. It shouldn't matter what level you are at.

BYUtv is considered a national TV station, like it or not. It is available in every household that has Internet access (at byutv.org) through live streaming that costs nothing for those who watch online, outside of your regular Internet subscription, and it is available to more than 65 million homes through Dish Network, DirecTV, and various cable companies (including Comcast), a stat that puts it ahead of CBS Sports Network and NBC Sports Network in terms of households it's available in. BYUtv provides more live sporting content than Fox Sports (please note I'm referring to Fox Sports, not Fox Sports Media Groups), and Robbie Bullough happens to be the main play-by-play man, outside of football and men's basketball, as well as the sideline reporter for football and men's basketball for the station. He is no less important than someone like Todd Christensen, who was listed long before he joined CBS Sports Network this past season as the Navy analyst. He's no less than Blaine Fowler, who has been an analyst for 27-years, though most people had no idea who he was until he did some games for NBC Sports Network. The fact is he can be seen and watched in more homes than any broadcaster for CBS Sports Network or NBC Sports Network. That stat alone should make it where he shouldn't be deleted unless you are going to delete every CBS Sports Network and NBC Sports Network broadcaster there is.Bigddan11 (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with this. Other than Verne Lundquist and Brent Musburger, Howard Cosell studied sports and never played any sport. Why should this be a big difference for Robbie Bullough? You also got other sports announcers such as Joe Buck, Kenny Albert, Thom Brennaman, Dick Stockton, Chris Myers, Curt Menefee, Mike Goldberg, Sam Rosen, Gus Johnson, Jim Nantz, Greg Gumbel, Ian Eagle, Marv Albert, Mike Tirico, Kevin Harlan, Bill Macatee, Spero Dedes, Don Criqui, Tim Brando, Dan Patrick, Dan Hicks, Tom Hammond, Al Michaels, Ted Robinson, Bob Papa, Mike "Doc" Emrick, Wayne Larrivee, Bob Uecker, Harry Kalas, Pat Hughes, Eli Gold, Brad Nessler, Sean McDonough, John Rooney, Larry Kahn, Tom McCarthy, Dave O'Brien, Joe Castiglione, Brian Anderson, Joe Block, Cory Provus, Ari Wolfe, Dick Bremer, Vin Scully, Charley Steiner, Gary Cohen, John Sterling, Mel Allen, Red Barber, Jack Buck, Ernie Harwell, Jerry Trupiano, Howard David, Curt Gowdy, Gary Thorne, Dewayne Staats, Marty Brennaman, Lindsey Nelson, Bob Wolff, Mel Allen, Red Barber, Joel Meyers, Spencer Ross, Fred Cusick, Jim McKay, Keith Jackson, Frank Gifford, Chris Berman, Jack Whitaker, Bob Costas, Matt Vasgersian, Victor Rojas, Daron Sutton, Greg Schulte, Chuck Cooperstein, Jon Miller, Dave Flemming, Ralph Lawler, Bob Lamey, Bill O'Donnell, Bob Prince, Ray Scott (sportscaster), Pat Summerall, Chris Schenkel, Dan Shulman, Steve Physioc, Jon Sciambi, Don Orsillo, Mike Gorman, Jack Edwards, Michael Kay, Dave Sims, Kevin Kugler, Jim Powell, Chip Caray, Harry Caray, Skip Caray, Paul Carey, Mike Breen, Bob Wischusen, Chris Carrino, Sean Grande, Craig Bolerjack, Gil Santos, Mitch Holthus, Greg Papa, Josh Lewin, Brad Sham, Merrill Reese, Scott Graham, Tim Brant, Wes Durham, Jim Henderson, Gene Deckerhoff, Dave Pasch, Terry Gannon, or whatever. As for me, I find no reason for Robbie Bullough to be deleted. Ashbeckjonathan 15:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashbeckjonathan (talk • contribs)

