Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 25

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

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mkdwtalk 20:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richtmyer Memorial Award[edit]

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

I'm not seeing independent coverage here. Three of the links have nothing to do with the award, while the fourth is a press release from the group that bestows the award. - Biruitorul Talk 23:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Biriutorul: the Richtmyer Award is one of the most sought after prizes within physics academia. I am attempting to document some of the awards given to various physicists on Wiki, and several of them have won this award for their excellence in teaching. Some of them have also won the Samuel Friedman Foundation Award, which you are also attempting to delete. The entire idea of teaching being a "respected" career is somewhat neglected, and documenting the fact that there ARE rewards for teaching excellence, especially in the sciences, is an important point that is not often made. I do not know if you have something against philanthropy or teaching awards, but in the United States especially, there is a long tradition of endowed Awards for Academics. Often there is not much information from a wide variety of sources about these various Awards and Fellowships, and Wiki is a valuable source of information that will help raise awareness of issues such as the availability of awards for teaching in the sciences. Again, if you can let me know what further types of sources you consider independent enough for you, I will try and find them. Please bear in mind that academia in general is a fairly narrow field, and not likely to be filled with plentiful links about such matters. Ybidzian (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added citations from relevant universities announcing which of their staff have been awarded the Richtmyer Memorial Award, hopefully to demonstrate that it is a well regarded and sought after Award that is valued by the physics community 15:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

    If totally necessary I suppose this might be merged with the page on Floyd K. Richtmyer. I forgot to mention that, although I still feel that his creation of the Award in 1941 stands totally separately from his physics career. He clearly intended the Award to stand as an enduring legacy to teachers after his demise. Ybidzian (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ybidzian, no, it's nothing personal or bias-related on my side. I appreciate your thorough response and your good intentions. It's just that I don't quite see WP:GNG being met - I'm not sure that the topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". But the discussion runs for a week, so let's see what other editors have to say; I may well be in the wrong. I'll let this answer stand for the Friedman article as well, and I won't be nominating other articles of yours for deletion. - Biruitorul Talk 16:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important physics award. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep as has been awarded to many notable people, so an explanation is good to have here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think articles such as this one (an announcement listing the confirmation of Carl Wieman to associate director in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, listing this award among other unquestionably notable honors of Wieman including the Nobel) makes it clear that its recipients and their employers see this as a high honor. And the sourcing, while a little thin, does not look out of line with what I'd expect for this sort of thing — it is only natural that the main people writing about such awards are the awarding body and the employers of the recipients. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:20, 31 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. Discussion about merging the article can be provided elsewhere, including its talk page using proposed mergers. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 03:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Army One[edit]

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

Almost completely unsourced; also a permastub. Needs to be deleted, or merged with Vehicles of the President of the United States. Nominating the following additional pages under the same rationale:

With the latter two, I'm also concerned about WP:UNDUE, as the bulk of those two articles concern just three flights made. pbp 23:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undue applies because Navy and Coast Guard One/Two have only been used for a few flights that weren't terribly significant in the grand scheme of things. "Walter Mondale used Navy One to go to a hockey game." Unencylopedic. If we gave the same treatment to every rally, campaign event, or foreign trip that AF1, AF2, or Marine One was used on, those articles would be hundreds of kilobytes. Call it what you will: undue, unencyclopedic, laundry list. It doesn't belong; heck, I'm probably going to go and delete it right now. I must also remind you of WP:BURDEN...if I ask for additional sourcing in an AfD, and you can't provide any, the article should be deleted. The additional sourcing is where, exactly? Furthermore, please provide evidence that this is WP:POINTy, rather than simply enforcing a number of long-standing policies. That discussion you cite was done without either notifying me or considering relevant policy. Also, note the argument that Coast Guard One has never been used and Coast Guard Two has only been used once; that's WP:CRYSTALBALL. pbp 01:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's another important policy to consider here and that is WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because the President rode in a plane a few times doesn't mean that callsign needs its own article, anymore than we don't have articles on all the places George Washington slept at or the horses he rode pbp 02:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re:Aircraft Project discussion: Bushranger mentioned a discussion there. There are two fatal flaws in the discussion:
  1. The discussion mostly concerned reinforcing a decision made by the project to have separate articles so that. Nowhere did assess the merits of notability guidelines, permastub, not-inherited, crystal, burden etc.
  2. WikiProjects aren't community. Naturally, a project concerned with aircraft would be more disposed to keeping shitty permastubs than the community as a whole. This is a community noticeboard pbp 02:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject had been notified of this AfD by another editor, and nominators are under no obligation to notify WikiProjects or editors other than the auther. And the September 2012 merger, it was acceptable as a BOLD action. As for the claim that Army One and Navy One pass GNG, that is questionable. Notability is determined by reliable sources; those articles are sorely lacking in those. Notability is also not inherited; I would question whether Army One and Navy One are independently notable of the President/VP and/or their other vehicles. pbp 22:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that sources are not required to be in the article; only that they exist, not necessarily online. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Navy One into 2003 Mission Accomplished speech; Merge Army One into Marine One unless some evidence of operational differences can be found. I don't know the details of what lead to this AfD — appears some trouble with an earlier process — but since I don't know yet, hopefully this is a fresh look:
    • For Navy One: It seems to me that this single flight is simply one aspect of a single-time event we already have an article about, and any coverage it has received is tied into that subject (the 2003 Mission Accomplished speech). If another Navy One flight occurred later, maybe that would change things.
    • As for Army One: I'm not sure the concept (presidential helicopter flight with a custom callsign) is separate from Marine One, since they alternated in some fashion at one point; but if it's likely that an article can be fleshed out about what aspects of Army One flights were different than Marine One, then Army One should be kept. If, however, presidential helicopter flights happened to just be split between Army One and Marine One, with no major operational difference than different personnel using a different callsign just for organizational reasons, I'm not sure that's enough to justify a separate article for a subject that was effectively subsumed by another subject long ago: the subject is presidential helicopter flights or or the presidential helicopters, and which callsign was used from day to day is not two separate subjects, and the title "Marine One" makes sense because that's the surviving name now. (Army One was used as a callsign for 19 years, yet it's been 36 years since Marine One has been the sole callsign used by these kinds of flights.) --Closeapple (talk) 08:57, 28 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 01:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Barker (magician)[edit]

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

PROD removed by creator without improving the article, Fails WP:BLP1E, lacks in depth coverage, only sources are of the "local boy does good" type in a local news report. Lacks in depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. LightGreenApple talk to me 22:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am writing this to ask you to reconsider your proposal for the deletion on the page Jordan Barker (magician). The show 'officially amazing' in which the record is being showcased, will not be broadcast until late March, and the Guinness world record database is not updating the main page for highest throw of a playing card, until the show has been aired nationally. I wrote to Guinness about this and received this response -

    Guinness World Records-Tracking Id:48894‏

    Thank you for your enquiry. In order for the records we have filmed for our new TV show to have the biggest impact, we hold back the records from appearing on the website until the show airs. Once the TV show goes out, your record will be visible online. Congratulations once again on your Guinness World Records achievement.

    PLEASE DO NOT REPLY DIRECTLY TO THIS EMAIL AS THIS COMES FROM AN UNMONITORED EMAIL ADDRESS. You can contact us and make an enquiry via: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/register/login.aspx by logging in on the website, and selecting your claim ID number. There you can click on ‘Make an Enquiry’ or to find more information about the record breaking process whether that is: having an Adjudicator present at your record attempt, how to request the use of the Guinness World Records logo for your event, ordering extra certificates or application review time.

    Yours sincerely, Tom Ibison Guinness World Records

    I'd like to point out that magician and card thrower, Rick Smith, Jr. has a wikipedia article focused on his world record achievement for the furthest throw of a playing card. I believe this therefore follows similar interest to Jordan Barker (magician) page as they follow similar causes in the public's interest, with both having gained 1 world record associated with card throwing, in similar detail.

    Therefore i feel my article is suitable for public use and should stay in the public domain. I hope you take this into account when reviewing the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorpeparkdude (talk • contribs) 22:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Having a Guinness World Record is quite an accomplishment but there are literally thousands of them and this one for card throwing does not seem to have significant coverage or any lasting consequences to warrant a standalone article. Mkdwtalk 23:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As stated, the record has been filmed and to be showcased as an episode of bbc's new show 'officially amazing' to be broadcast later in spring on the BBC, bringing large significant coverage to the article which I feel makes it worthy to be a standalone article. And just as much as card thrower [Rick Smith, Jr] whom has a stand alone article, is significant for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorpeparkdude (talk • contribs) 23:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately this is not enough to establish enduring notability considering the fact that this person is only notable for one event in history, no matter how big or small. Mkdwtalk 04:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. Perhaps a wave of coverage of this magician in reliable sources will materialize once the TV show is broadcast. Perhaps not. But at this time, the young man is not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you suggesting that the article should be reconstructed after tv coverage? And that necessary info could not just be added to the article upon coverage date? Thorpeparkdude (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am suggesting that this person does not meet our notability guideline for entertainers, which says that the person is notable if they have "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". Certainly, I don't rule out this performer's notability in the future, but not now. Accordingly, the article should be deleted now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 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 speedily deleted per A7. Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Levine[edit]

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

No indication of notability, so he works at a college, and has his own website. (Probably a A7) LightGreenApple talk to me 22:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7. No legitimate assertion of notability. I can't tell if the article is about Roger Reynolds or Josh Levine... Lastly there is already a famous composer, Roger Reynolds, so Josh Levine/Roger Reynolds from Ohio has very few sources. Mkdwtalk 22:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very few sources for the composer. A prominent financial analysis has most of the results in news, books, and web. Mkdwtalk 00:22, 26 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. Unanimous consensus to keep. The Bushranger One ping only 02:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eterniti Motors[edit]

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

"This article is based solely on recycled press releases from one 'concept car'. A stillborn 'tuner company' on which we lack reliable sources fails to meet any Wikipedia guidelines regarding notability". Cheers! 118.92.203.57

I'm completing the nomination on behalf of the above IP editor, and have no personal opinion about the article. Reyk YO! 21:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm assuming bad faith nomination by User:118.92.203.57 due to that editor following my edit history after being challenged (and now banned) for violations. I have no opinion about the article either. Widefox; talk 12:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Many different third party references already in the article which go way beyond press release regurgitation being claimed. No references to support that the company is stillborn. BBC ran an article recently too: BBC News Warren (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - considering the BBC article (however brief). Widefox; talk 03:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. NealeFamily (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep both on the merits & for the proposal history. --Lockley (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mkdwtalk 20:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hitomi Shimizu[edit]

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

Could not track reliable sources with substantial information on the Internet, thus the article's subject fails the notability criteria. Hula Hup (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was able to confirm and source her winning the Japan Academy Prize for best score (Japan's equivalent of the Oscar). I also sourced her work for Mt. Head and its many awards, including best soundtrack. These have been added to the article. While the work with Mt. Head may not seem significant, I think winning the major award for film scoring with Waterboys in Japan does satisfy notability criteria. Michitaro (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – References on page seem reliable enough, in addition to those that could be added. Also winning award is (generally) a sign of notability. Bensci54 (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has won several notable awards. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:42, 28 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 Tinie Tempah. Per this and last AFD ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 05:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstration (Tinie Tempah album)[edit]

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

Too soon. WP:CRYSTAL. Labrinth (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Labrinth (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect again to Tinie Tempah. Same reasons as last time. The album is now apparently finished ([1]) with Summer 2013 as the latest planned release date, but with so few details available, this is still best covered in the Tinie Tempah article. --Michig (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 29 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. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fierce Ink Press[edit]

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

Absolutely no sources are on this page. Scientific Alan 2(Talk to the hand)(What I did)(Me) 19:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Copyright violation from publisher's website. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged as G12 due to close paraphrasing (the article is also promotional) with no prejudice towards a future article - Google News searches found nothing except for this article for one of the authors, Chad Pelley, who published a book with Fierce Ink. I also found this article which mentions the two founders, saying they plan "to publish small lists to begin with, of no more than four titles a year" and "publish one digital short per month" so they probably aren't going to publish a lot for now. At the company's website, they provide a short list of their authors who have only published their debut novels with Fierce Ink so all of this may suggest it is too soon for an article. The Writers Federation of New Bruswick republished one of their press releases here and I have found several other republished press releases. I also found this merchandise partnership with local businesses. All in all, Fierce Ink was founded recently so that emphasizes how it may be too soon but, as mentioned above, I have no prejudice towards a future article when notable. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 25 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. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 05:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mirsad Bruncevic[edit]

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

Non notable footballer who has not played in a fully professional league, only the Serbian second division which is not fully pro. Therefore fails WP:NFOOTY and also appears to fail WP:GNG. Contested prod removed with no reason. Fenix down (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league and has not received significant coverage meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG, to say nothing of the fact that it's an unsourced BLP. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 29 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. Will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Kruger[edit]

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

There are absolutely no sources here. Scientific Alan 2(Talk to the hand) 17:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unreferenced biography of novelist with one book published. This article fails our notability guideline at WP:AUTHOR. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and userfy for now with no prejudice towards a future article. Google News didn't find anything useful aside from goodreads.com reviews and a different search found some blogs here, here, here and here and one interview here. These reviews are giving her and the book good reception so this may give her more attention in the future especially for the next books but there isn't much for an article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 20:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per User:SwisterTwister. The prize might help towards meeting WP:AUTHOR but appears to be a local association's competition and award for people unpublished in the chosen genre: [2]. AllyD (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It should be considered as to whether or not the book itself merits an entry as well. I'm noticing a lack of sources for the book as well. If notability can be established for the book then this article can redirect there.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wasn't able to find anything to show that this author or her book pass notability guidelines. I redirected the book's article to her entry, for whatever that might mean for it if this article is deleted. The only sources that are out there are routine notifications of readings and non-usable blog reviews. It's a shame that there aren't more sources out there, but it is what it is. If the original editor is involved with her or the publisher in any way, as I've got a slight suspicion this might be the case, I'd like to recommend that they try getting some of the local papers to cover her. If we only had maybe 2-3 more articles about her or the book in a reliable source such as a newspaper, then this would pass notability guidelines. It doesn't have that right now, so we can't really justify keeping the article.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 29 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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 03:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pond (Australian band)[edit]

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

Group fails WP:BAND. Refs are trivial, dead-links or facebook or self made. No evidence of any hits. Meets none of the notability requirements.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Besides the NME piece and the Allmusic review cited in the article, Metacritic lists several more reviews of the band's work. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND.  Gong show 21:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily enough coverage exists to be considered notable by that route alone. --Michig (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trivial keep - not a very good quality nomination at all - David Gerard (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 29 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. Delete all 3 articles ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 05:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ABA Light-Middleweight Champions[edit]

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

This is an unsourced list of British amateur champions since 2010. It looks like original research given that the ABA was founded in 1880. None of the fighters listed meet the notability criteria for boxers, and even if they did it would be WP:NOTINHERITED.

