Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 January	5 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Famous artists' assistants[edit]

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

Article created to make the unstartling point that not every bit of paint on a painting was put there by the artist credited with the work. No editing history since creation apart from removal of some of the original article's excesses, and I can't see this developing into anything useful. TheLongTone (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An essay that does not even mention the names of any famous artists' assistants. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This just gives a few examples of famous artists who used assistants, and says nothing about the assistants themselves. Howicus (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Rename and overhaul. There's a real article screaming to get out[1][2][3][4] (Assisted painting? Artists' assistants?), but the current material would need to be revamped and the article renamed. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naarh - that's a whimper! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are in fact two articles: one on artists using studio assistants and other craftsmen to execute their works, a well-known and largely uncontentious issue that I don't see making much of an article, and s second on works of art that have been re-attributed, which would be a good article topic.TheLongTone (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. Based on the rationale in the essay, we could have articles about seamstresses working for major designers or barbenders working for famous architects. A right old can of worms. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As original research. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI don't see any original research here.TheLongTone (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the assistant is notable they will have their own article or be mentioned in the main artist's article. Each assistant is subject to WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Mkdw ^talk 21:41, 10 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 01:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nayef bin Abdulaziz bin Muhammad bin Abdulaziz Al Saud[edit]

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

Not notable, this info can be given his grandfather's page, Mohammed bin Abdulaziz Egeymi (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I would agree but no sources have been presented that attest to him being Muhammad bin Abdulaziz Al Saud's grandson, so info should not be included there.–Kiwipat (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a source re his lineage... now my question is are other nations Princes denied articles? or is there some bias being shown here.–Kiwipat (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the nom reason. Even if he was the grandson, being a member of the House of Saud might just be enough, although that might still not be article-worthy. — ^Wylie_Coyote 06:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being "a royal" is not itself a basis for notability. No evidence that he satisfies WP:BASIC. WWGB (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clear evidence is here. Of course Keep. 79.243.211.242 (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wanted to be rude, only to tell what I think is import. 79.243.211.242 (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— 79.243.211.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a single-purpose account. I've got an account but not able to log in at the moment. 79.243.211.242 (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for the simple reason that an AfD is not the right way to have a possible "redirect" discussion. End of story.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. "A decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. Discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep". The decision may also include a strong recommendation for an additional action such as a "merge" or "redirect" (Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure). Real end of story. WWGB (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article provides no information other than that he died. This is far from establishing any sort of notability. μηδείς (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be better of course. But it clearly shows the notability. 79.243.202.33 (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— 79.243.202.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You seem to be the only editor supporting retension of the article. I suggest you focus on expanding the article, rather than saying it is a good one. Because on that basis it is about to be deleted. μηδείς (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless something that makes him notable is found and added to the article. Being a member of a huge dynasty like Al Saud should not, in and of itself, be considered notable, IMO. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The grandson in the dynastic (male) line of a modern reigning family is notable, ipso facto. Certainly most other such grandsons of modern monarchs have articles here. The argument that he has too many brothers is cultural myopia -- we don't consider that standard in assessing members of Western, Christian dynasties. FactStraight (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is not the grandson of a person who was a reigning monarch, but the grandson of a brother of a person who was a reigning monarch. I do not think we would recognize this as inherently notable in any culture. There are some royal families where people at this level are called Prince--besides Saudi Arabia, I think it was true of Imperial Russia. We should not be fixated on the title, but on the reality. I am aware of the need to avoid cultural bias--one of the signs of cultural bias is sticking with a rule based on one culture to another when it is not applicable. I would limit it to parents, grandparents, siblings, children and grandchildren. Possibly we might want to stretch it to children of siblings, but no further. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "grandson of a brother of a person who was a reigning monarch" has a British near-equivalent in Charles Armstrong-Jones, the grandson of the sister of the reigning queen. WWGB (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world does this have to do with Christianity? Is there some sort of religious nonsense going on here? I hope not. μηδείς (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the great-grandson (direct descendant) of the original monarch Ibn Saud, Nayef was styled His Royal Highness Prince...as opposed to just His Highness, as it is for princes of cadet lines. I think this narrows Saudi royalty quite nicely, and makes him more than just another Saudi prince. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.194.177 (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep STRONG KEEP! He is notable. But that dreadful stub needs a MAJOR REWRITE. As a model, and as a figure in the public BEFORE his untimely passing, he is notable. IMHO, notability is not subjective. I have seen contestants of Survivor or somebody does like one movie and get a page here, while a long time Real World contestant who branched into radio and starred and produced movies got a delete, merely because MTV wasn't "a high enough network". Whether you like them, agree with Islam isn't the issue. The young man was in the public eye before his death and not just as a Saudi royal. Therefore, KEEP. Zara Phillips (granddaughter of the British queen), has a page. So does Princess Beatrice. Both granddaughters of British royalty. Don't be subjective. KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.101.68 (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— 76.105.101.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect and condolence for his family... Nobody supporting retention of the article has come up with anything notable about the subject and, aside from copied headlines, his death was not even reported (in English anyway) anywhere but ArabNews.com. With regard to the existence of other articles that are also arguably non-notable, anyone who hasn't read WP:OTHERSTUFF, please do. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to House of Saud; possible search term but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 22:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Redirects are nonsense in my opinion. 79.243.209.214 (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simos Tsiakkas[edit]