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) 01:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There is some force in the argument that BYUtv is a national network--it is, indeed, carried nationally on DirecTV, etc. But we haven't automatically kept articles for every reporter on the major sports networks, much less one on a more minor venue like BYUtv. The Salt Lake Tribune article is a solid source, albeit local. If there was any evidence of some independent national coverage I might be swayed to support a keep here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, one of a sea of non-notable sports reporter bios. Hairhorn (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with this at all. First of all, even if he's not that popular, this article is not worthy to be deleted. Is there a difference for this? No! There should be no reason why this article is considered to be deleted, even if he is not famous at all! Ashbeckjonathan (talk) Ashbeckjonathan 18:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about being famous or not, it's about meeting the notability guidelines. Hairhorn (talk) 23:13, 10 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, 15 January 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. Courcelles 02:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SSLPost[edit]

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

I believe this topic fails Wikipedia:Notability and the article is written in an advertisement-ish way. Sumana Harihareswara 02:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable secondary sources in the article, and a Google search finds nothing in the first few pages besides for sites affiliated with the company and press releases; I think this is a reliable indicator here, as one would expect some results for a contemporary internet-based company. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 04:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 11 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 00:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not establish notability. -—Kvng 20:42, 20 January 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. Courcelles 02:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Journalism in Circle Bakote and Murree[edit]

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

Unsourced article that looks like selfpromo from the writer and advertising for his newspapers. The Banner talk 05:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Not all newspapers are automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 14 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 00:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete blatant unreferenced WP:ADVERT. LibStar (talk) 04:01, 15 January 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. Courcelles 02:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Lake Village (Michigan)[edit]

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

Deprodded without comment by author. Sources are unreliable (a bank's website, a user submitted theater directory, the city's website) with the only good source mentioning the shopping center in passing at best. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable in any way. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:40, 2 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) 11:08, 8 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 00:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Power centers are not usually notable. Dough 48 72 04:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN shopping area. Bearian (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 02:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Savarese[edit]

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

Non-notable guy. Only reference is his obituary. Article is a homage. damiens.rf 14:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A news obit in The New York Times is generally a solid indicator of notability. Basic GNews and HighBeam searches show not only that similar obits appeared in other papers, but also that there was substantial coverage while he was alive: Washington Post[35], Chicago Tribune[36], Los Angeles Times[37], etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:02, 11 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 00:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos. Obituaries in major newspapers across the country,[38] plus coverage beforehand[39][40] and mentions in various books more than satisfy WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Passes WP:BASIC. Cavarrone (talk) 17:28, 18 January 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. Courcelles 02:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Polygon[edit]

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

Editor made no other edits not related to making this page. No reliable sources cover it. This is just an advertisement someone made for their product. Dream Focus 15:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The following was left by the article's creator at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Antonia Polygon. I have copied it here verbatim. In response to the comment about references.... honestly, if you have other references with which to update the reference list, now's the time. I have been unable to track down any significant coverage in reliable sources, but perhaps you have had more success. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor made no other edits not related to making this page. -> Correct; editor is not involved in other projects

No reliable sources cover it. -> not true; see references, but admitted reference list needs updating

This is just an advertisement someone made for their product. -> not true; it is not the editor's product but a community resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BagoasOfPersia (talk • contribs) 16:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not one thing listed in reference is a reliable source independent of the subject. I did look over all of them, and did check for reliable sources, before I nominated this for deletion. Dream Focus 14:16, 15 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 00:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references at the bottom of the page are forums or blogs, and I couldn't find anything more reliable online. The little green pig (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - social media, forums and blogs are not considered reliable sources and a lack of reliable sources means this subject fails WP:GNG. Break-outs like "(350+ pages!)" in the article don't help against the suggestion that this is just someone trying to WP:PROMO their pet project. Stalwart111 03:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable secondary sources. PianoDan (talk) 00:53, 18 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon[edit]