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

ABA Light-Heavyweight Champions
ABA Cruiserweight Champions


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article lists 3 non-notable fighters and has no sources. Nothing shows this list has any notability. The other two articles are no better.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all 3 These are unsourced articles with a number of issues. Primarily, they give no reason why the subject is notable. Combined with no sources, there appears to be no reason to keep them. Papaursa (talk) 21:46, 31 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Stevanović[edit]

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

Boxer who fails to meet WP:NBOX. Boxrec current has him ranked #262 in the world in his division and winning a youth title doesn't satisfy any of the notability criteria.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 29 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. There are no calls for the immediate deletion of this article beyond the nominator, and discussions regarding the merger or redirection of this article can be done outside of the AfD pages. The article is well-referenced, which certainly helps. Also, the subject appears to be evolving (with the most recent media coverage from a week ago), so I suspect there will be additional updates and rewrites in the coming weeks. A somewhat bold non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Super Smash Bros. video game[edit]

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

Per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors". Before the inevitable chorus of "But is passes WP:GNG or "but it's notable!" arises, please note that WP:N applies only if the material is not excluded by WP:NOT. —Kww(talk) 15:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that there was a dubious NAC of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Smash Bros. 4 that I hadn't noticed. That this has been persisting for years under multiple names is strengthens my case. There's nothing in here that is reasonably certain to happen.—Kww(talk) 16:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you possibly call that "dubious"? There's a clear consensus there based on policy. It was 10 to 2 Keep to Delete, with many of the Keeps citing it meeting the GNG due to coverage in reliable third party sources. You can disagree, but it's out of line to suggest that it wasn't done properly. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all out of line. The GNG didn't apply, so keeps based on them should have been discarded during the close analysis. Not appreciating issues like that is one of the reasons that NAC of anything with any hint of controversy is inappropriate.—Kww(talk) 17:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If anything doesn't apply, it's NOT, or at least the parts you're citing. There's one rumor, presented as such, for the purpose of preventing misinformation, and can easily be removed at this point, and the information extends well beyond just it's announcement. NOT is more applicable to articles like this, where it was unanimously agreed it should be a redirect, which it is right now. Sergecross73 msg me 17:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no verifiable facts in the article beyond first person statements from one of the creators about what his intentions are, and we have no way of judging whether those intentions will ever be real. Just because a creator spreads rumours as a part of a marketing campaign doesn't keep them from being rumours.—Kww(talk) 18:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we reading the same article? What rumors are being spread by the game's creator? The only "rumor" was the part of the subtitle Universe, which did not in fact come from the creator. There is no other "rumor" in the article. The content in the article ranges from how the creator wants to change the direction or approach to the series, or how Nintendo is teaming up with a new company, Namco Bandai for the first time. It's first party commentary reported upon by many, many reliable third party sources. It's the type of commentary that frequently makes up "Development" sections in good quality video game articles. It doesn't matter if the "intentions will ever be real", it's that the topic is reported on by third party sources. As I said below in another comment, I direct you to Chrono Break, which isn't even a game, but merely a "patent", which has been brought to Good Article status. It's notable as an idea. There's precedent for this type of article if the coverage is there, and it is most certainly is in this case. Sergecross73 msg me 20:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This wouldn't be a problem as a development section for something that actually existed. It's a problem because someone's statement about what his intentions are for a product is simply a rumour about the final content of the product. You have no way to tell if his participation in a marketing effort reflects reality.—Kww(talk) 23:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Existence" isn't an issue when its something that has been officially announced, and it has been officially announced, especially when a giant corporation like Nintendo has their president, Satoru Iwata, discuss it. Something like this is pretty certain to exist, and as I've said multiple times, even if it never ends up existing, it'd still have enough coverage debating it's existence to have an article, like Chrono Break. Furthermore, you're really misusing the word "rumor". The game's creators discussing what they plan to do with the series does not qualify as a rumor. Nor does anything else in the article. (Minus the expendable Universe sentence.) Sergecross73 msg me 04:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge encyclopedic content to Super Smash Bros. (series) and delete. Upcoming video games don't have specific guidelines, but WP:NFF sets out principles for feature films. A work in production is only notable if the production itself is notable, i.e. not if there's just a bunch of product announcements and rumors; otherwise info should go in the article on its subject matter or the relevant series/franchise. I don't see anything particularly interesting about this production: there is nothing of note that has attracted wide and in-depth media coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It was kept after the last nomination, and only more information has been added to it since then. There's reliable sources reporting on it. Meets the WP:GNG. The nomination refers to WP:NOT, but I'd like to point out that the article contains no rumors, and more than a mere product announcement. (EDIT: It appears one rumor is in there, the part about the name about it possibly being called SSB Universe, and that was only put in because people kept on trying to present it as fact. It was included to avoid the spread of misinformation, something that could probably even be removed at this point, since that rumor has died down. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd also like to point out that there is precedent for keeping articles such as this. See things like Kingdom Hearts III (AFD Result - Kept, (AFD Result - Kept) or Chrono Break. (Redirect proposal - Unanimously Opposed) Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also precedent the other direction. If memory serves, Brawl was treated within the context of the series rather than a separate page, until the game was much closer to release. Right now, we've no idea when or even if (even though first party sources say otherwise) the fourth installment will be released, and I think that makes it prime material for WP:FUTURE#5. --Izno (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I can't comment much on your anecdote because I don't know how much coverage was out there at whatever point in time you're referring to. I'm certainly aware of plenty instances where merging to the series article is relevant. Mario Kart Wii U is a great example, because very little is known beyond existence. I'd support merging that. But I find this article to be much more like Chrono Break, Kingdom Hearts 3, Star Wars Battlefront III, or Sonic X-treme, where, despite not being released, there's enough commentary from creators and third parties to warrant keeping them separate from their respective series page. (There's been consensus to keep on every one of those.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's gotten substantial coverage in reliable third party sources, even before we've gotten a single screenshot. There are no rumors in the article aside from the aforementioned "Universe" piece. Not to mention Iwata and Sakurai themselves have said that we'll be getting screens and/or a trailer at E3, so if it gets deleted, it's just going to go back up in a few months anyway. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While there hasn't been any screenshots or video of the games, it's gotten substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources, and it was previously nominated for deletion and kept. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Sergecross. It has significant coverage by third parties, so it meets the GNG. Jucchan (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:CRYSTAL, "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included." Exactly the case here. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." It has already been proven to be notable and is almost certain to take place. ~satellizer~~talk~ 10:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Lugia. There isn't much of a point in deleting it now. Yellow1996 (talk) 19:39, 28 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) • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Keeping in mind both WP:N and WP:NOT, this article should be treated in the context of the series as a whole as has been the standard for numerous other unreleased titles. Right now, I would judge it on the wrong side of WP:CRYSTAL. --Izno (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand the purpose of merging it now, after maintaining it for two years, just to break it back out in a few months when it's revealed at E3. With a game of this magnitude, if people see it doesn't have it's own article, it's just going to be recreated over and over again, under different names in worse quality, by fans. I'd rather we keep this closely monitored, carefully worded, well-sourced version, to prevent that. Deleting it is just causing more unnecessary work on every level. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Your first sentence is roundly trounced by WP:CRYSTAL and in fact is (one of) the reason(s) CRYSTAL exists.

    Your second is predicated on a specious notion of "people" behavior and that they will act a certain way if the article does not exist (we have a protection policy [and in particular, WP:SALT ] for a reason, besides the fact that anyone so new to Wikipedia will not be able to create an article). As for recreation, we already have to do that, regardless of location of the material. The material can be just as closely monitored, worded, and sourced in the context of the series article as in its own space. That also avoids the problem presented by the fact that we don't know what the name of the game is, and for that reason alone I would argue in favor of WP:CRYSTAL over WP:N.

    Lastly, I did not suggest that it should be deleted, only that it is conflict with a policy of the Wikipedia. A merge, without prejudice to a future unmerge, is certainly a compromise given that. --Izno (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL reads "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." The content here is verifiable, and cited from reliable sources, so I don't see what the problem with CRYSTAL is. ~satellizer~~talk~ 11:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Satellizer says, every single sentence in the article is verified by a reliable source. And as I've said above, even if the game was cancelled today, there'd be enough commentary to warrant an article. (Beyond what's available right now, let's be realistic here: When a game of this magnititude is cancelled, there's always endless additional coverage of the "What went wrong?" or "Was it just vaporware?" type of retrospective coverage, like with Sonic Xtreme or Super Mario 128. ) Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that WP:CRYSTAL does not apply since with the exception of the universe subtitle (which could easily be removed without affecting article quality if deemed necessary) noting in the article is speculation.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 22:05, 29 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Maness[edit]

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

This person doesn't seem to meet any notability criteria I can find, such as WP:MANOTE. Most of the sources don't mention him (perhaps they're outdated) and most of them are primary--interviews with him and old links apparently to a college web site. I found no claims of notability supported by independent and reliable sources.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable kickboxer. No fights for a major organization and fails WP:MANOTE. The closest thing I could find to notability is judging some championship fights for Strikeforce and that was just in a list of judges--no significant coverage. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet any notability criteria that I can see. There's nothing that shows notability, the sources lack independence, and there's no significant reliable coverage. Papaursa (talk) 21:37, 31 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. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. What with "Buddha, who is known to have had his awakening of Balitation when being struck by a falling Balit" etc, this is obvious enough for me. JohnCD (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Balutology[edit]

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

This looks to be a not-so-obvious hoax. There are no reliable sources either. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 15:38, 25 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, at least in a technical AfD-closure sense. In fact, there is a rough consensus that this content should not be in a separate article with this title. Unfortunately there is no consensus about what to do with it. There is little support for outright deletion. There is substantial and well-argued support for a redirect, but I cannot say there is consensus on what the redirect target should be. Taking into account the third and fourth paragraphs of WP:RELIST, I cannot relist this debate for a fourth time and feel that "no consensus" is the only close available.

However, in this case I think that consensus is achievable in time and I suggest that discussion should continue on the relevant talk pages about the possible redirect target. If no discussion ensues within a week or so, then I would think that a redirect may be unilaterally implemented per WP:BRD.

Whether or not a consensus is reached, would the participants please have regard to Emmette Hernandez Coleman's point about copying within Wikipedia, which needs to be taken very seriously because of our terms of use. Please ensure that we remain compliant by using one of the techniques described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution. NAC—S Marshall T/C 12:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Coat of arms of the State of Palestine[edit]

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

Duplicate of Coat of arms of the Palestinian National Authority Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentKeep - it is clearly not a duplicate, the first is saying "Sulta Wataniya Falastiniyya" (Palestinian Authority), while the second saying simply "Filastin" (Palestine, i.e. State of Palestine). Since the upgrade of the Palestinian status in the UN, it seems that President Abbas decided to use the "State of Palestine" symbols, rather than PNA.Greyshark09 (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what is the point of your comment if you just changed the article to fit your POV?Greyshark09 (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It covered both versions of the CoA before ether of us edited it, but it included two paragraphs describing the CoA, which were almost verbatim copies of each other. I removed the second paragraph, and adapted the first paragraph to describe the variation with the Arabic text between the two versions. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a premature creation of an article by an editor who should know by now to at least present the correct links to the state in question (I couldn't find a working one myself). Any deletion of the current article should not prejudice against its recreation with proper references. CarolMooreDC 00:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See the use of Palestine CoA at Palestinian Ministry of Education website [3].Greyshark09 (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proper formatting of the link in the article where you just added it, as well as a credible English translation saying "this is the coat of arms", would help. I couldn't get it to work in translate google but might have done it wrong. CarolMooreDC 15:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also just as a side point when the article was split from Coat of arms of the Palestinian National Authority, there was no credit given to the contributors of that article (per WP:CWW)), so the article is a copyright violation. Not really a reason to delete this because that lack of credit can be fixed, but serous enough to warrant menacing. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CoA Palestine article was redirected without discussion (in any case it is about Coa State of Palestine).Greyshark09 (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not much of an argument, the redirect was never reverted so there was conciseness for that action. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, lets be fair...niether did you. Seriously, lets look at what your reasoning is thus far. You deleted and redirected the article only becuase there was no discussion. Sorry, but that was edit warring as one need not discuss a a split. They may be done boldly. Your revert was discussed and no consensus was reached. That means the article is returned. But you could not accept that and began further actions, such as this AFD, a Move discussion and a DR/N filing. I also note that your reasoning using the Romanian article and the inforbox are not policy or guidelines and is a very weak argument that is only a comparison and not a reasoning. Lastly, you could easily have fixed the attribution but instead bring it up as yet further reasoning against the article itself. For clarification it is an attribution issue not a clear copyright issue. We are not talking about copying from a source but a lack of attritributing the original article contrinuters that merely requires a template on the talkpage.....that I note has simply not been created yet. I will take that step now and add my opinion on the AFD below.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "conciseness" you mean "consensus". Check the translation.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:07, 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, MBisanz talk 00:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. "No consensus" resulted in the article being returned. The AFD could be seen as an attempt to game the system and do an end run around a lack of consensus. Multiple forums have been attempted by the OP and it is this editor's belief that they compromise with the other editor. The best thing to do, would have been to start just an RFC, which is a little too late now. The editors need to collaborate more and compromise on issues, but this article has no particular reason to be deleted.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - theoretically this article should deal with CoA of the State of Palestine declared in 1988, but despite the more than 20 years age the content is minimal and already present at the other article. Recent events are also about PNA institutions using the same CoA as the SoP and that's already covered at the other article whose topic is the PNA. Discussion there can be utilized to decide if some further changes are required in the other article content, title, etc. Japinderum (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Redirect to Coat of arms of the Palestinian National Authority. Palestine does not have so many different coats of arms to justify multiple separate articles.--Staberinde (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to merge. The Authority article already covers the State, and the State article doesn't have any content that the Authority article doesn't. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have adjusted my vote accordingly. If there is nothing to merge then this should be turned into redirect.--Staberinde (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley (what's up) 15:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Third extensions of deletion debates are supposed to be accompanied by a detailed rationale of why no call has been made. So why has no call been made? Somebody step up... Carrite (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (and then consider whatever page move might be appropriate for the target page, e.g. to Coat of arms of Palestine). There is clearly not enough content for two distinct articles here. And to those editors who are amazed and shocked at the idea: what matters here is not whether the CoA of the "authority" and that of the "state" are theoretically distinct entities in some abstract sense; what matters is that what we factually have to say about them is 99% overlapping. Our definition of article topics is not necessarily meant to reflect abstract classifications and ontologies of things out there, but efficient packaging of information for readers. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:20, 25 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. No quorum. No prejudice against speedy renomination. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Mastiff[edit]