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

Although this footballer was signed to 3 Cypriot First Division clubs over a span of 5+ years, I have not found a single evidence of him ever making a league appearance for them. He appeared once for AEL Limassol in the 2012 Cypriot Super Cup final [5], but that's it. I don't know if this enough for him to technically pass WP:NFOOTY, but most importantly he fails WP:GNG due to extreme lack of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. – Kosm1 fent 10:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm1 fent 10:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would rather suspect he did appear in more than that one cup match (as it's a final!), but I agree that there is no evidence anywhere that he did. As it was a cup final, I'm leaning towards a weak keep. The AEL Limassol website states that he's not played a league game for them. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - first & foremost, this player fails WP:GNG. One appearance is technically enough to meet WP:NFOOTBALL but that is subservient to GNG. Let's use some WP:COMMONSENSE here. Giant Snowman 10:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in the clear absence of significant coverage, this article reasonably falls within the part of WP:NSPORT that says that not all articles that meet the criteria must be kept. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while this technically passes WP:NFOOTBALL with his one appearance, the subject fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:52, 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, postdlf (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I relisted again only because there was an error in the previous relist; the AFD was not transcluded properly in the day's AFD log. postdlf (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails general notability guidlines. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see evidence of him being in football a long time, but hardly have play any real games! It's a strange career, two cup games in his whole career? [6] strange one this. Govvy (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This article says that Tsiakkas signed for AEL Limassol as a third-choice keeper. I don't see why that can't be true for his previous First Division clubs as well. Cheers. – Kosm1 fent 09:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany Convent School, Allahabad[edit]

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

Completely unsourced originally researched and non-neutral article. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 22:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is poorly written and part of the article is copyvio from the school's website. However, this is a verifiable K-12 school and high schools are notable per editor consensus. Copyright and POV issues can be solved by reducing the article to a stub and starting over. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No evidence of WP:BEFOREdue diligence; for example a Google search in local languages. We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian schools because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. TerriersFan (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets general notability guidlines. see WP:OUTCOMES --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the usual reasons. Verified secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Porta Hotel Antigua[edit]