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

A man whose only particularity is being the heir to the long-defunct Bonapartist imperial throne of France. I can't find reliable sources establishing his notability per WP:BIO. Le Petit Gotha is apparently a book of monarchist genealogy; like other genealogical records it doesn't establish notability. The two newspaper articles cited are no longer online; if as their titles suggest they cover some family quarrel about the "succession", then that would be material for the article Bonapartism, where this man is already mentioned. Sandstein 15:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The existence of being the pretender to the throne of France is a notable fact, but that's it, which makes it a WP:1E. Just not sure what to direct to, maybe Pretender#French_pretenders, or maybe we need an English equivalent of Liste des prétendants au trône de France depuis 1792 on the French Wikipedia. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. We do have Monarchism in France and pages for every over Pretender already. We should not delete this page any more than deleting the entire ecosystem of pages. But having a central page modelled after the French one could be good. Jean Christophe Napolean has a slightly more extensive page with slightly more extensive references at: Jean Christophe Napoleon Totustuusmaria (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being heir to a throne and head of an Imperial House usually makes the holder of those posts notable. Also notable enough to receive coverage in reliable sources, some examples: [41][42][43] - dwc lr (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no throne or Imperial House in France for the last 200 years or so; the titles etc. are a private conceit. The coverage in Point de Vue is not accessible and the magazine appears to be of questionable reliability; the third link is a passing mention of the man appearing at a party. Sandstein 20:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is an Imperial House whether its reigning or not, titles etc are still attributed to non reigning royals as you can see in the WSJ link where his attendance was deemed worthy of being noted for the readers as the prince is a notable person due to his position. Also the fact a magazine has run articles on this individual also indicates notability, I'm not sure what basis you have to question the reliability of the magazine? - dwc lr (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The date of the fall of the Napoleon III was 4 Sept, 1870. Far less than 200 years ago. Totustuusmaria (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not familiar enough yet with policy on inherent notability or otherwise of pretenders to extinct titles to decide keep or delete. However it's clear that this person has no other claim to notability - he's just a banker. And using the title 'Prince' - and as part of the article name - and incorporating the noble family infoboxes (for him and the rest of the family) seems to give undue weight to a frivolous claim and makes Wikipedia look pretty silly. So if kept, let's call him by his actual name and just note that he is a banker who happens to be descended from Napoleon. Mcewan (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Royalty generally are only notable because they inherit a notable position and status. The reason he is notable is because he is head of the Imperial House of France, in that capacity you will find he is always referred to as a Prince in sources. - dwc lr (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with any policy or guideline that assumes the notability of pretenders to thrones that have ceased to exist. Sandstein 01:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but Prince of what, exactly? And what "sources"? The more I look at this the more I think we need to be more rigorous about restricting the coverage of fantasy claims to noble titles like this. Let's record the fact that the claim exists, and maybe list the pretenders, but not have articles for every related individual who is not otherwise notable. Mcewan (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article already has citations which haven't been credibly impeached as reliable sources, and it's clear from his father's article that much of the cites there are applicable. Bonapartism exists, his father's article documents that the two are rivals to represent its historical, genealogical and symbolic evolution to the present. This article should be improved, not deleted. FactStraight (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that I can't see how it could be improved unless there is something additional to say. Any ideas? Mcewan (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the criteria at WP:BIO, he falls well short. There are no special cases for pretenders to defunct titles. Aside from the mention of his appearance at a party in WSJ, and reports of a family tiff, there is absolutely no coverage, certainly not in multiple reliable independent sources. Mcewan (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with dwc lr, this person is a rightful heir to a noble family and is also a celebrity of our modern ages. I also add other sources to which he is featured in, such as:
Interview with Prince Napoleon He is clearly someone of importance in our community and someone who needs to be respected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springyboy (talk • contribs) 10:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately those are not really policy-based arguments. A blog with a translation of an article in a monarchist mag is not a reliable source, and a single magazine interview would not establush notability even if it were. Mcewan (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy or no policy, to readers of the English Wikipedia readers he is of just as much interest as a senior French government minister like the Minister of the Interior Manuel Valls (holder of “one of the most important governmental cabinet positions”) based on page views over the last three months. But of course we editors know better than the readers what they want and should be allowed to read about on Wikipedia. In my opinion royalty need their own notability guidelines like sports persons and politicians etc have, this is beacuse heads of royal houses in particular are notable and of interest to people. - dwc lr (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing that he is not of interest, just that he is not sufficiently notable for his own page. As a test, do we think he would meet WP:BIO notability if it were not for his descent from Napoleon? The debate really hinges on whether there is inherent notability (in the Wikipedia sense) for such people, and it would be good to have a proper policy debate about it, but as things stand it seems clear that there is no such inherent notability. Mcewan (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I came here specifically looking for him, since I am researching the current claimants to the French throne. Monarchism is a big deal in France, and these houses are well established. There are three of them: The House of Bourbon, the House of Orleans, and the House of Bonaparte. Are you also suggesting we eliminate all the pages associated with the claimants of the House of Bourbon or the House of Orleans? Sometimes someone is notable for reasons other than personal fame. These pretenders may or may not be notable personally, but they are notable politically because of the households they head, and the historical and contemporary importance of monarchism in France. There are quite a number of wikipedia articles that relate to the matter. Why target this one in particular? Totustuusmaria (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is not about Monarchism in France, or the House of Bourbon, or the House of Orleans, or the House of Bonaparte which all have their own articles. And I agree that we should be able to use the encyclopedia to find out that this man is the current claimant. However a separate page is unnecessary: there is nothing interesting in this article apart from his pedigree, a mention of a squabble and that he is a banker. All of that could quite simply be included in the list of claimants. If he ever does anything notable in his own right, then we should have an article. Otherwise where does this stop - do we create an article for his first-born son, and record his first words? And the existence of the other articles is not a valid argument. Mcewan (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - consensus is settled that leading pretenders of large countries, as well as leaders of well-known royal houses are notable. FWIW, Notability does not mean respect. Bearian (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After my initial comment, I did try to find policy or consensus on this, but could not, hence the delete vote. Could you provide a pointer to something demonstrating that consensus? Mcewan (talk) 22:27, 14 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 00:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not finding anywhere we have a specific policy or consensus regarding royal pretenders, but by the existence of articles for all other French pretenders (Template:French Pretenders) and for the heads of other such deposed royal houses (such as the House of Hohenzollern), as well as the List of current pretenders, with lots of blue links, suggests an unspoken consensus that pretenders are notable. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although to slightly reverse that "other stuff" argument, from a quick sample of the articles, in some there is clear notability for other reasons (so the individuals stand on their own merits); a few others are more like the article at hand (so a similar case could be made for their deletion).