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

Delete - No secondary sources except for a passing mention in a book on English Mastiffs and a children's writing activities book. Not notable. TKK bark ! 17:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that the 'American Mastiff Club' and most sources discussing American mastiffs are in reference to mastiffs that are american, as opposed to this dog. --TKK bark ! 17:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:53, 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, KTC (talk) 00:13, 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 00:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 13:05, 25 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. Considering the last two AfD's, the DRV, the lack of delete arguments in this AfD, and being re-listed three times since January 4th, the concluding summary is not a strong enough consensus for deletion. (non-admin closure) Mkdwtalk 20:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The7stars[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The7stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was deleted after AFD1 over concerns over the sourcing and this was reviewed at deletion review. Although the DRV closed as a procedurally correct outcome I am using my discretion as the DRV closer to relist this for more in depth discussion of the sourcing. As this has already been legitiamately closed as delete a non-consensus outcome should default to the status quo, which is having no article. Spartaz Humbug! 07:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As i've voted in the past AfDs and because of my expansion of the article, I feel the sourcing is enough to the article to pass notability standards, having multiple articles specifically discussing the company and its accomplishments. This includes sources that are more than just discussions of accepted contracts with other companies, which was a concern in the prior AfD and which I rectified by finding more sources that discussed only the subject in question and nothing else. SilverserenC 08:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 5 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 00:21, 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 00:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Multiple third-party sources currently cited in the article cover the subject in sufficient detail. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 12:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Substantial 3rd party published sourcing showing in the footnotes already. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 18:29, 25 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. Soft delete - undeletion may be requested at WP:REFUND. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Stevens (wrestler)[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of anonymous editor 68.200.222.137, who posted their rationale at WT:AFD. That rationale is reproduced below. On the merits.... honestly, looking at the references, it's hard to see a case for keeping this one. Obviously, per WP:USUAL, if Stevens finds himself on more cards (and gets more coverage as a result), an article might end up being appropriate. We're not there yet, though. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject only appeared once on television and hasn't been heard from since, yet he has an article despite not being notable whatsoever. 68.200.222.137 (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NiciVampireHeart 14:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete other that being fodder for establishing Ryback's persona there is nothing to else to say about him. There were also several other wrestlers that had these types of matches with Ryback so it may be a good idea to see if there are other articles for wrestlers that are only know for losing to Ryback.--70.49.80.250 (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's as may be, though it doesn't make this person more or less notable. But if you have a list of these, post them at the discussion on WT:AFD and we can have a look. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not suggesting that the issue I mentioned would affect this person's notability but simply suggesting that there may be other atticles out there that may require deletion.--70.49.80.250 (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a list myself so that was why I was brought it up so someone more knowledgable than myself could look into it.--70.49.80.250 (talk) 06:33, 5 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 00:18, 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 00:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 12:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The third extension is supposed to include a detailed rationale of why the debate is being extended rather than a decision made. Carrite (talk) 18:23, 25 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robin-Mesh[edit]

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

I could find no coverage of this software beyond the developers' project page, trivial user-generated content, and an apparent reference here, though I don't have access to the full text to confirm. Seems to fail WP:GNG and the more specific, though non-binding, criteria in WP:NSOFT. Alexrexpvt (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have access to that article. There is a paragraph in the paper on the Robin-Mesh and why it was used for the the investigators' experiments--the open source system allowed them to instrument their router. Mark viking (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 5 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 00:20, 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 00:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 12:29, 25 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia BioTechnology Research Park[edit]

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

WP:GNG, WP:GEOFEAT, not notable. I attempted to find sources for notability, but I was unable to find any. Skrelk (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources (Richmond Times Dispatch, Free Lance Star) as well as some Associated Press coverage of the establishment of this research park as well as some ongoing coverage as it grows. Some of that coverage is already being used as reference material in the article. RadioFan (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Richmond Times Dispatch article are trivial routine coverage of a local business. I don't see any AP articles Skrelk (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Free Lance Star is in another city, and coverage there has been ongoing so that alone demonstrates some interest in this subject beyond the local news. I'm seeing some mentions in the New York Times as well. I recall a mention in Forbes as well. In whole its more than just trivial routine coverage, certainly enough to demonstrate notability here.--RadioFan (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Sufficient in-depth coverage by third party sources like the Richmond Times Dispatch and the Free Lance Star suffice. The coverage WP:ROUTINE refers to are "such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" in which the coverage in this case is none of. --Oakshade (talk) 02:02, 5 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 00:20, 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 00:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 12:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sufficient independently published sourcing showing in the footnotes. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 18:31, 25 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ramlal Prabhuji[edit]

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

A simple google search provides not in-depth coverage in reliable sources. I think it meets multiple speedy deletion criteria but I don't think it would do me any good because some one will surely decline it for whatever reason. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 29 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 01:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Totally unsourced article, which cannot survive as such, whatever the claimed miracles. I'm thinking this may be the subject, under a variant name? AllyD (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hence you are supporting delete, right? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 04:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:22, 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 00:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 12:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Third extensions of debate are support a detailed rationale of why no call is being made; the 4th extension really should not even happen. Keep this as No Consensus under the principle of WP:NOBODYCARES. Carrite (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Striking that last part, this is unsourced, unencyclopedic, and promotional in intent. It's unwikified, probably an orphan, and should have been hauled to PROD, where it would have been deleted because WP:NOBODYCARES. Carrite (talk) 18:36, 25 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 Red (Taylor Swift album). No prejudice against making this a stand-alone article in the future if enough content is written to justify it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sad Beautiful Tragic[edit]

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

Should be deleted, with a redirection back to the parent album Red. Per WP:NSONGS, whilst charting does make a song a notable, notability aside there should be extensive coverage of the song as a primary subject. In this case there isnt, and chart positions could easily be added back to the album. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 29 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 01:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the album. As with all the others, the chart positions for album tracks can be included as a table in the album article. --Michig (talk) 07:24, 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:22, 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 00:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 12:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with parent article until there's enough material to justify a solo article. Gamaliel (talk) 19:02, 25 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. Various policy-based arguments are advanced. The nominator's argument is clear and well-supported by our policies concerning notability and reliable sources. Theoldsparkle's argument is clear and well-supported by WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. There is a tension between WP:N and WP:PRESERVE, which is traditionally resolved by selectively merging content which is sourced but not particularly notable into a parent article, and this would probably be the outcome most closely based on policy, but I cannot pretend there is really a consensus to do that, since it is only really proposed by Arxiloxos; Theoldsparkle proposes it only in the alternative. It is tempting to relist this debate again for further input, but having due regard for the third and fourth paragraphs of WP:RELIST, there is nothing to justify such an action.

Since this was a poorly-attended debate that did not reach a consensus, this close must be with no prejudice against speedy renomination but I would suggest that a discussion about the merge should take place on the article talk page first. NAC—S Marshall T/C 12:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This debate was relisted while I was assessing it; I have decided to close it anyway, having regard to WP:RELIST.—S Marshall T/C 12:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

The Bloder Brothers[edit]

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

Non-notable SNL recurring sketch. No consequential impact in popular culture nor significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:39, 5 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 00:28, 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 00:31, 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

West Chester Jokers Rugby[edit]

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

Non-professional rugby team. No legitimate claim of notability. Not even affiliated with a school. Wikipedia:No one cares about your beer league rugby team, even if it's a fun time. GrapedApe (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. —Ed!(talk) 15:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 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 00:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 12:26, 25 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. Delete (without prejudice to the inclusion of information like this into Manitoba general election, 1903, as that information already apparently exists at Prohibition in Canada) j⚛e deckertalk 19:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibitionists in Manitoba (provincial candidates)[edit]

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

Removed PROD per WP:PROD (Previous AfD exists). Rationale in PROD was: None of these candidates have articles, the 'party' has no article, none of them were elected. I can find no coverage in sources, and no indication that this topic meets the notability criteria for inclusion Illia Connell (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I've moved the info into Prohibition in Canada, albeit without citations. It seems more appropriate as a couple of sentences there than as an article. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. —Ed!(talk) 15:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 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 00:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 12:26, 25 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-English-language South Park voice actors[edit]

List of non-English-language South Park voice actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Full of non-notable people. No reason established for why this article or any similar to it should exist on Wikipedia. Paper Luigi T • C 11:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Comment. Some of those dubbers may be considered notable on other Wikipedias, but not here. Except perhaps the Japanese actors and a handful of others. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I understand the suggestion that dubbers would be considered not notable on the English language encyclopedia simply because they happen to work (and would have sources) in another language. There is no requirement of English sourcing. matt91486 (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 28 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of non-English-language iCarly voice actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Incomplete, lacking sources, and non-notable. Paper Luigi T • C 11:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 28 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inkfruit[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:CORP. Essentially spam and it is incrementally turning WP into a business directory rather than an encyclopedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete We have usually regarded the Economic Times as a responsible Indian newspaper, but their story of the firm does look very much like a PR placement, and there's nothing else reliable. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep other than that Economics Times article see Reuters India, Mid-Day, Times of India etc. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:21, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titodutta, the second link doesn't work as it's a duplicate of the Reuters link - but the other two links are good sources and I am leaning keep for this if it is correctly rewritten, the self-referencing is cut out, and these reliable sources are used to improve the article and its references. Mabalu (talk) 00:10, 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, Courcelles 00:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 11:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources provided by Tito D. above. The first one is pretty much all I need to see after being underwhelmed by the article's sourcing showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thought long and hard about this one, having glanced at Tito's sources. Unfortunately, on closer inspection I didn't find anything that wasn't already in the article's footnotes. The first reference is a press release by VCCircle.com, reprinted in Reuters India and [4]. The second may have been to [5], which sounds promotional, or this [6], an article on crowdsourcing - where the company is a partial case study. The Times of India piece is another namedrop reference; the company being mentioned in one line mid-article. Can't find any other vaguely reliable sources and with lack of significant coverage, I can't see it passing WP:GNG. Funny Pika! 07:45, 26 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. GedUK  11:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uphollow[edit]

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

Would be an CSD A7 speedy were it not for the age of the article. Non-notable band whose only claim to fame in the article is that they played with other famous bands. Cursory Google search turns up nothing. Sceptre (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. In terms of significant coverage in reliable sources, this is about all I could find. Releases appear to be on small labels with few releases. Unless anyone can find more then I don't think there's a basis for an article here. --Michig (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In addition to the newsbank.com article above, I found some more results (searching "Uphollow folk band Colorado") including that newsbank.com but most of them are simply event listings in Colorado which albeit they have shared the stage with notable artists, they are not notable themselves. When I searched "Uphollow Jackets For The Trip", I found another result here. My next search was "Uphollow Hill Billy Stew" which provided that punknews.com article from above and this announcement when the record label closed. Google Books also found two CMJ Music Report links but I can't find the relevant column among the lists. Then again though, they don't seem to be significant aside from airplay lists. A search with their album Soundtrack to an Imaginary Life provided two results, one of them is the newsbank.com article from earlier and the other an event listing. Honestly, I think the only significant coverage they received was the newsbank.com article (Denver Post, Sept 3 2004) which mentioned all of their albums but was local, suggesting they probably never received much elsewhere. After detailed searches, I haven't found anything to suggest they received substantial coverage for the recent album, et cetera. Additionally, it seems their official website, uphollow.com, no longer exists (it's now a Chinese website) and their only base is bandcamp.com which is commonly used nowadays but this band is not notable. SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 28 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. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 05:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra Cricket[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about an apparently non-notable website that no longer exists. Only external link is to a holding page, and a Google search reveals little of value. Harrias talk 09:39, 25 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) • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources or general assertion to notability on an encyclopedic level. As such does not meet WP:COMPANY and WP:WEB. Mkdwtalk 20:38, 31 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Norman[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BLP. When conducting WP:BEFORE, very few sources come back other than user submitted content (IMDB & Facebook) in regards to the actor. There is a journalist and thief that seem to have most of the news sources. Norman seems to mostly have minor roles in television. Mkdwtalk 08:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This person's roles to date do not appear to meet WP:ENT, and I'm unable to find significant coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG at this time.  Gong show 21:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotional article for wannabe. Has been trying to be an actor for a bit over a year. Seems to have gotten some work as an extra and not much better. Lead says, "He is best known for his upcoming role in the Gregori J. Martin film A Place Called Hollywood." Yet that film's website does not list him in the cast. If and when he becomes notable, let's have this article back, but for now, its a clear delete. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice as being TOO SOON. A few minor roles in non-notable short films fails WP:ENT. The article itself acknowledges TOO SOON when it states he is "best known" for something that has not yet happened. However, when A Place Called Hollywood and Star Trek Into Darkness are finished and released, he may get the coverage meriting inclusion herein. Until then, we can wait. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 02:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heterogeneous activity[edit]

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

'Heterogeneous activity' is a phrase used throughout academia to mean various different things in various contexts (as a search on google scholar will show [7]). Even restricting ourselves to economics, 'heterogeneous activity' can mean a myriad of things.[8] The phrase is used when the author wants to emphasize that his model does not assume that actors are 'homogenous' in their behavior. Note that an article already exists about Homogeneity vs. heterogeneity.

The article specifies one possible use that is uncited, and likely not as notable as other uses of the term.

I don't believe an Encyclopedia article can be built around the use of the term in economics. Even it it could, it would mostly be about the use of homogeneous vs heterogeneous agents in economic models. LK (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Here are numerous high quality and relevant passages. The concept is extremely notable. For example, if all the farmers grow the same crop...as in potatoes, then there will be a famine if a disease is introduced. Homogeneous activity means that eggs are put in the same basket. That's why heterogeneous activity reduces the risk of system wide failures such as recessions or depressions. --Xerographica (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You have not provided evidence that all of your ... passages ... are about this specific use of the term in economics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - The concept covers, ahem, quite a heterogeneous bag of unrelated examples. This is not suitable as an article topic (so I'd vote Delete) but it could work as a Disambiguation page if people would like to convert it into one of those. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or replace with a disambiguation page; possibly the lead might be usable for one of the disambiguated pages if there were a source for it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject of the article is not meaningfully defined, and the words have no special meaning other than their ordinary English usage in any context. Not suitable for a disambiguation page. SPECIFICO talk 14:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How would this term fit in the JEL classification codes? (It doesn't.) A quick search of Palgrave came up with 91 uses of the term in a wide variety of entries (over the numerous editions) – this suggests that it is a term which is simply descriptive in context where it is used. Adding various quotes, as was done here, is simply WP:Coatracking.--S. Rich (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google News has plenty of hits, because heterogeneous activity could describe just about any activity with multiple causes or goals. I don't think a phrase like this has any specific meaning in economics or elsewhere as a term of art. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Clearly the AFD process needs to occur at the relevant projects...not in a general area. It's hardly a prefect solution...but it should hopefully cut down on editors editing well outside their areas of expertise. --Xerographica (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please recall the policy of No Personal Attacks. Civility is vital in discussions, regardless of — especially given — the undoubted failings of the rest of us. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per others. Subject not well defined, no sources etc.Volunteer Marek 06:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not recommending a redirect to Homogeneity and heterogeneity considering the seeming WP:OR nature of the title of the AfD -- at least not until this can be proven its a legitimate name outside of WP:NEO. Mkdwtalk 20:40, 31 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of non-English-language Chowder voice actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List is largely incomplete, hardly sourced, and almost certainly unneeded on Wikipedia. Paper Luigi T • C 08:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It doesn't meet WP:L. It's just a list of non-notable people, with no other information. A number of similar articles have been deleted recently at AfD:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-English-language The Powerpuff Girls voice actors
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-English-language Phineas and Ferb voice actors
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-Japanese language Fullmetal Alchemist voice actors
Common arguments were that they failed WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:NOTDIRECTORY and were of little or no use to WP users.--Colapeninsula (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The English Wikipedia has no room for this type of lists. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 28 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. The dissent here from Cornelius383 and Abhidevananda have been considered, but the arguments presented are not strong enough to overcome the consensus here that is for removing the article. A redirect option has also been considered, but many who suggested this also gave outright deletion as an alternative. A redirect may however be added at editorial discretion.