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

No refs at all. Claims notability but not supported in any way. Very visible evidence of COI editing. Essentially an advertisement. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that somebody from the hotel tried to expand it today doesn't make it a legit deletion candidate. It easily passes notability requirements.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - today's intervention by a COI editor has no bearing whatsoever on the nomination. My view of the article was immediately after the reversion of a COI edit. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It meets the notability guidelines since it is discussed in depth by several reliable independent sources. The fact that these are mostly travel guides is not relevant. They do not seem to be paid reviews, and the writers have taken the trouble to visit and describe the hotel in some detail. It seems to be one of the oldest and fanciest places to stay in the city. I have tried to tone down the article so it does not read too much like an advert - not sure if I have succeeded. But the fact that it could be improved is independent of whether it should be kept. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem with travel guides is the extent to which they might describe every resort hotel, and not be discriminating. Some do; some do not--I am not familiar with the ones used as references here. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A travel guide may list many of the hotels in a city, but most of the entries are just bare directory-style entries: address, phone, website, price range, pool y/n, restaurants y/n, credit cards accepted etc. But when several travel guide entries give multi-paragraph narrative descriptions, different from the hotel's own description and from the other guides, those count as independent discussion of the topic and demonstrate notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep For being chosen as one of the top five by Condé Nast Traveler. I couldn't find that statement in the sources used, but did find [7]. Ryan Vesey 00:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Murphy (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. I can find no reviews or significance coverage from reliable and independent sources for this defunct Swedish band whose article was created in 2006 and has had seven edits since. I feel that this article qualifies for A9 but as it's been around this long, I felt that a discussion is warranted. The only claim of importance or notability I see in this article are that they "toured with bigger bands" that seem to be notable but I can find no references to support that claim to begin establishing notability. Their Myspace page's last update came in 2007 and their official website is defunct. Do not mistake this Captain Murphy (Captain Murphy (band)) with Captain Murphy (Rapper). OlYeller21^Talktome 22:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "Victor Hvidfeldt" + "Captain Murphy" gave me nothing on Google News or Books. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails general notability guidlines and WP:BAND. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I find no sources in Swedish or English that would indicate notability. --bonadea contributions talk 19:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing the required significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:40, 10 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 per WP:KEEP Criterion 2e. (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watampone[edit]

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

All unsourced, short bio which doesn't explain significance. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 21:56, 4 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. After a rewrite, consensus is that the concept is notable enough. Sandstein 10:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Killer toys[edit]

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

Non-notable concept. No sources found, name is vague. Tagged for notability since April. Deprodded for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It only took a minute to find a good source for this: Media Myths, Children's Nightmares, "...the demonic doll movie, a popular sub-genre in contemporary horror. Stories of toys that come to life can of course be found throughout the history of children's literature...'". Warden (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~It's not exactly apparent to me how your source relates to the topic at hand. Could you supply a page number or something linking that book to "Killer toys"?~~ Nevermind, I'd missed your quote. Rutebega (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A mention in a book is not the basis for a WP article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that it only took a minute to find it. I spend another minute and immediately find another reference in the Directory of World Cinema, "His killer-toys movie, Dolls (1987), is reasonably entertaining but does not have the spirit or anarchy of the best example of the genre, Child's Play (1988).". This confirms that we have a recognised genre here. Warden (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that there's an entire book called Toys That Kill. That's about dangerous toys which can literally kill children. At the very least, then, we should have some sort of dab page to assist readers who are looking for information about toy safety or Chucky. Warden (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is definitely very badly written. Other than a lead, it's basically just lists, with a continuation on the talk page. If any notability is found, the thing would probably have to be completely rewritten anyway. However, it certainly seems to be a very common theme in horror films and other media, so I'm surprised to see a lack of sources documenting the concept. Frankly, I hope some reliable sources are found and the article is improved, because it seems to have potential, if nothing else redeeming. Otherwise, it can always be recreated when those sources become available. Rutebega (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Listcruft and a synthesis. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There certainly is something there. But until other sources point it out WP can not have an article. BTW I skimmed through the list and found one mistake. The Preacher's Wife featured a toy truck that was repaired supernaturally, but didn't have any killer properties. BigJim707 (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How many things wrong with this article, let me count the ways,

It is not about toys that kill.
It's about fictional toys that threaten humans.
Therefore even the title is wrong
The lead is pure WP:OR
The lists are "what can we think of when we've had a few pints down the pub"
It ignores the roots of the film and TV "killer toys" which must go back further in human history.
Must be one of the few articles that says see it's own talkpage for more information.
As for the categorization, I assume some of them are meant to be humorous.