And in the List of current pretenders, the several names that are not blue links argue for a lack of unspoken consensus - although given the geographic spread that may be due to systemic bias. Mcewan (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Other articles about pretenders exist" is not a convincing keep argument. Maybe it just indicates other AFDs are needed. Notability is not inherited, so his having a royal ancestor 143 years ago does not give him inherent notability. Unless he is notable for other reasons, such as his banking career, delete as failing WP:BIO, unless that guideline has some clause stating "all pretenders to defunct empires and kingdoms are notable." That keeps Wikipedia from being a directory of every nonentity who says he is the heir to some long ago king. If reliable and independent secondary sources have substantial coverage of their career of "pretending," then point them out. Blogs or websites operatied by royalty hobbyists are not adequate, nor are mere directory listings in genealogy books. Edison (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that otherstuffexists, I am merely stating an observation: several AfDs have created a consensus that most leading pretenders are notable. I will try to look for examples. Bearian (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable pretender to a throne. RNealK (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - Interesting, I am finding AfD results all over the place - many mergers, many deletions, some keeps, and many with no consensus. Examples of "keeps" include Ethiopia (perhaps outdated 2005), but a keep to a Habsburg in 2012. Lack of consensus after AfDs in 2009, here in 2007 too, and even as recently as this month. So I stand corrected - there seems to be no consensus. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes this persons claim to fame is being a pretender to the throne however this is nothing new to the encyclopedia and definitely makes for interesting reading. I don't see how deleting this article will actually improve the pedia and thing that even if it didn't meet the notability standards which it does this is a situation where WP:IAR would be well applied. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, head of a former European royal house. --Norden1990 (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whilst he may not be notable as an investment banker, the fact remains that he is historically relevant, if not notable, in the same way that Franz, Duke of Bavaria is. Unless we have a separate article listing all the present pretenders to non-existent European and other thrones, this and other such articles should be kept for their historical bearing, whatever the republican POV may be. However, I think calling him 'prince' in the heading and in the lead is going over the top. In 1975, Walter Curley, the then US ambassador to France, published a book entitled Monarchs in Waiting about such pretenders around the world. He even listed the then Mughal pretender.--Zananiri (talk) 20:35, 22 January 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) Mediran (t • c) 10:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curt Porter[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Never played a professional game. ...William 19:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albama-related deletion discussions. ...William 19:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ...William 19:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of course, there are plenty of notable college-only football players, but Porter is not one of them. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As AS said. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he was named first team all-American FCS division by the Associated Press. I'm finding a good deal of coverage for this one on his college career alone. For an offensive lineman, that means something.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul's comment immediately above. Few FCS players will satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG; the subject appears to be an exception as an FCS first-team All-American. Here's an example of in-depth coverage of the subject in a reliable, independent source: Tuscaloosa News. Please note that I am not advocating a presumption of notability for all FCS All-Americans (not a major national award like Division I FBS consensus All-American recognition), but simply recognizing the subject's GNG notability. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:29, 12 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 00:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Dirtlawyer that it is a very rare FCS player who can satisfy WP:GNG. Porter does appear to be an exception. Despite being an offensive lineman (a position at which players rarely receive extensive coverage), there are a number of news stories from mainstream media sources in which Porter was the principal subject. See, e.g., [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. Cbl62 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:BASIC per the source examples provided above by User:Cbl62. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The arguments seem to show that it barely meets an established notability criteria for the sport. As such, consensus is to keep at this time (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Bonilla (baseball)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable minor league baseball player.. Notability guidelines have changed since his last AFD in that minor league all-stars are no longer notable. Has some foreign league appearances which might make him notable but i cant find significant sources about him. Spanneraol (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the article notes, Bonilla pitched for T&A San Marino of the Italian Baseball League, the top national league in Italy, in 2010. As such, he satisfies category 2 of WP:BASE/N. The article doesn't include a citation for that claim, so here's a RS-worthy article from the San Marino Notizie about the club signing Bonilla (and two other players). If you'd prefer something in written in English, this piece from Mister Baseball (not strictly a RS, but very reliable in my experience) should confirm it for you. It is also worth noting that Bonilla is by far the most accomplished baseball player from his country (El Salvador), and as such is much more important than the average player of his level of experience. See, for example, this Spanish-language profile in El Diario Del Hoy. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability guidlines. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASE/N criterion 2. If there is a reliable source for his being the most accomplished player from El Salvador, that would make the case even stronger. Rlendog (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I misread the end of HBWS's post. The El Diaro profile should confirm his notability. Rlendog (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't buy into the presumption of notability for anyone who played in a country's "top-level league," as claimed above. I know this has been debated here before with regards to the Mexican League, but the Italian League, which is a part-time league that pays part-time wages, has an even weaker claim. That aside, there just isn't a lot of sources for this guy. The Italian article linked above only mentioned Bonilla four times, and two of them were in lists of players' names. The Mister Baseball article is a little better, but isn't much more than a recap of his career stats. The only decent source is the story in El Diario Del Hoy, and one source just isn't sufficient. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Your statement alone leads me to believe he has at least 1 solid source, followed by one that offers a non trivial mention, and another that might be trivial. I'd say he has multiple non trivial WP:SOURCES and passes WP:VERIFIABILITY. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One non-trivial source isn't enough to meet GNG. By that standard, any Little League player, city councilman or teacher who gets featured in his or her local newspaper meets WP:GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"solid"would be my own criteria at work. However, I am using wikipedias saying they need multiple non trivial references. and I see at least 2 PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 13:53, 7 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the second source? I see one story, one press release that mentions him twice, and a Mister Baseball "article" that mentions him in the last paragraph. If this is the new standard for Wikipedia notability, then anyone who played Little League or got elected to the school board and got their name in the paper is now notable. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that the guideline presumes notability for any player in a top-level national league is that reliable sources on those players can nearly always be found if you're willing to look at foreign-language sources. If you want additional sources on Bonilla, you could take five minutes and put in a good-faith effort. If you aren't willing to do that, here's a profile in El Universal, and here's a pay link to a profile in La Opinión. There are probably others, but that should be enough to demonstrate the point. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every minor league baseball team above the Rookie level is covered much more thoroughly than the San Marino Whatevers in the part-time Italian League. Why doesn't BASE/N presume notability for them? As for your sources, what you call a "profile" was actually a six-paragraph note that told us nothing about Bonilla except a recap of his teams and stats. That "profile" didn't help to demonstrate Bonilla's notability at all. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BASE/N doesn't presume notability for them because they aren't the top-level league in their country, the way that the (full-time and fully-professional) Italian Baseball League is in Italy. Their importance within the context of US sports is much lesser than the importance of the Italian Baseball League within Italian sports. Wikipedia isn't just written for and about US-centric topics - covering things from other countries is good, in the interest of countering systemic bias. Individual players from Rookie-level ball in the US may be notable, of course, and if they meet the GNG then they can have their own articles, just like anyone else. As for your dissatisfaction with the El Universal article, I think a seven-paragraph article of 300+ words exclusively about Bonilla and his career from a paper with a daily circulation of 150,000+ is a perfectly reasonable source, though of course you're entitled to your opinion. Outside observers can judge for themselves. If you want a piece that provides a broader overview of Bonilla's career, however, perhaps this piece from the San Marino Notizie will please you more? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? You're seriously arguing that the Italian Baseball League is more important in Italy than Triple-A baseball is important in the U.S.? That's ridiculous. The Italian League is also not "full-time"; teams play a 42-game schedule, which is fewer games than some U.S. amateur softball leagues play. As for this latest source you found, do you really think a four-paragraph "article" that does nothing but recap the player's prior teams and stats advances this player's notability? You've posted three or four of the same type recap. That "article" doesn't tell us anything we couldn't get from his Baseball-Reference page. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to try and argue in favor of including AAA players under WP:BASE/N, we can have that discussion on the guideline's talk page. This isn't really the place for that. I'm not sure why you think that a 42-game schedule should be an automatic disqualifier as far as a league's professional status is concerned. The NFL only plays a 16-game schedule, and nobody seems to object to them being classified as fully professional. As for the sources I've provided, here's an example of the sort of information that's in them but not on his B-R page: Bonilla's family moved from El Salvador to Reno, Nevada when he was four years old. As a child, he enjoyed soccer more than baseball, but he started playing baseball instead because all of his friends were doing it. He graduated from Galena High School, where he played second base on the days when he wasn't pitching. After graduation, he attended Larssen College in California, where he made the conversion to pitching full-time and earned Conference All-Star honors. That performance earned him a baseball scholarship at Tulane. He throws a changeup, a slider, and a curveball. Etc. Are those articles mostly baseball-related? Of course. He's a baseball player! Articles about baseball players focus mainly on baseball for the same reason that articles about actors focus on acting and articles about politicians focus on politics. It's the biggest part of their life, and the focus that defines them as individuals. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Bbny, its ridiculous to compare the Italian Baseball League with MLB affiliated Minor League baseball (or even the Mexican League), as the Italian Baseball League isn't even fully-professional (or even professional period) or have crowds of more than a couple of thousand at most. This would fail WP:FOOTY/N guidelines if he was a football/soccer player. I haven't seen the Spanish sources yet to make a decision, but a line needs to be set for all these "top-level" leagues. This is a classic WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT discussion without much policy based or simply flawed arguments on both sides. Lets focus on WP:GNG and the quality of those GNG sources. Secret ^account 04:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you saying in one breath that we should "focus on the GNG" and in the second admitting that you haven't looked at the sources I provided? Wouldn't the sources be the heart of an GNG-based discussion? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that I haven't seen the sources to make a decision if this meets GNG, and I can't form an opinion on this subject, so I'm staying neutral here. The thing is from reading this discussion that both of you are more focused on the "top-level" criteria in this AFD, which honestly should belong on the relevant guideline talk page, than GNG itself. Secret ^account 03:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep HBWS finds the sources as usual. This individual meets GNG for coverage in Spanish-language sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually look at the sources or is this another example of WP:ILIKEIT by Muboshgu? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the sources. What makes you think I like this article or even what it could become? Where does that come from? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bbny see Assume good faith. Secret ^account 04:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by technicality As long as WP:BASE/N is worded as it is, then this is a keep. Alex (talk) 04:28, 12 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 00:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alex. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:10, 19 January 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.