Regarding the points made by Cornelius383, the deletion process is not an exercise in censorship. It is something we use in order to assure that the articles that are in Wikipedia meet the desired standards. Among these standards are that the subjects need to be sufficiently notable, and coverable in a manner that is neutral. In most cases, including this case, that means coverage in independent sources that discuss or analyze the subject. That provides the kind of secondary sourcing that is vital for an encyclopedia article.

This kind of coverage needs to be beyond mere citation of the book. Simply a citing a book does not mean that we have secondary sourcing about the book. Unfortunately, that means that the list of citations that Abhidevananda's provided is not sufficient grounds to say that this passes WP:BK. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Microvitum in a Nutshell[edit]

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

Unable to find any coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). Location (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 16:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. 16:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a recent book about "microvita theory", apparently a twentieth century New Age vitalist philosophy: microvita are tiny little creative catalysing agents. They build atoms of matter, biology and mind, while cooperating with the characteristics of subatomic particles and pure energy. The topic of the book seems somewhat fringe, and neither the book nor its subject really have the kind of long term depth to support an article at this stage. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editor's note: This book is a part of the vast literary heritage of Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and it's one of the various articles related with Sarkar, that I recentely wrote. I've inserted secondary sources on it and I don't understand why to delete it. Have we to consider WP as an encyclopaedia representing the various aspects of human knowledge or have we to propose all that we don't like/agree for deletion? It's very easy to delete an article but it's more difficoult to build, or constructively help to support/expand/improve it.--Cornelius383 (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I gather from your remark that this is "the" sourcebook for the theory, at least in English. I personally am much less hostile to this kind of material than some other editors are, but from past discussions I can see trouble here. What I'm not finding is a great deal of independent, third party notice for this particular book, of the sort that could support an independent article. Without that, the fact that it's a must-read for believers or practitioners may not get to the point of notability; and until the theory generates a literature with more depth and persistence than this book, the subject can probably be well covered in the chief article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to Smerdis in pursuit of consensus: May I take it from what you have written above that you would oppose an AfD nomination for the chief article, Microvita theory, and that you would support a redirect and merger of this article with that chief article? I ask, because this is a compromise that I would support. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I do think that for the time being, the book probably is best covered in the article about the theory. Whether the theory is notable or not isn't a question I have an opinion on yet. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed compromise withdrawn: In that case, my proposed compromise is withdrawn. I stand on my opinion/vote (expressed below) that this book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books) and hence the book article should be retained (in addition to the chief article, which I also deem to meet WP notability criteria). --Abhidevananda (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This isn't like a settlement negotiation, where the plaintiff agrees to settle for half of the sum demanded, and everybody walks away grumbling. Ultimately, the question boils down to whether the inventor, his theory, or his book have attracted the notice of disinterested observers who've recorded their observations about the theory and its inventor in reliable sources. A notability objection is one of the easier arguments to meet here: produce the significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and arguments about notability generally go away. Show me those sources for this book, and I will change my mind. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply and observation: I agree... this is not like a settlement negotiation. But I offered a proposal, because it sounded like you were open to having a chief article on "Microvita theory", and it is now crystal clear to me that a group of individuals on Wikipedia are intent on eliminating or trivializing any reference to anything connected with what they call the Sarkarverse. In other words, I expected one of their group to put forward an AfD on the chief article, which would eventually move in the direction of a merge. So your argument to merge the article on "Microvitum in a Nutshell" with the "chief article" would become moot as soon as the chief article ceased to exist... as has now happened. In fact, the action taken - subsequent to our discussion here - was even more extreme than what I expected. Someone simply carried out the redirect without any prior discussion on the Talk page of the article or any AfD nomination. --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes Wikipedia:Notability (books). Regarding the value of this theory, I am not competent to say. However, this book is referenced in several articles and books edited by Sohail Inayatullah, whom the nominator herself/himself has described only a few days ago as reliable, secondary, and independent (see here). Furthermore, this book is referenced in the Wikipedia article, Microvita theory. Admittedly, that article looks like it could use a few more references; but I don't think that such references will be hard to find and add. A google search points to many articles, books, seminars, and research projects. --Abhidevananda (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources (this is by design). If you have citations to Sohail Inayatullah's work please add them to the article and leave a note here that you've done so. I'm not sure that will be sufficient, but it's a start. GaramondLethe 05:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Garamond: Sohail Inayatullah is by no means the only academic to write about microvita. And, referenced or unreferenced, all of those writings are derived from the content that appears in this book, "Microvitum in a Nutshell". So, for example, here are just three articles by Sohail Inayatullah that talk about the theory of microvita:
here
here
here
Let me be clear about this. The above is by no means an exhaustive list. It is just three articles by Inayatullah that I could find in a one-minute google search. But why would I add any information to a book on the subject of microvita when the chief article, Microvita theory, has now been essentially eliminated on Wikipedia by virtue of a redirect, carried out subsequent to my above discussion with Ihcoyc|Smerdis and without any prior discussion on the Talk page of that article? Yes, anyone can undo that peremptory redirect, but even my limited experience on Wikipedia indicates that this is likely to lead to a time-consuming edit war. The discussion going on at Fringe/n#Microvita_theory indicates to me a bias that no amount of editing will overcome. (I quote: "the Afd on Microvitum in a Nutshell which I think should just be renamed to Microvitum in for Nutcases".) --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yes, I can do google searches too, and based on those searches neither you nor I have found a review of this book or anything else that would allow it to be consider notable under wikipedia's guidelines. GaramondLethe 13:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar like the rest of the 1,000 new Wiki articles that are about to appear on the topic next week. The Microvita theory article has the audacity to say: "The author predicts that they will soon be recognized by conventional science." Well, let him write the article after they have been recognized. Right now it is pure fringe and could be renamed Microvitum in for Nutcases. History2007 (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar per WP:SIGCOV. The book does not find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The fact that this book is used as a reference in articles pertaining to Microvita theory, which itself is arguably fringe, does not make the book notable. The sources need to address the topic directly and in detail for it to meet the general notability guideline. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 00:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. Ten hits on google scholar, nine of which accessible: library catalog entry, cite in primary lit., citation in business literature, citation in open letter (?), actual discussion of the book but not independent, citation in primary literature, citation in primary literature, citation in primary historical literature (looks like a good article), and citation in primary literature. No independent reviews or discussion of the book. GaramondLethe 01:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Sorry Garamond, I couldn't understand about how you came to the conclusion that 5 or 6 of these sources were primary. Not all Indian names are connected to Ananda Marga and Helen Crovetto and Sohail Inayatullah wouldn't count as primary neither. --Universal Life (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: The primary literature includes (for example) the journals where peer-reviewed research is reported. Secondary sources are syntheses and comments on this primary work. The journal here are Nova Religio, Journal of herbal medicine and toxicology, On the Horizon, Foresight, SpringerBriefs in Pharmacology and Toxicology, etc. WP:PRIMARY has the official word. GaramondLethe 23:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, got it, I think I confused primary with non-independent. --Universal Life (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's a lot of jargon to keep track of. Hang in there, it gets easier with practice. GaramondLethe 23:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar; problems with both notability and fringe. bobrayner (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't seem to be notable as a book in its own right. Robofish (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: for the reasons above mentioned by me.--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editor's long comment & note for the closing Admin.: for nearly a month the same group of users is proposing the deletion of dozens of articles I had written on WP. All articles belonged to the vast literary production of a single author. Let's suppose that some articles were poorly written, or that others were even not very encyclopedic. But that so many articles can be proposed for deletion by a single group of users, with various excuses, seems to me absurd and suspicious. WP was born to spread the totality of human knowledge, not only a part of it. Everyone is invited on WP to cooperatively create/maximize/improve new articles not to delete them. Deleting an article should only be an exceptional case and not a way of working of a group of editors. Censorship is an ancient art. I am experienced enough in history to be able to say that. Some expert users on WP seems not involved at all in the hard task of building new articles but in the relatively easy job of deleting many of them. Using bureaucratic quibbles as a weapon to censor/delete the encyclopedic representation of the part of knowledge that they simply don't like or don't understand.
Instead of devoting their energies to increase the number of new articles, literally they chase you all around WP, analitically examining your talks and articles to find loopholes or a reason to stop your editing if they don't agree with the contents. What I am saying are not chatter in the wind: you can easily check it by just doing an analysis of the historical contributions of many "deleters". Hundreds of hours used in inconclusive, furious quarrels, personal attacks, angry deletions reserved for the "enemies", many "good tips" and very, very few or no new articles at all.
My opinion is that this is the best way to kill WP: if everything will remain so many editors will go away one after another. At the same time the increasing volume of human knowledge will require in the near future an increasing number of editors... Thanks.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replay: WP should be mainly based on mutual aid of users, aimed to draw up or to improve new articles. Here we have the same group of users doing the opposite work and proposing tens of AfD's for all the items related with the same subject. What words can we use to define this activity essentially aimed to hide knowledge rather than to spread it? I do not ask for help but I'm pointing out facts that anyone can check!--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Delete all ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 05:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ashayer Noor F.C.[edit]

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

Part of a large series of unreferenced micro-stubs about football teams in Iran which have not received significant coverage or played at a national level in order to meet notability guidelines. c.f. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ara-e Gharb Kermanshah F.C.. This nomination covers a total of nine articles, for which I believe identical deletion criteria apply. C679 06:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eight related articles listed below per nomination:

Dehdari Mashhad F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Faraghi Bandar Torkaman F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Heyat Football Kashmar F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Heyat Football Khorasan Shomali F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Keshavarz Golestan F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Naftoon Tehran F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shahrdari Eslamshahr F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shahrdari Behshahr F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

C679 06:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 06:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. C679 06:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. C679 06:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Govvy (talk) 12:43, 25 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 List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms. Merge all to List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms. As per discussion various redirects and deletes will be made post merge (see below). I suggest a section be setup on Talk:List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms to coordinate the merge. The essential discussions regarding further deletions, redirects and content to keep should take place on relevant talk pages. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 05:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheng Yuanzhi[edit]

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

This fictional character is not especially notable in the historical novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Almost all the content in the article is WP:PLOTONLY. Delete. LDS contact me 05:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason as stated above. These four pages were created by me, but they have also been edited by other users since then, but the changes aren't very significant. It will be great if WP:CSD#G7 can be applied to these four articles.

Cui Liang (Three Kingdoms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Meng Jie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mu Shun (eunuch) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gou An (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

LDS contact me 06:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating more related pages for the same reason as stated above. The following pages were not created by me.

Deng Mao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yan Zheng (rebel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gao Sheng (rebel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sun Zhong (rebel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pan Feng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mu Shun (general) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fang Yue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wu Anguo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zhao Cen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chen Heng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Du Yuan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kong Xiu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Han Fu (fictional) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bian Xi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wang Zhi (fictional) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Qin Qi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pei Yuanshao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Xiahou En (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cai He (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cai Zhong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Liu Xian (fictional) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Xing Daorong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chen Ying (fictional) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gong Zhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jia Hua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zhou Shan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yang Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Xiahou De (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jinhuan Sanjie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dongtuna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ahuinan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mangyachang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Meng You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
King Duosi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dailai Dongzhu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
King Mulu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wutugu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Han De (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zhang Qiu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wang Tao (Three Kingdoms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dang Jun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Qiu Ben (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
LDS contact me 06:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating a few more pages which I've missed out earlier.

Cen Pi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cheng Kuang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), already has an AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheng Kuang)
Gong Jing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ning Sui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), already has an AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ning Sui)
Sun Ji (general) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wei Hong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Xiahou Jie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zou Jing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
LDS contact me 23:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Change to merge per Benjitheijneb. Snuge purveyor (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms as above; the articles, though stub-lengthed, still present some information which would be useful. Most of the listed articles are already short enough that adding their information to the list will not enlargen it to unreasonable lengths. Benjitheijneb (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And in response to Noiratsi's comment, I am willing to begin moving relevent information not covered in other articles across as soon as a consensus to merge is reached. Benjitheijneb (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against the idea of merger, but I prefer deletion because there are other more notable persons who share the same names as some of these characters, such as Sun Ji (footballer), Liu Xian and Han Fu. Ideally, if a dab page is shared by one of these characters and another more notable person, the latter should take precedence over the former. Perhaps we merge only for those characters with really unique names, such as the Xiahous and the Nanman characters? LDS contact me 23:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely we could copy across the information for those characters without setting up a redirect? For example, taking the information from the Sun Ji (Three Kingdoms) to the fictional characters list, but not introducing a redirect for a Sun Ji disambiguation to the list itself. Having information about characters sharing names with more notable persons doesn't mean we have to recognise their names in-list as a potential disambiguation target. I hope you've understood what I'm trying to say; I am struggling slightly to phrase it clearly. EDIT: In other words, manually copy the information across and then delete the Three Kingdoms character page, then redirect the relevent pages towards their more notable counterparts with the same name (as opposed to a disambiguation page to separate the character and the notable person). EDIT AGAIN (sorry!): Though as you say, we could introduce a redirect for the unique names such as the ones you mentioned. Benjitheijneb (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me share my interpretation of your suggestion through categorisation:
  • Characters who share the same names as other more notable persons (let's call this category A), such as Sun Ji (general), Liu Xian (fictional), Han Fu (fictional) etc.
  • Characters whose names are sui generis and are highly unlikely to be shared by any other notable persons (let's call this category B), such as the two Xiahous, the Nanman characters etc.
For category A, we copy relevant information from the articles to the fictional characters list and delete the articles. After that, we omit the character's names from any disambiguation pages (if there are any), and use the character's names (without the disambiguation) as the titles of the articles on their more notable counterparts (through moves, I believe). Let me use Sun Ji as an example to illustrate: Sun Ji (general) and Sun Ji (disambiguation) will be deleted, and Sun Ji (footballer) will be moved to Sun Ji.
For category B, direct merging to the fictional character list by copying relevant information from the articles to the list, and then redirecting them to the list.
Is this what you mean? I do not object to this idea, but it'll be a tedious and possibly complicated task, especially for category A. LDS contact me 05:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly that. I am of the belief that any suitable information should be taken from these articles before deletion, and I do believe that the benefit of redirecting the Category A pages to avoid disambiguations will justify the extra effort taken on account of these pages. Benjitheijneb (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My own preference is delete all -- this is not a Three Kingdoms Wiki, and I tend to think that there's so much irrelevant information out there on the Three Kingdoms already. I can see the point of merging and I don't disagree that it's a reasonable idea. --Nlu (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very true; if a merge does go through, it would definitely be worth giving the list a once-over to check how much remains of relevence. Not everything in these articles is worth transferring; I simply believe that for the sake of the information that IS relevent, deletion should be delayed until whatever should be merged is merged. Benjitheijneb (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solution[edit]

Based on the responses from various parties thus far, the majority seems to be in favour of merger and a few users who prefer deletion (including me) are not opposed to merging. As such, I'm posting here a more detailed draft of the solution proposed by Benjitheijneb.