I agree with Rutebega, there will be lots of interesting scientific study and research into the phenomena, ditto in regard to film, tv and book (including nursery rhymes!) and a good article can be created with a few examples of the most familiar in the idiom, but most of all with references. Deletion is a kindness at the moment - if anybody wants to userfy for the time being, I'd have no objections. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing. Like others that !voted to delete, I was asked to reconsider. I appreciated the note and did not consider it canvassing. However, what I do find to be canvassing is a listing at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list i.e. a "come and help me this article needs saving" amongst a group of editors whose avowed aim is to save as many articles as possible, irrespective of any redeeming factor, is offensive and not in the spirit of WP. By all means get there before the AfD, but after, let's show a little decorum, please.

I won't change my !vote, because my comment above, "Deletion is a kindness at the moment" still stands in spite of the good work done. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out where the Article Rescue Squadron has avowed an interest in saving articles irrespective of any redeeming factor? From a brief scan-through of their pages I get a completely contrary understanding of their purpose. Their mission statement appears to emphasize article improvement through the addition of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Am I missing something? If significant coverage in independent RSes can be located before the AfD comes to a close (as seems to have been done in this case), then how can that possibly harm the AfD? AfDs aren't supposed to be votes based on the current condition of the article. They're supposed to be evaluations of the topic's potential to be a Wikipedia article. Unless there is some evidence that the ARS members have been asked to !vote "keep" here at the AfD as meatpuppets, I can't see any evidence of canvassing or loss of decorum whatsoever. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails general notability guidlines, and is largely WP:OR --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if it were actually about "killer toys," and had reliable sources to back it up, then this could have been kept. Unfortunately, it's just full of OR. I know that AfD is not cleanup, but in this case, it's probably better to start all over again. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep per improvements by Erik. However, it should be listified. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but treat as a list, either as List of films featuring killer toys or List of films featuring killer dolls (since that's the most common alternative term). Google Books Search shows the term "killer toy" or "killer doll" used in a genre sense, and I've used results to reference some examples here. I think that Warden's Moving Images reference and my Monsters in the Movies reference shows that per the notability guidelines for stand-alone lists, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I scrapped the entire previous article since there were no references and started from scratch, so I hope other editors can assess this topic based on this new version. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alternately, the list could be renamed "List of fictional works featuring killer toys", as in my research, there were a few mentions of killer toys in literature, like in at least one of Stephen King's short stories. Otherwise we can keep it film-centric as it was before. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to "List of films with killer toys" or something to that effect, generally per Erik. The article is badly misnamed, but there's probably some value there. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Warden. The notion of killer toys as a literary theme is long-established, sourced and carries as much weight as zombies, evil clowns and vampires. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to "List of films with killer toys" per Writ Keeper subsequent to Erik's complete overhaul. The previous article was a disaster but the current version is properly sourced and appears to demonstrate notability. Giving a title that matches the content is a good idea and keeping the list limited to films as it had been in the past and as it is now is important to keep it from becoming unmanageable. Lists of items in the unbounded entirety of fiction (in all media) tend to get extremely messy. -Thibbs (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing - I see that all of the delete votes have been canvassed...and now we have a sudden swath of NEW keep !votes that all showed up on the same ~~day~~ HOUR (3 within ten mins of each other). Editors, if you were canvassed you should mention that in your vote in the interests of full disclosure. Canvassing is a no-no. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not canvassed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I saw the section title of Erik's post on TPH's talk page, which I have on my watchlist for some reason or other (I very seldom remove pages from my watchlist, so I have all sorts of things in there.) I didn't really read the notice; I just saw the name of the page and clicked on it, expecting to roll my eyes and vote delete on a stupid, hysterical "these toys could harm your child!" OR scare piece. To my surprise, that wasn't what the article was about at all, and to my further surprise, the article actually looked worth keeping. (Hence my vote that the article is really terribly named, and needs to be renamed if it is to be kept). I wouldn't consider that canvassing, as the post wasn't directed at me or anyone else who hadn't yet opined at this AfD. YMMV, I suppose. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sue, I only contacted editors who were already involved in the discussion. I overhauled the article, and I wanted to ask editors to revisit the new version. Per WP:CANVAS, "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." The closing consensus should be based on this better version, not the previous one. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody contacted me - I have history at the article from last April and it's been on my watchlist since then. I was actually just about to remove it. For the record I don't allow myself to be canvassed. -Thibbs (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I approve of Erik's rewrite, and will let this AFD ride out since it has some unchanged deletes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stone cold KEEP, and I was not canvassed. The revamping after the last "delete" above has given us an article much improved over the one first brought to AFD.... and even the nominator approves the improvements. Well done! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Erik did a good job, and I made some changes myself. I think this could exist as its own article, as opposed to just a list of films or fiction featuring killer toys (though if you want to create said list, go right ahead). There's still a lot of room for improvement, especially if the article isn't renamed and turned into a list, but I don't think it's a candidate for deletion anymore. Rutebega (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though this article could use a bit of work, the genre is a valid one. Should some producer (the traditional word for "filmaker") come up with a new film with "killer toys" as a plot device Wikipedia readers can see "there is nothing new under the sun".Foofbun (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Maybe we could create a category for this...? Satellizer ^{talk contribs} 09:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon, bur a WP:PERNOM is unhelpful as the concept of an evil toy or set of toys being a significant and notable plot device has been repeatedly shown (IE: Puppet Master, Child's Play, Small Soldiers, et al.), and multiple sources for the notability of evil toys as a plot device have been offered and used. The thing some here might agree on is that the article name could benefit from clarification, as this article is not indiscriminate and meets WP:SALAT and WP:LISTPURP and other applicable criteria quite well. As the nominator himself agrees with the rewritten article, perhaps you could be more specific in why you think the list fails our inclusion criteria Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to list. Erik's rescue of page is sourced and the topic is notable.Jenphalian (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Warden has proven with sources he found, its a established genre. Just rename it to Murderous Fictional Toys or whatever seems best. Dream Focus 00:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because someone wrote a book called "toys that kill" or something doesn't remove the fact that this list depends heavily on OR. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this argument. The article had a lot of original research before, but I overhauled it so all content is referenced. There's no original research in it now. Is there a problem with the article as it stands now? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keytrans[edit]