Category B articles

Relevant information from the following will be copied to List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms. These articles will then be redirected to the list:

Category A articles

Relevant information from the following will be copied to the list, and the actions specified for each entry will be taken:

The following will be deleted after relevant information from them is copied to the list:

Any comments? If everything goes well, we should get cracking soon and complete the task by the end of next week. LDS contact me 09:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and speedy close. The discussion seems to have rapidly reached a conclusion that the content be kept and restructured. These are essentially ordinary editing processes; decisions as to which if any articles remain discrete, which merged, and which simply redirected are not deletion-related. The essential discussions should take place on relevant talk pages, with appropriate tags placed on the articles involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, although not all will be deleted, those that are kept will still be redirected. This discussion is essentially still related to deletion, just that we've come to the details on how to handle each article. Why the rush? LDS contact me 01:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In theory I agree with the above proposal, but in practice I think it will be difficult in stopping new editors from creating articles for fictional characters. If they enter a Category B name then it's no problem since they will just be redirected, but if they enter a Category A name then they might think Wikipedia doesn't have any information on them and be tempted to make an article on these Cat. A fictional people. I therefore think it is better to keep the disambiguation pages and/or the hatnotes on the names' primary topic. _dk (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When they attempt to create a category A page again, a message will pop up, informing them that a previous page with the same name had been deleted. That may serve a "deterrent" effect. Anyway, we can always start AFDs for the pages if they are created again. Keeping the dab pages and the hatnotes is not a bad idea, I don't object to that unless the community says otherwise. LDS contact me 12:48, 28 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 Sedgwick County, Kansas#Infrastructure. MBisanz talk 01:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sedgwick County Emergency Medical Services[edit]

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

Article subject appears to fail the general notability guideline. Nothing special about Sedgwick County's EMS. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 27 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. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 06:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broadvision Perspectives[edit]

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

Not notable company; practically no coverage in news; the single economictimes ref shows info on another company; most reference from primary source (company website); details of work done with clients clearly promotional. GDibyendu (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GDibyendu (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotional and less than informative article about a business describing itself as a a strategic consulting company.... that advises clients in the areas of Brand Strategy, Employer Branding, Brand Research, Package Design, Brand Promotions and allied People Advisory Services. Odd use of capital letters is itself diagnostic. Bulk of the article is self-laudatory descriptions of its PR campaigns. A run of the mill PR firm using Wikipedia for self-promotion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It could be the language and country barriers but I haven't found anything substantial (primary sources, yes) despite multiple detailed searches including the founder, Sriram Chandrasekaran. A search with Procter & Gamble provided some results for an American "enterprise portal applications" company but not for an Indian company, and another press release for that American company here but absolutely nothing for this Indian company. Additionally, there really isn't much useful information at the company's website, broadvision.asia, only promotional information and not even a list of employees such as CEO, CFO, etc. Searches at nationally known newspapers such as Financial Chronicle, Times of India (though I don't consider this one to be reliable sometimes) and The Hindu provided nothing useful or relevant. I have no prejudice for a new article if notability is established but this one is entirely promotional and the references listed never actually talk about the company (aside from the primary links of course). SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although superficially it appears to be well sourced, many of them are either about their clients such as Inwinex Pharmaceuticals' source from the Economist (which actually isn't even an article but only a management staff listing) or trivial mentions. Also the article has major WP:ADVERT concerns. Mkdwtalk 20:44, 31 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. Only argument supporting deletion has been withdrawn. Salvidrim! ✉ 02:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swinford Bandog[edit]

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

Non-notable; this is one specific person's strain of bully dog that has been picked up by a handful of kennels. The only references I can find are in someone's courtroom testimony, where it is briefly mentioned in a list of breeds[9] [10] and in these two books (journal articles?) which also appear to be passing mentions: [11] [12] and upon closer examination might actually be the same book. Google Scholar and Google News turned up absolutely nothing. TKK bark ! 05:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • First, No breeding program today has dogs bred down from his program; therefore, it is a rather mute point to say the Swinford Bandog article on Wikipedia is advertising based. Dr. John Swinford passed away in November of 1971,[1] and some time later all the dogs from his program have since too passed away. The merit of this article is the simple sharing of the documented process of how Swinford developed his breed of dogs, a breed which became rather notable during his lifetime as well as for some time after his passing.[2] The article reports how Swinford chose to use performance selection to improve the general fitness and health of working breeds. One can compare show breeds to working breeds and quickly note the considerably improvements made in general fitness and health of working lines as a result of performance selection. [3]
    Second, the Swinford Bandog breed became rather notable during his lifetime as well as for some time after his passing, and has been referred to in many publications considering its limited lifespan, many of which were printed several decades ago. Such publications have included "The World of Fighting dogs by Carl Semencic"[4] [13]; The Working American Bulldog by Dave Putnam [5] [14]; Gladiator Dogs by Carl Semencic[6] [15]; the July-Aug issue of The Sporting Dog Journal (actually making one of the main articles as well as the cover story) [7] in "30 Years of Journal Cover Dogs by Jack Kelly [16]; Dog Catalog [17] and vet journal dog catalog [18], and also in a few others[8] [19] Swinford was described to have used performance selection to improve the functional capabilities and health of working dogs,[9] as working breeds have been shown to display general fitness and health from working lines of dogs is superior to non-working breeds. [10]— Preceding unsigned comment added by HLeeRobinson (talk • contribs) — HLeeRobinson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to withdraw this nomination, my concerns have been addressed and otherwise disproved. Pinging Salvidrim, if this works, please work! --TKK bark ! 01:29, 30 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. The article was deleted by User:DGG on 05:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 08:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Makinson[edit]

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

This BLP is not supported by any reliable sources and internet research indicates that at least some of the content is false. PinkBull 04:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable blog owner. Several elements of the page appear to be copied from the Mark Zuckerberg page (eg C-Span link, Commons link, Authority control template and most of the categories). No credible evidence is given or is able to be found to prove notability. Hack (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, perhaps Speedily Smells like advertising. The site he founded is a blog, the C-SPAN link at the bottom goes nowhere, and there's no source for his other claims of notability. A quick google search comes up with nothing but his own social networking pages. On top of that, the article creator has a pretty clear conflict of interest (and has an innapropriate username, to boot). InShaneee (talk) 04:49, 25 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) 10:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daar-Ul-Islam (Ballwin, Missouri)[edit]

Daar-Ul-Islam (Ballwin, Missouri) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I fail to see the significance. Impress me. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as the nominator makes no policy-based argument for deletion, in fact no policy-based statement as to why it was even nomiated, instead making a WP:IDONTLIKEIT sounding argument. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Observe Hack Make[edit]

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

Not notable. One GNews/Books hit (combined), from the sponsoring organizatoin. GHits show social media and similar sites, no reliable or verifiable sources. Not a crystal ball. Previously deleted unanimously at AfD, restored by admin without DRV or other process. GregJackP Boomer! 04:18, 25 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 02:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Brown (Film)[edit]

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

I am unable to find any verification of this film or discussion of it in reliable sources. "Gary Brown" "Katene Te Maipi" comes up with five results, all social networking. ... discospinster talk 03:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of notability has been provided, nor have any independent sources been identified. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I remember seeing this when it was PRODed and not finding any sources. I did another check and was still unable to find sources.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of notability. It appears that the film does exist (as evidenced by the soundcloud.com results), but there are no reliable sources covering this at all. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 27 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. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 06:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Windows Tiger[edit]

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

Hi. This two-sentenced article does not do a great job of complying with WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. Not only it fails to exhibit evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources but its sole source The Register (which is not a reliable source) says it is a rumor. I searched the Internet for more on this and the results were far from satisfactory. Codename Lisa (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The article does a poor job of explaining what its subject is or even what time period it was created in. Lack of sources and its status as a rumor don't help it out much either. Paper Luigi T • C 21:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There might have been a project with this codename, but as it was never released it will never be sufficiently notable for an article. And a single source in The Register quoting a rumour is not reliable enough even for the mention in List of Microsoft codenames#Windows 3.1x/9x. I haven't found any other sources. There's this rather strange video showing what looks more like a hacked version of Windows Me. Mcewan (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article actually fails verifiability. Micrsoft did ahve a project by the codename of Tiger but it was video streaming technology and eventually became part of NetShow; all of which predates this supposed OS version. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 29 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. Consensus, WP:SNOW and WP:G12 - copyright violation. The Bushranger One ping only 02:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Secondary Education,Madhya Bharat,Gwalior[edit]

Board of Secondary Education,Madhya Bharat,Gwalior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, appears to be a letter and a form copied from an external source Shadowjams (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I don't know what this content is, but it's not an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Strong delete, I agree with User:Metropolitan90, someone has a very mistaken idea what Wikipedia is. JIP | Talk 06:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed my vote to strong delete after reading User:Bharathiya's comment below, because Bharathiya is an Indian and therefore knows these things. JIP | Talk 22:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEED DELETE: Pure advertisement of a non notable and fake institution offering secondary and senior secondary courses without any authority in India. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:GOOGLE and WP:ORG. For speedy deletion.-- Bharathiya (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparently, the article is a copy of their website: http://www.bsembgwalior.edu.in/ I've tagged it as such. --Auric talk 13:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 27 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic Mission Peace and Prosperity[edit]

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

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madhu Krishan, one editor pointed out this article, which was created and maintained by the same user (currently blocked for legal threats) and with the same promotional tone. After the promo-speak was weeded out, what is left is a stub referenced only through primary sources. Google News returns nothing.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:RS, WP:GOOGLE, and mainly the WP:ORG. Not a notable organization. Fails to provide or to have accepted reliable sources. Wordpress and google sites are self published sources and cannot be taken as acceptable sources. The another version of self-praising article published in the creator's user page also needs to be deleted. Bharathiya (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Can't find independent sources about the organisation. Please let us know if anybody can. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 27 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. The Bushranger One ping only 21:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Universal Century vehicles and craft[edit]

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

Contested PROD of this being a legit list, I am placing this up for AfD as it fails WP:GNG and goes against WP:NOTDIR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the links are all redirects so the items on the list can be easily found using Template:Gundam or Template:Mobile Suit Gundam. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is not a fan wiki that can describe every single thing that occurs in fictional universes. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:15, 25 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 Abdel Latif El Menawy. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abd Ellatif El menawy[edit]

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

Essentially duplicates the article Abdel Latif El Menawy WQUlrich (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge any additional information into the earlier article Abdel Latif El Menawy. As the nominator says, they're almost identical and there's been a merger proposal on the earlier article since September 2012. Sionk (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy decision - merge or redirect. Bearian (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge of course. I'd be willing to compare both articles and make sure all info/sources are included in one this weekend. I copied Abd Ellatif El menawy onto my computer so I could do the additions on my time. ~dee(talk?) 20:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Phillips Exeter Academy. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soule Hall[edit]

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

Contested PROD long time ago, non-notable prep school dormitory, contains mostly OR and totally unreferenced. FrankDev (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:10, 5 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 00:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of this content is verifiable from Carol Walker Aten's book on Exeter, which deals with Philips Exeter Academy in chapter 3 and gives short descriptions of several of the campus buildings. However, there's not enough, there or anywhere else that I can find, to justify individual articles for any of them, although a breakout sub-article on the campus of Philips Exeter Academy (or some such) could be justifiable. As FrankDev notes, a large proportion of this content is patent rubbish. Uncle G (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with the college article. Not worth a standalone article.--Charles (talk) 18:31, 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, Mediran (t • c) 09:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:48, 25 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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rouglas Odor[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball figure. He never played in the major leagues and he has never managed or coached outside of the low minor leagues. He is mentioned in news articles, but most of it is routine coverage. A couple paragraphs here and there briefly going of the basic details of his career don't seem particularly significant. Alex (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:53, 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! 17:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think there is enough significant coverage to establish notability. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable minor league baseball player. No presumption of notability per WP:NBASEBALL (never played in MLB or other top-level league), and coverage is inadequate to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG with substantial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:32, 27 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. Loose yet clear consensus to keep. The fact that it is unreferenced or uncategorized is irrelevant, as notability and the existence of sources should have been proven in this AfD. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced search for: 
"Paul A. D. de Maine"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library

Paul A. D. de Maine[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Paul A. D. de Maine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

Nominate for deletion Tagged as of doubtful notability for 5 years. AfD 5 years ago found 'no consensus to delete'. Unreferenced, orphaned article of unproven notability. Boleyn (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Meets WP:BIO - now that the article is at the correct name, searches of that name produce plenty of useful hits.--ukexpat (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How much is "plenty"? We usually require around 1000. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Can any of these hits turn up a reliable source so the article is referenced at least? And how many hits are there? Thanks for looking into it. Boleyn (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep His textbook, Maine, Paul A. D., and Robert D. Seawright. Digital Computer Programs for Physical Chemistry, although published as far back as1963,is apparently still in over 300 academic libraries [11] Over 100 articles in Google scholar, with respectable citations for works published in the 60s and 70s, both in physical chemistry and in computer science., author of the review. After a time, work in a field gets incorporated into the body of knowledge, and what people cite are later works depending on it. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you help us find these articles in Google scholar? Using the search box at the right I find very few cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:13, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As DGG mentions, there are plenty of mentions. The subject clearly meets academic notability standards. Majoreditor (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I was going to close this as Keep, then saw that despite the mentions of sources above, the article is still a WP:UBLP... - The Bushranger One ping only 01:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What has that got to do with an AfD decision? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philip H. Friedman[edit]

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

Biography article that is a WP:COATRACK for links to author's works and website selling self-help CDs/Books. No indication of notability, no reliable source references Gaijin42 (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Purely promotional, non-notable. Nothing found at Google Scholar under his name or "Friedman assessment scale". Ditto for Google News. --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:35, 25 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. Soft delete - undeletion may be requested at WP:REFUND. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

R204DESIGN[edit]

R204DESIGN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable per WP:CORPDEPTH. WP should for very notable companies (whatever that is) rather than each and every run of the mill companies. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 5 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 00:24, 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 00:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - judging by the complete lack of anything online (apart from a couple of press releases) about the company or its work, it seems to have made no impact at the moment! Sionk (talk) 01:27, 25 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 Public Relations Society of America. Due to low participation, this redirect may be undone by any editor. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Public Relations Student Society of America[edit]

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

Subject is adequately covered in the article on the Public Relations Society of America and does not warrant its own article. Suggest a redirect. CorporateM (Talk) 16:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as the reasonable solution. There is no separate notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 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, KTC (talk) 00:19, 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 00:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:27, 25 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 Bushranger One ping only 01:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheerleader Ninjas[edit]

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

Not notable. The appropriate guidelines are Wikipedia:Notability (films). Article was created in 2006, and has been tagged {{unreferenced}} since 2008. HairyWombat 00:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd suggest merging to the page on its star Kira Reed, but I'm not sure she's notable. I found someone claiming[20] that Ninja Cheerleaders is a remake of this film. If so, a merge there might be in order. But I've spent enough time googling this. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There's not a lot out there for this film, but it has received reviews from Film Threat and the Tri-City Herald. The encyclopedia it's mentioned in does count for something, although it's brief and is written by a Film Threat editor. Not the same one, though. It's just enough to where I can muster a weak keep at best, although part of me wouldn't protest too hard if it's deleted. There might be some merit in merging it with the article on Ninja Cheerleaders if it's 100% certain that it's a remake of that film. It does have similar titles, but other than the one source saying it's a remake I'm not really seeing anything that confirms it's a remake so far. I think it might have been more speculation on that one source's part than any actual confirmation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I copied this article to wikialpha in case it gets deleted here. Mathewignash (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per just squeaking up on WP:NF. While certainly this thing has lots of coverage in a less-than-reliable sources, the improvements by Colapeninsula and Tokyogirl79 are just enough. We do not expect nor demand that any low budget indie would have the same level of media coverage as big budget studio blockbusters. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per significant coverage. LenaLeonard (talk) 20:35, 31 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) LlamaAl (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate Biscuit pudding[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Non-notable, all the hits I get are other recipes. TheLongTone (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and move to the Wikimedia Cookbook //Gbern3 (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that chocolate biscuit pudding is a very important part of the Sri Lankan dessert world, and as such is certainly deserving of inclusion. Foods, specially local foods, have a powerful significance to people who grew up around them, and as an open encyclopedia Wikipedia should maintain articles of such importance. Sri Lanka may be a small country, but surely our cuisine is a worthwhile piece of world culture. If you believe CBP is not notable, please ask any Sri Lankan - they will set you straight.
And after going through Wikipedia's list of puddings, I find absolutely no difference between this article and most of the other pudding articles, and have to conclude that CBP is being rather unfairly picked on. Dear editor, the proof is in the pudding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.48.255.23 (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I do find a few items in reliable sources that are consistent with the multitude of blogs and other non-reliable references that identify this as an iconic Sri Lankan dessert. For example an article in the Daily News of Colombo describing how chocolate biscuit pudding has replaced watalappam as the available dessert in ready-made shops[21] and a recent restaurant review in the same paper noting a particularly good version of this "ubiquitous desert [sic]" at one of the city's best restaurants, where it is the only dessert served.[22]. With due consideration for avoiding systemic bias (see WP:WORLDVIEW) I lean toward keeping this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is discussed in sources such as The postcolonial identity of Sri Lankan English. The real absurdity here is that chocolate biscuit is just a redirect to a particular variety. There's a lot more to be said about that larger topic, I'm sure, and the usage in Sri Lanka would form a good part of that. Per WP:PRESERVE, we should therefore keep this promising material. Warden (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is a reaonable claim for notability & this can be more than a recipe, I withdraw the nomination.TheLongTone (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that the article needs to be more than a recipe. The fact that the article only describes how to make the pudding and says nothing about its history or importance in Sri Lankan culture was why I suggested it be moved to the Cookbook. There are other well written articles about food from around the world such as falafel from the middle east, béarnaise sauce from France, and frog cake from Australia. The difference is those articles go beyond just listing a recipe. If something can be written about the history or cultural impact of chocolate biscuit pudding then I will change my delete to keep. If not, I still stand with moving it to the Cookbook or WP:USERFY(ing) it until it looks like an actual article and not simply a recipe. //Gbern3 (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two editors have already produced sources above that show that something can be written about the history or cultural impact of chocolate biscuit pudding. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No they haven't. The two sources identified by Arxiloxos (talk · contribs) are behind a paywall and since talk of chocolate biscuit pudding isn't shown in the previews of either article, it's hard to say if they're actually helpful based on those views. The full text versions located on the Daily News official website show that they aren't helpful. The first article Arxiloxos linked to, The decline of watalappam cast chocolate biscuit pudding in a rather negative light. I put the word in bold font for easy identification:
"Watalappam in even more difficult to find ready-made in shops, where its place has been usurped by a ghastly, ultra-sweet and barely edible concoction called ‘chocolate biscuit pudding’ - sold in plastic packs similar to those in which the divine dessert is delivered. Even when it can be located, the watalappam is of inferior quality. For economy’s sake, the traditional ingredients are substituted for - sugar for jaggery, condensed milk for coconut milk and inappropriate artificial flavouring for spices. The result is barely distinguishable from chocolate biscuit pudding... We need to take stock of our cultural policy, which is obviously failing in the face of the onslaught of consumerist values. We need say ‘no’ to the cheap, the tasteless and the mundane. We must recreate in the 21st century what the 20th century greats did for architecture, art, dance, music, drama and literature. We need more people like Chef Pabilis Silva to demonstrate the possibility of overcoming a crass market culture and adding the flavour to our lives. It is time to reclaim our roots and to begin the climb back up to the cultural heights, from chocolate biscuit pudding to authentic watalappam.
This article cast the dish as—for lack of a better word—a fraudulent representation of a true Sri Lanka dessert which, according to this article, is watalappam. I doubt this is the kind of source that contrarians to this AfD are looking for, but if you insist this is the kind of source to use to demonstrate chocolate biscuit pudding's cultural impact (as a artificial non-native substitute), be my guest. The second article Arxiloxos linked to was MoC celebrates the Big One. There is one mention of chocolate biscuit pudding: "The other stand out items being the Chocolate Biscuit Pudding, the only dessert on the menu, which uses dark Belgian Chocolate to elevate this ubiquitous desert, and the Iced Tea Soda, an all-natural preservative free alternative to traditional soft drinks, which is unique to Ministry of Crab." From this sentence, the only thing we learned is that the Ministry of Crab restaurant in Colombo uses dark Belgian Chocolate in their chocolate biscuit pudding recipe. This is hardly a good source for the history or cultural impact. Concerning the third source that Warden (talk · contribs) found, The postcolonial identity of Sri Lankan English, according to Google Books, there is only one mention of chocolate biscuit pudding in the text. From what I can tell from the preview, this mention describes how it's made and not why the dish is important or its history. On a side note, there is no mention of the dish in this Sri Lankan cookbook which was published by an Australian company in 2003. If the dish is so important in the fabric of Sri Lankan society and enjoyed and appreciated by the people it should be in that recipe book or at least be cast in a positive light in the article "The decline of watalappam"... but it's not. So I will reiterate my previous statement: until this looks like an actual article and not simply a recipe, I still stand with moving it to the Cookbook or WP:USERFY(ing) it. //Gbern3 (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article that you quote extensively is precisely the kind of source that demonstrates notability. Why do you doubt that? There is no requirement that sources should present a subject in a positive light. And the second source that you quote says something much more important than that this pudding is served in a particular restaurant: it says that it is ubiquitous. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said earlier, if editors who want to keep this article wish to use the source to show that CBP is well, a fake, then be my guest. I just feel that if you’re going to cite a source that says CBP is basically a culinary representation of the philistinism of the food industry, that should also be in the article. Taking Axileros' quote at face value, no reader would ever gauge that. I didn't until I went and read the full text. About the other source:
Considering I’m not from Sri Lanka, have never been there, and never tried any of their food, if CBP is ubiquitous then why can’t we find the recipe in The Food of Sri Lanka cookbook, Simply Sri Lankan cookbook, or the other cookbook I linked to earlier. To be fair, there are several results on Google (web search, not books) for the recipe to CBP but if it's so popular why isn't there one mention of CBP in Sri Lankan cuisine#Sweets (or in the rest of the article). Again I’m not from there so I could be totally wrong about it not being ubiquitous, but the basis of this debate is not that we can't find the recipe. We certaintly can. The problem is that we can't find more than a recipe which is why TheLongTone (talk · contribs) nominated it for deletion. BREAK I want to reiterate here that if editors want to use the chocolate-biscuit-pudding-is-a-fradulent-Sri-Lankan-misrepresentation source to demonstrate notability go ahead. I was under the impression, this is not what contrarians are looking for but I could be wrong about that too. Now back to the topic BREAK. Maybe the fact that I can’t find information about its history is a result of systemic bias. In this regard, I can understand Arxiloxos’ point-of-view. However, I still don’t feel compelled to change my vote to keep when we have a sufficiently sourced article on falafel which comes from Egypt and another stub-class article with more sources about tavuk göğsü which comes from Turkey. My point is, all articles are judged against the same criteria and CBP is not meeting the standard. //Gbern3 (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above discussion. We have kept lots of food articles -- see the whole category. If somebody could find a good source that shows how popular the dessert is in Sri Lanka, then it should be kept. Bearian (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The first three !votes seem rather lacking in policy-based weight and clarity, unlike the latter opinions (after the second relist). I see emerging consensus for a possible redirect and will specifically not salt the title to make sure that if an appropriate target is agreed upon, the title can be redirected. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 08:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Bigod[edit]

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

Genealogy-cruft, nothing notable about the woman herself. PatGallacher (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Adequately sourced historical figure. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Judging by its ratings, readers have found the information within the article useful.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What is point of relisting given the debate above? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The second and third keep !votes didn't particularly strike me as being very policy-based. Therefore, the consensus was not clear in my opinion. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 15:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete References, to the extent I can check them, appear to be database listings and short of "in-depth" coverage, which leaves this article technically short of WP:GNG. I'd cut it enough slack to stay over the line were it not for two factors. First, in my experience, the reliability of individual genealogical entries in databases is often overstated, editorial oversight is weak. This creates a WP:V problem. Secondly, and yet confirming the first point, the veracity of of much of what has already been said was called into question 100 years ago based on what one reliable source described as conflicting sources.
"Identity of Isabel Bigod. ... Whatever the cause, the fact remains that Isabel Bigod's parentage is either so recorded as, from the diversity of the statements, to throw doubt upon the reliability thereof, or else she herself is omitted"
White, William (1915). Notes and Queries. Oxford University Press. p. 465. Retrieved 1 February 2013.
As a result, I believe the article is insufficiently verifiable by reliable sources, and that the lack of meeting WP:GNG is not a mere technicality in this case, but reflects a deeper issue with what we really verifiably know about this subject. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does your research include the sources currently used in the article? Any chance those offline sources might satisfy GNG? At the same time, none of the keepers make any claim of meeting GNG either.—Bagumba (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the physical sources, what snippets I could find match up-on line don't seem substantial to me, but there is definitely some room for me to be wrong. Even if those references provided substantial coverage, I'd be suspicious of their reliability, however. --j⚛e deckertalk 04:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Questionable historical provenance is no obstacle to an article. We have one on her near contemporary Robin Hood. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    Of course not, if one actually owns up to which things are questionable facts and which aren't. When I look at sources which say this:
    Scottish princess and countess of Norfolk. Name variations: Isabel Dunkeld; Isabel Bigod; Isabella. Fl. around 1225; interred at Church of the Black Friars, London; dau. of William I the Lion (b. 1143), king of Scots, and Ermengarde of Beaumont (d. 1234); m. Roger Bigod (c. 1212–1270), 4th earl of Norfolk, May 1225, in Alnwick, Northumberland.
    And try and line them up with this article, I find myself a bit lost. Now, certainly, the reference here to Isabel Bigod might be a different Isabel Bigod of the 13th century. "Dictionary of Women Worldwide: 25,000 Women Through the Ages", 2007, via HighBeam research. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-2588811593.html --j⚛e deckertalk 04:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nobody has made a claim of notability via GNG, and nobody has vouched for the depth of coverage in the offline sources. The online source found in the discussion is trivial coverage. I am not an expert in this area, so all I can gather is her claim to fame is being someone's daughter or wife (not sure which is more significant). I'd (naively) say to redirect to whoever she is most notable for being related to if notability cannot be established.—Bagumba (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment WP:NOTDIR #2 may be relevant to your comment. --j⚛e deckertalk 07:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTDIR doesn't preclude redirects as I interpret it. Are you of the same thinking?—Bagumba (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I have no concerns with, and would even prefer a redirect if an appropriate topic can be suggested. --j⚛e deckertalk 08:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect to an appropriate topic. Joe Decker's verifiability concerns are convincing. Also, the sources givens seem to be of the genealogical variety, and given that the article does not tell us anything about the person except genealogical information (and it is not Wikipedia's purpose to be a genealogical database) it appears that there is insufficient in-depth coverage about her as a person in order to pass WP:GNG.  Sandstein  11:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After discounting the opinions by RaviC and CorrectKnowledge, which do not cite a policy-based argument for deletion, we have no consensus about whether this should be kept, dabbed, merged or deleted.  Sandstein  10:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Taliban[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEO With only 3 hits on Gscholar, one of which says "BJP did not turn out to be a Hindu Taliban" Only 1623 hits on Gbooks, most of which appear to be wikipedia clones, and just 15,100 hits on a Google search shows this term is not notable at all. In fact the sources which do use the term have it within scare quotes.[23][24] so it also fails on POV title Darkness Shines (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Consensus in the previous AfD shows that this is a notable topic and the content of the article speaks for itself. Mar4d (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, looking at the previous AFD makes one wonder if those commenting looked at the sources?[25] No mention of Hindu Taliban here. Nor in these sources used in the article[26][27]this one is about a film[28][29][30][31] I really cannot be arsed to check the rest, but if this article survives the AFD then it will need serious triming. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thousands of book results plus online hits is hardly "only." If anything, the article needs further expansion. Mar4d (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LMFAO as the kids say. How do you get "thousands" from 1623 hits on google books? Most of which I already said seem to be Wiki clones? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me but 1,623 is a quantity that falls well within the thousands. Anyway, the extensive online coverage in addition to book results on this subject contradicts the crux of your argument. Mar4d (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as no doubt all those 15,100 are fully independent, not Wiki clones and are RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you've been counting and personally checking all 15,100 results. That is truly remarkable. *Applause* :) Mar4d (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all as that is your job, you voted keep so please provide the third party reliable sources which discuss this in detail. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There is an article Saffron terror that deals with Hindu fundamentalism already. During previous AFD of this article safron terror article was not created, and the latter got more into prominence. Taliban is an army present in afghanistan and pakistan, taliban is not an adjective term, and in this context it is used as equivalent to fundamentalism. Best is to merge this article to Safron terror article. I want to point out that Christian Taliban and American Taliban are already redirects. Agentowaway (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hindu Taliban is a term describing religious fundamentalism. Saffron terror describes political acts allegedly linked to and inspired by Hindutva. Both have different meanings.Naveed (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have gone through the sources. Apart from a few mentions of the term, none of the sources (those included in the article or that can be found from extensive google searches) explain the term extensively or in context. My opinion from the searching and analysis is that this a non-notable term thrown around (with a lot of POV pushing even in google search results.) and has no chance for improvement unless some new notable event occurs centering around the term.
P.S. With the kind of POV pushing I see in this article, I am not willing to extend good faith for the offline sources, and I am sorry for that. If this "term" is so notable, then the editors who feel it should be kept, can bring reliable online sources here and am willing to reconsider this vote in case I am proved wrong. Suraj T 14:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you fid not read WP:NEO? "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." Darkness Shines (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually your second reference does not mention Hindu Taliban at all. The first and third demonstrate why it needs to be deleted. The first ref is predicting that the elections "could result result in a Hindu-style "Talibanisation"" and the third one goes on about Hindu conservatives and an accusation of "bid by Hindu fundamentalists to "Talibanize" India". Both of these references demonstrate why using neologisms like "Hindu Taliban" should not get separate article. These terms do not get significant coverage in reliable secondary sources and when they are mentioned in opinion pieces, they are loosely used by authors to refer to diverse concepts creating an article from which would require synthesis. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 15:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: More time could be spent on productive articles, instead users on both sides waste time edit warring on divisive articles like this. --RaviC (talk) 16:17, 31 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 Bushranger One ping only 01:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.K.(2014 film)[edit]