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

Unlikely to be notable per WP:CORP. A Google News archive search brings up six entries for "Keytrans", three of which predate the company's foundation; one of which, in Portuguese, might not refer to this company; and two of which seem to be identical copies of a press release (or an article so promotional it ought to be a press release) discussing the sale of the developer to a bigger company. The company's web site has long since disappeared. This is very far from "significant coverage". Alexrexpvt (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I added one news article from 2006 as a reference, but it is basically a press release and not enough to establish notability. AllyD (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have to agree with AllyD, the article is very adverty and unsourced. The situation isn't helped by having a similar name to other companies with an online presence. Being India-based there's a possibility coverage exists in other languages, But I can only find this one, dating from when it was launched in 2006. Sionk (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails general notability guidlines. Puffery. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dating Factory[edit]

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

Non notable online dating company; no significant depth coverage from reliable sources (the few sources that would qualify only mention it in passing). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable, with mostly unreliable references. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:ORG LK (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this promotional article about a non-notable company for lack of significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 10 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. There is a 5-3 majority for deletion, although the last delete vote comes from a new account and simply makes an assertion of non-notability. Still, the delete side does provide a persuasive argument when they point out that the news coverage of high school sports is fairly routine. On the other hand, I accept that the Ohio Mr. Football award can arguably elevate a player to higher than average notability for a football player, and the keep arguments pointing out (admittedly brief) coverage in media beyond the very local sources have some merit too. I am therefore calling this no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Tanski[edit]

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

"[h]igh school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage

While the award (Mr. Football Award)is a notable award, Bart Tanski is not. The article states he went to Mentor, won the award, and walked onto Bowling Green. This does not goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage in that his notability is restricted to local coverage and sports specific publications, and hardly qualifies as "substantial and prolonged coverage" as it was only around reported around the time period he won the award. -TheRunningDude

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 4. Snotbot t • c » 17:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first question, regardless of the WP:NSPORT guidelines, is if the article meets WP:GNG. WP:GNG states that if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. WP:GNG gives further guidance and it is shown Tanski meets these.