P.K.(2014 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unreleased film that has not started principle photography. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Spectacular fail of WP:CRYSTAL. I've seen cometary orbit predictions with more substance. Please hit this with a hammer. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete P.K.(2014 film) has been provided ample reliable sources like Hindustan Times,India Today,TOI etc.Even Rajkumar Hirani has also said he is making this film and shooting will begin mid-2013.There is no uniformity and consistency on Bollywood upcomg film. Like Happy New Year (2013 film) has no sources or references,but no one cares about that. Like that so many films article are on wikipedia. Abhinavname (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will say though, that other articles existing on Wikipedia that are more poorly sourced does not automatically mean that this article will be kept. It just means that the other articles haven't been improved or nominated for deletion.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do have to say that for a film that hasn't started yet, there's an enormous amount of sources for this film. I know that the norm of WP:NFF is to delete articles that haven't yet started filming, but there are a lot of somewhat lengthy articles for this. I haven't made up my mind yet, but I think that at the very least we should either userfy or incubate this.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Forgot to put name 12:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Forgot to put name 15:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Search: PK, Rajkumar Hirani
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:09, 25 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. This does not preclude continued discussion about how articles about the topic should be organized.  Sandstein  11:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2011–present Libyan factional fighting[edit]

2011–present Libyan factional fighting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This article is simple archive and collection of every single article about Libya since death of Muammar Gaddafi. Encyclopaedic value is nowhere to be seen. Moreover the whole name of event, for the lack of better word, that article is describing is non-existent in any RS. Libya factional fighting shows on Google News exactly zero results (aside of link on wiki article). Articles which were created for notable military confrontation(2012 Bani Walid uprising, 2012 Benghazi attack, Siege of Bani Walid (2012), 2012 Zintan clashes, 2012 Sabha conflict, 2012 Kufra conflict, 2012 Tripoli airport clashes), plus content in Aftermath of the Libyan civil war article are sufficient to cover all notable events without this archive. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Surely not of Libyan civil war article. Article was more or less closed after declaration of victory by rebel forces and for a year been mostly stagnant. I believe some content was originally in Aftermath article but shortly afterwards this one was created. However it turned into news archive as you can see. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Total disagree. This article is fundamental to have a comprehensive view of the situation in Libya since the end of the Libyan Civil War. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE cannot be applied here clearly: WP:INDISCRIMINATE says literally: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." That happens with the majority (if not all) of the article. Also, the article doesnt fit in any of the three categories listed as WP:INDISCRIMINATE: Summary-only descriptions of works, Lyrics databases and Excessive listings of statistics. And about WP:NOTNEWS: "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.". I can understand using WP:NOTNEWS for a section of the article, but use it as a tool to simply delete the article is not logic. The article is logically not a simple compilation of "every single article about Libya" (that would be impossible), but an attempt to bring a comprehensive view of the ongoing and continued violence wich is notable (armed clashes between several different militia groups or between Libyan tribes, attacks against senior Libyan officials or foreign diplomats, killing of refugees, bombing and destruction of mosques and churches, kidnapping/detention of foreigners by government forces or militias, etc...) and had caused more than 2,000 fatalities and rising. About the name of the article, its the term more used on news reports about this events, see: Factional fighting claims lives in Libya Deadly factional clashes erupt in Libya Al Jazeera, A year after revolt, Libya mired in factional fighting MSNBC, Inter-factional fighting in Libya results in 18 deaths Voice of Russia, Libyans are urged to stop factional fighting United Nations Radio, Libyan interim PM warns of factional infighting Daily Star. Ah, there are 396,000 results if you type "libyan factional fighting" in Google, so that's not a reason to erase the article. Finally, erasing this article while maintaining the 2012 Bani Walid uprising, 2012 Benghazi attack, Siege of Bani Walid (2012), 2012 Zintan clashes, 2012 Sabha conflict, 2012 Kufra conflict, 2012 Tripoli airport clashes articles would be a total non-sense, as the latter were originated from this parent article, so they would be orphaned articles if we delete this crucial one. Although, I dont have any problem with reviewing the article and eliminate content (if there is some) wich is not related with the main issue of the article, thats it, the ongoing violence in Libya. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that most of this stuff was added by you, it is logical that you defend it. However typing Libyan factional fighting into Google will search for all 3 words separately, therefore throwing you results which has only world "libyan" in it for example. Like some Libyan festival in Tripoli.
Therefore [35] shows No results found for "Libyan factional fighting". That is settled. Also they would be not orphaned as they would be included into Aftermath article. Bytheway this can be easily considered WP:CFORK of that article. WP:INDISCRIMINATE clearly states that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As for WP:NOTNEWS Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. This article is exact opposite of that. Most of the article fails WP:NOTABILITY as we are talking about stand-alone events reported by agencies in one short article, or reported only by local media (Tripoli Post, Libya Herald). We have separate articles for that which wasn´t.
To be honest this is like having article for every reported murder in Greater Chicago, again no encyclopaedic value at all. And lastly, according to data from MoI (which you added) 500 died in 2012. Not 2,000. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There does appear to be armed conflict, above normal political discourse, that can be verified (all, news). The question is, are the series of events notable above WP:NOTNEWS, and per WP:EVENT and WP:PERSISTENCE. I can see both ways. At worse the verified content could be summarized and placed in an aftermath section of the civil war, or someplace else relevant. At best, it can be kept.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. While a small number news stories refer to prolonged fighting between factions in Libya (eg [36]), the extent of such stories in reliable sources is nothing like what would be expected if this was a widely recognised concept (I note that a fair number of unreliable sources are claiming that such a conflict exists, with many being inspired by this article, I suspect). Searching Google Scholar for 'factional fighting in Libya' returns no useful sources [37], which also isn't what would be expected if experts have endorsed such a concept. Some sources I've checked state that Libya is actually fairly peaceful - for instance, the Economist's coverage of Libya emphasizes the country's overall stability and relatively low level of internal conflict (eg, this story from last November states only that "The ugliest fly in the national ointment is the sporadic violence still tarnishing several of Libya’s cities."). As such, this article appears to be an attempt to conflate various incidents into a wider conflict. If experts in this field (and NOT individual news stories) have published commentary, papers or journal articles which link these events together then we've got an article-worthy topic, but at present it looks a lot like a case of the WP:SYNTH which Wikipedia's articles on ongoing conflicts in developing countries are prone to becoming. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to 2011 in Libya, 2012 in Libya and 2013 in Libya. Category:2012 in Libya need for main article. NickSt (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That could be considered WP:CFORK by some (though I guess if it is moved not so much. Not sure about it) and issue of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE would still be unresolved if moved and split in its current form. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe rename to Insurgency in Libya (2011–present), same as Iraqi insurgency? NickSt (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don´t see how that tackles the main problem. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that topic of post civil war armed clashes itself may be notable enough to deserve article. On other hand, in its current form the article is indeed very clear case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Staberinde (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are so many issues that I dont know well how to start. As the previous commenter had said, there had been several post war armed clashes in Libya (almost every month since 2011). That is not an appretiation, but a fact. For example, the State Department document describing 230 'security incidents' in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012. I would not call that fairly peaceful, as some user had done, by ignorance or bad faith. If he had shown a single source stating that Libya is peaceful, I can bring several stating the contraire, as for example: Libya Struggles to Curb Militias as Chaos Grows NY Times, The west must be honest about its role in Libya's violent chaos The Guardian, Political chaos in Libya hampers U.S. probe of deadly Benghazi attacks Washington Post, Chaos reigns in Libya Gulf News, Libya without Gaddafi: Chaos and collapse Pravda, ‘The lessons of Libya: Chaos is no surprise’ Russia Today, Who’s Running Libya? Chaos Reigns After Benghazi U.S. Consulate Attack The Daily Beast. It seems that for some the notability of an article is based on what notability is given to the issue not by the world press, but by the western world press. What is simply a manipulation is trying to hide or erase facts (the widely expanded ongoing violence and chaos in Libya) based on hundreds of sources, with excuses that would not be applied to articles of the same type. I mean, if this article get a WP:NOTNEWS nomination, every conflict article with a sourced timeline can and should get a WP:NOTNEWS nomination. The contrary would be a crystal-clear double standard, a thing that sadly happens often in WP. My question is: Are we judging this article with the same measures as for example the Libyan Civil War article? If not, that means simply biased censorship. About deleting the article and including the major battles/clashes in the Aftermath of Libyan... I dont think its a good idea, as finally that article would collapse for being too long for comfortable reading (unless there is censorship too in that article, and only pro-NTC content is allowed. I wouldnt be surprised of that). It also seems at least strange to me that a user who had contributed to the article (that means he thought it was an interesing and necessary article), surprisingly and suddenly decides that the article aint got notability no more. Why that 360º change? Oh, and last but not least, I had to point the author of the nomination about the death toll. I didnt add any "Mol" source about 500 killed in Libya fighting in 2012, could you be more explicit? The same infobox article states that 1371-1397 persons had been killed since late 2011 in armed clashes (a probably low appretiation, it wasnt me who added it to the infobox), and that toll only includes people killed until October 2012 (the killing of US ambassador in Benghazi by former "rebels"). According to this paper presented in 2012 at the UN Human Rights Council by the United World Colleges, the Libyan factional fighting is one of the few (only a dozen) conflicts (Iraqi insurgency, Afghan War, Syrian Civil War, Sudan conflict, Colombian conflict, Northern Mali conflict, Somali Civil War, Mexican drug conflict, Congo conflict, North-West Pakistan conflict and Egyptian War in Sinai) that claimed more that 1,000 lifes a year. So that 500 person figure is at least dubious, for not saying not reliable. Regards, --HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I could let go usage of RT as RS but Pravda? Writing about biased western perspective and than throwing in ring Pravda is equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot.
But that aside there are murders in Chicago. Can you see article documenting every single murder in Chicago and than throwing them together as some cohesive military conflict? Because I don´t and that, obviously, does not apply to Chicago only. Also to other cities. Or countries. Such as Libya.
Now to notability. First of all usage of non-evil Western sources is truly small. I don´t even see you using them much, if at all. Notability does not mean one article in BBC or NYT. Content you add is not notable enough. From vast majority it has one mention in RS, mostly in local media which of course cover all aspects of life in Libya. That is not notable. But I will return to Notability later.
Next, Aftermath. No one suggested deletion of major confrontation articles, nor inclusion of their content in Aftermath article. I don´t know why you think that is the case.
As for you not adding anything like that, you did. Infobox is counting, not RS.
And lastly, I see that you stopped defying that this is not WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Since majority here, and without any objection your latest post including, agrees that article is such case than I must remind you that article is notable if is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. Therefore if this article is indeed breach in case of INDISCRIMINATE, it is not Notable. Not that it is the only reason why it fails to establish such criteria (WP:GNG or WP:WHYN which clarifies this right in the first point) but nothing better demonstrates it as this.
PS: About the paper, not published by UWC, but UWCCI. First of all I don´t really see where you found out that paper was presented to UN. There is no such mention anywhere. Second, conference which was established less than a year ago which so far has not gone though any proper peer-research, doesn´t even provide name of authors, nor has any history of publication of their work is probably not yet RS. It would be best to ask of WP:RSN but it seems pretty clear. Just as it is clear that names of conflicts are copy-pasted from wikipedia.
PPS: Nick-D made an excellent point with WP:SYNTH. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Im not gonna judge wich source is RS, but its at least curious to see some users that in 2011 stated that JANA or Mathaba were not RS, but now consider LANA, Libya Herald or even Tripoli Post (of course, post-2011 TP, not pre-2011 TP) as RS. Crystal-clear example of double standards, but it seems that their view had been imposed, so I try to use that sources to avoid the risk of being an "unreliable source" to some of these users.
Again, Im not adding every single killing in Libia, but Im adding every violent clashes between militias or tribes, or every terrorist attack to the article as it is logic (or not? reading some opinions I dont know...) Perhaps I had to review the Libyan Civil War article to delete unreliable sources or issues not related to that article, but I'll bet you what you want that some users would not let me touch that article...More double standards again...
Reading some users, it seems that from the end of the Libyan Civil War peace had reached Libya, where all live in peace and joy...Theres no worse blind than the one who dont want to see, as there had been armed clashes or bomb attacks with dozens killed almost every month from 2011 until today, you can see it easy in the article. Recently, UK and Australia made an advice to their citizens not to travel to Benghazi, not being the first time that Western countries (USA, France...) told their citizens not to travel to Libya.
About WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I can accept that SOME (of course not all, and not even the majority of the article) content of the article would be better on other article: Aftermath of the Libyan civil war, but not simply erasing it, as if CENSORSHIP is vigent in WP. One of these contents that should be moved for example is the one you mistake as the number of people killed by armed clashes, bomb attacks or executions, when it really covered the common criminality, not directly related with the conflict. As I said before, the counting of people killed in clashes, attacks, executions, etc... clearly exceed nowadays 2,000 people, its as simple as counting the victims... Also, I wouldnt use the "majority" card to say that most think this is INDISCRIMINATE, as I could use it too to say "The MAJORITY agree that the article should be keeped".
PS: About the paper, UWCCI is an integral part of UWC, so I dont know where are you trying to go. At the top right of the paper it says "Human Rights Council". If you still had doubts, you can see this to see that it refer to the UN Human Rights Council. I still dont know why you see this as an unreliable source, any logic, non-partisan reason?.
PPS: As you can see, I tried to answer one by one your points, I would be glad if people do the same instead of ignoring the facts they dont like...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bring it to RSN. I have no interest in WP:SOAP, especially considering that sources you complain about are sources most used by you when editing article.
All right, so you admit to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Good. Also you are taking here also murders and assassinations whose assailants and their motives are unknown. So although you are not bringing every violent event which happens there, you bring to article every violent event which is published in media.
Fine part, yet not about the subject, but about users. See WP:FOC for more info.
There is not just some. There is all. Important parts are already summarized in articles. Rest is a collection/archive/whatever of any violence in country reported in media. I don´t see nearly anything about factional fighting (maybe aside of infobox which is incorrect as well). Who are those factions? Who are their leaders? What are their objectives? What is their area of control? There is nothing about that in the article. This article is not about factional fighting.
UWCCI is NGO which is part of UWC. Given that it states 2012 I kind of doubt that it is "integral" part. That "guide" was written by UWCCI, not UWC. And I am sorry, but because it has written on top of it "UNHRC" it was presented to UNHRC? If there will be instead of UNHRC, Great Spaghetti Monster was it presented to it? The link you provided also mentions nothing like that it was a, published b, presented.
Last point - we are going here in circles. All that I stated in this post was already stated in one form or another in my previous. If you want to respond, fine

by me, but unless something new will come into the discussion I won´t respond because my take on this issue was already stated. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Word "faction" is in article (infobox exluded) mentioned once. So where is that factional fighting if even article contains nothing like it? EllsworthSK (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I thought, you only want to answer to the points you want, forgetting the things you dont want to see. UWCCI is a part (regional part) of UWC, I dont know what "integral" means to you. And if the paper had a "Human Rights Council" mark, I think It should be for something referred to the UNHRC, not because it looks good on the paper. About the factions, If you dont see them, simply you're blind: Ansar al-Sharia, Supreme Security Committees, Libya Shield Force, Brigade 93, Zintan Brigade, Toubou militiamen, Mashaniya militiamen, Rafallah al-Sehati Brigade, Gharyan Brigade, Gaddafi loyalists, Al-Awfea Brigade, Zuwara Brigade, etc... About the INDISCRIMINATE issue, as I said before, I accept that some content (I repeat, some, not all, and not even the majority of the article) should be moved to Aftermath of the Libyan civil war, although see how the Badrashin railway accident is somehow included in Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution under Mohamed Morsi (from November 2012). Again, I hope we have the same standards to similar articles, reaching the same issue again...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You brought something new so Rafallah Seheti is not sourced one in article to be part of any battle. Same goes for Ansar al-Sharia which is suspect (and I have little doubt that it was them but my personal feelings shouldn´t get in line with this) in attack on Benghazi consulate, but was never proven guilty, neither was it part of any clash, Gharyan brigade is sourced to be part in one clash, Zwara brigade does not even exist and sources does not state once that some katiba like that exists, just talk about clashes in Zwara. SSC operates under MoI, Libya Shield operates under MoD, both government entities just as army or police. Brigade 93 existence is based on speculation of former Bani Walid military council chairman, never proven to exist and mentioned only during first Bani Walid clashes. In second there is no source (well but wiki) which ever claimed their existence. Toubou and Mashashiya militamen are not faction, but militiamen similar to those in Tripoli, Lebanon from Jabal Mohsen and sunni part (faction is group within larger group - simple militiamen do not fulfil that condition). Gaddafi loyalist made one attack (well, not attack but detonated one IED in Tripoli which killed 2 people. All others are simply one side blaming Gaddafi loyalist what in vast majority of cases turns out to be bollocks - like in Zwara where some accused Brigade of Martyr Gaddafi of attack, turns out no Gaddafi loyalist was ever found and in that regards was never even arrested after civil war in connection with post-war attack and I remind you that Bani Walid council which rulled the city before it was attacked by army and allied Misrata militias rejected any statement like that and journalists in town saw NO Gaddafi-era flag, only few new flags) Al-Awfea does not exist anymore as they were busted during their airport raid (about which we have bytheway separate article). So again, where are those factions? Who are they? As for the accident, worse example couldn´t be chosen as it classifies as WP:EVENT which is same as Bani Walid battle fe. I don´t see you claiming that this article is an event. My job is done here. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see how the subject can be viewed as non-notable. It looks like a good article on an important subject. Everyking (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Problem isn't that topic of title is not relevant, problem is that in reality article is currently Chronological list of armed violence in Libya. Then I read article about factional fighting I expect it to be easy to see what are main involved factions and what have been main clashes. Its not good idea to add 1-2 sentences for every time someone got shot or some random bomb went off somewhere. It would be far easier to vote "keep" if authors promised to turn this article into something actually readable.--Staberinde (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hear your concern. We don't typically delete at AfD where the concern is an editing concern. Instead, we delete where the topic is not notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its not simply "editing concern", basically we have article which is blatant violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and should be deleted, no questions asked, occupying title which could potentially cover actually legitimate topic. Article should be basically wiped clean and written from scratch.--Staberinde (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to rewrite it, go for it and see what you can do. Deleting all of this, however, would be ridiculous. Everyking (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Every on this point.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look at this level of coverage, this subject clearly passes WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is the main article on the subject - ridiculous nominiation. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - the information on here is sourced and notable, though perhaps it would be more appropriate to call it unrest in Libya 2011- or civil disturbances or something of that nature.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If someone is interested in news about Libya he/she should read where most of the news here are from "Libya Herald". What I see here is an amalgamation of news about a country where every household has a weapon and when two persons has a personal problem they might use some guns!. Some brigades or whatever mentioned in the head of the article doesn't even exist anymore (Al-Awfea Brigade being in a trial for breaking into the airport, nothing called so now), 28 May Brigade (doesn't exist any more), Zuwara Brigade (never heard of it, I am living 110 away from the place that is called Zuwara and I guess you mean local people there with weapons? then you should add every town in Libya to one of your imaginary fighting sides). Also for the people names I barely can recognize any, being from Tripoli and if there is a war or whatever in my country I should be able to know who is running the war next to my door, but the fact the war doesn't exist except in this weird wiki page!!. Maybe I should start a page on the WW3 in Venezuela as about 20,000 homicides happens there a year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayoubang (talk • contribs) 07:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being Libyan doesnt give you the right to judge what its true or not. All the brigades added to the article are mentioned in journalists articles, so no one is "inventing" anything. Same happens with incidents, killings, etc... If you have any sourced reliable information that contradicts this article, lets include it instead of trying to ridiculize with no reasons...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Events in the article are most certainly notable. Article covers the factional unrest/fighting/clashes between different former rebel brigades and some remnants of loyalist units around the country following the end of the war. The continuing internal fighting in the country has already been mentioned enough in international media and among diplomatic circles to make it notable. Although, the name of the article itself may need changing. EkoGraf (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per RightCow. Meets our notability standards. Discussion would be fine on its talkpage as to a possible rename. That's not an issue for AfD. And, of course, cleanup would be nice. But that also is not reason to delete.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:04, 30 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 Mean Girls#Cast. The Bushranger One ping only 01:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Surendra[edit]

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

Contested PROD, article fails all 3 criteria at WP:NACTOR. He has had no major roles, has no major following, he hasn't even been in anything since 2005. Very minor actor, permastub NYSMy talk page 22:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mean_Girls#Cast or Mean_Girls#Track listing (I think the first one would be more appropriate) - I found a recent Toronto Star article here that says he is now a calligrapher and has designed billboards for companies including Nabob and Kraft Foods but "still gets recognized on the street for a role he played in Mean Girls". I haven't found much for his Six Feet in Seven Minutes role aside from that current filmschoolrejects.com and this which briefly mentions him. As for Mean Girls, a Google News search provided several results but mainly from that time (2004 with one 2006 review) and Google Books found cast listings which are useless for notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:07, 25 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. All "keep" opinions conflict with WP:V#Notability and must be discounted. As Whpq says, the inclusion of any topic requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Opinions that conflict with the longstanding community consensus about this can't be taken into consideration.  Sandstein  11:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JAMWiki[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be any evidence of notability for this wiki software, and according to its article it's only in use on a few dozen websites. Yaron K. (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think it is one of the most popular FOSS Java based Wiki engines, known between users that look for such a solution. WikiMatrix is not WP:SPS because it cannot be freely edited by anyone, same as DMOZ is not. The opinion published by the non affiliated end user is an independent opinion (imagine we would only allow Mac an Linux users to write about Windows!). Audriusa (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of at least two other differences: the number of mentions in notable books and press (0, apparently, vs. hundreds), and the number of wikis using the software (around 30, vs. thousands or tens of thousands). Yaron K. (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the software's author hopefully it isn't considered WP:COI for me to comment, but JAMWiki gets about 1000 downloads a month [38] and is used on far more than 30 sites - mostly it is used on non-public facing installations for documentation or development purposes. Obviously it is far less popular than Mediawiki, but suggesting it is only being used in 30 installations is incorrect by multiple orders of magnitude. -- Wrh2 (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're definitely free to comment here. The number of usages is ultimately the less important number than the number of notable references, but it's still interesting. Do you have any proof that JAMWiki is in use on thousands of wikis? Obviously, not everyone who downloads some software also installs it. Yaron K. (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't track installs so most of the evidence for total installations is speculative, but JAMWiki is included in Liferay [39], and the vast majority of bug reports and help requests come from non-public-facing wiki installations (see [40] and [41]). Total downloads from Sourceforge over the project lifetime are close to 80,000 [42], so combining that with downloads from other sources (such as [43]) and assuming even a very small fraction of those are actual installs gives an install base of a couple thousand. Additionally, the project has also proven popular with researchers, and I've handled a significant number of help requests from students using it in their projects (examples: [44], [45]). -- Wrh2 (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The number of installations is not really relevant to Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. What is needed is signfiicant coverage in independent reliable sources. I don't see that in any of the sourcing in the article and I can find none when I conduct my own searches. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The tool has the base of independent users that are quite frequently mentioning it on the web and is listed in several specialized reviews focusing on Java based Wiki software. Audriusa (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That shows that the software exists and is in use. But that is not sufficient to meet the inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found a number of mentions of use of the program in scholarly articles, but nothing in depth. There is a mention of it at cmscritic.com but it isn't in depth. There is some evidence that an article on "Collaborative trust evaluation for wiki security" might be in depth, but it is behind a paywall. Sadly, many worthy and popular open source projects don't get a lot of coverage in independent reliable sources. JAMWiki might be one of these projects that falls through the cracks. Mark viking (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's true that reliable sources reviews and discussions are lacking, but that is perhaps to be expected for this field. The number of mentions in books and on Scholar convince me that it is at least widely used for academic purposes and per the ieee.org paper that Mark viking found, considered along with better-known free wiki software. There is some (old) coverage here. Also, if we can bring ourselves to ignore the guideline that other stuff exists is not an argument, and look at the lists at Comparison of wiki software and List of wiki software, it would seem very inconsistent to delete the article about this wiki while keeping the others. Mcewan (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That guideline is there because it makes sense - if articles were kept just because there were other articles that were even more worthy of being deleted, very little would ever get deleted. (Though in this case, I think all the other wiki engines with their own articles on Wikipedia happen to have at least slightly more of a claim to notability than JAMWiki.) c2.com is a wiki (though of course the first :) ). So that seems to just leave a single academic paper, which may or may not say anything substantial about JAMWiki. Yaron K. (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I admit it might be borderline, but still think that it is sufficiently widely-used to be notable based on (admittedly brief) but numerous references in Books and Scholar and on the activity on its own feedback pages provided by the author above. Mcewan (talk) 11:01, 29 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Radius Hudson[edit]

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

This is a disputed A7 over a fringe theorist. Many books are cited, but I'm not convinced there's enough significant coverage of this person to establish notability, particularly as strong claims need strong sources. Bringing this article to AfD to attempt to resolve the dispute. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even if the cited books could be seen as reliable sources – which they almost certainly can't (one of them's a novel, for Christ's sake) – they would only establish the notability of Hudson's discovery, ORMUS. None of them focus on Hudson himself, and therefore don't amount to significant coverage (WP:GNG: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail..."). DoctorKubla (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We need more sources like this[46] and less like what are in the article. I can't see any more good coverage, though. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I have used that and another 4 newspaper sources to provide good, in depth coverage. There are more sources for this person than there are grains of sand in the sea. I think it is important for Wikipedia to educate people about him. Goldfringer (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If anything, this should be moved to be an article about ORMUS, which does seem to be a widely-touted miracle cure, even if the claims made for it are preposterous. Incidentally I am the editor who csd'd the article, but in retrospect it does deserve an afd.TheLongTone (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment by article creator Good idea. I have created the page over at Monoatomic gold. With the additional newspaper sources, I still consider Radius Hudson's notability passes WP:GNG and oppose a merge. Goldfringer (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Goldfringer (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Goldfringer (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, the flakyness of the statement is directly correlated with the number of refs, so I'd say yes...TheLongTone (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the record is 172 references for one sentence (it's no longer like this). Double sharp (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Many of the references are not reliable sources and, independently, they don't seem to establish notability. Bovlb (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete somebody who is known for "monoatomic gold" spelled with capital letters cannot be taken seriously by any serious person, and unless his opinions receive any attention this person does not deserve an article. Nergaal (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nergaal. Double sharp (talk) 15:04, 29 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.
  1. ^ http://www.chimerakennels.com/originoftheswinford.htm
  2. ^ The World of Fighting Dogs by Carl Semencic.
  3. ^ http://www.offa.org/stats_hip.html
  4. ^ Semencic, Carl (1984). The World of Fighting Dogs. Neptune City, NJ 07753: T.F.H. Publications, INC. pp. 86, 208, 209, 211, 213, 215, 218, 219, & 278. ISBN 0-86622-656-7.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  5. ^ Putnam, Dave (1999). The Working American Bulldog by Dave Putnam. Woodside, California 94062: Bulldog Press. pp. 17–18. ISBN 0-9672710-0-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  6. ^ Semencic, Carl. Gladiator Dogs. Neptune City, NJ 07753: TFH Publications, Inc. pp. 176–183. ISBN 0-7938-0596-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  7. ^ Kelly, Jack (July–August 1972). "The Late Dr. John Swinford and One of His Bandogs". The Sporting Dog Journal: Cover story, 10, 13.
  8. ^ Robinson, H. Lee, Chimera Kennels. "Origin of the Swinford Bandog". Trainer/Breeder.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. ^ http://www.chimerakennels.com/originoftheswinford.htm
  10. ^ http://www.offa.org/stats_hip.html
  11. ^ WorldCat
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_January_25&oldid=1142632127"