1. "Significant coverage" that means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. - Upon winning Mr. Football, a number of articles were written about Tanski of which he was directly addressed (e.g., see here and here) as well as more current articles that directly discuss his achievement in a historical contents (e.g., here and here). It is established that significant coverage is met.

2. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. - The above articles are from noted newspapers such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer and Toledo Blade and such they are reliable.

3. "Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. - Again, Cleveland Plain Dealer and Toledo Blade, among others, count as sources. Plus, the above articles are from four different Ohio news papers, not just his 'hometown' paper.

4. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent. Yet again, Cleveland Plain Dealer and Toledo Blade are independent of the subject (as opposed to data on the BGSU website).

Based on the above, there is a presumption of notability and I think that further analysis (e.g., that he won Mr. Football in Ohio) establish notability. -RonSigPi (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though the initial argument is weak, I must side with deletion. It would not appear Tanski meets the guideline requirements of either WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. Much of the (little) coverage of Tanski, such as those given by RonSigPi above, are still local stories wrote at the time of and about Tanksi winning the Mr. Football Award, nothing more, nothing less. The two sole articles written after the fact are rehashes of when he DID win the award.

The News Herald covers the northeastern portion of the Greater Cleveland area, where Tanski is from. The supplied 2012 article is a personal routine interview and does not help establish notability. And, despite the title (High school football: Life changed for Bart Tanski after winning Mr. Football) the article seems to focus on a then current Mentor student who was in the running for the award, with Tanski supplementing the story with personal anecdotes and rehashing his 2007 experience.

The 2010 Cleveland.com/Plain Dealer article, while certainly a greater reaching paper, is rather short, and again, only rehashes what was known in 2007; he won the award, lost at states, and walked on to Bowling Green.

The Medina Gazette is, again, a local north eastern Ohio community publication. The 2007 article provided has strange formatting errors, and a username for an author. Clicking the username "northcoastNOW" leads here. After some research into the supplied email address in the article, I am led to believe this is a blog/commentary post from a freelance blogger rather than a journalistic article.

The Toledo Blade article is not local to Tanski, (though it's still Ohio), but only covers a single fact; that he is a high school athlete that won the award.

The coverage of Tanski has neither been "substantial and prolonged" to meet WP:NSPORT. Perhaps WP:GNG really shouldn't be used as an alternative to determine notablility, (Tanski's only claim to notability is an award he won for being a good High School athlete ...that is why we have high school guidelines to determine notability in WP:NSPORT) but regardless, his coverage still does not seem significant, nor does the number of sources seem enough given the depth of coverage.

Searching brings up nothing else about Tanski other than the already supplied local and somewhat non-local articles stating he won the award. He broke no records or made any significant achievements outside his 2007 high school award. He seems like a fairly typical college student who was a good, though not exceptionally good, high school football player and does not establish significant notability to warrant his own article. -Dorbella

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some perspective here is important: we are discussing the notability of a high school football player who did not have a significant college career and never played in a professional game. Any marginal notability of the subject is based solely on his having received Ohio's Mr. Football award as a 17-year-old in 2007. That's all there is; everything else is filler. This appears to be exactly the sort of case that the one-event rules were designed to address per WP:ONEEVENT, WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E. In relevant part, WP:BLP1E states

"Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

"If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

"If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.

"It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981."

Applying the WP:BLP1E analysis, the subject was covered in the Ohio media solely for having been recognized as "Mr. Football." There is no reliable, independent source coverage beyond that. All other sources are either blogs or team websites. The subject is clearly a "low-profile" individual and is not regularly covered by the media, and he is already included in the list of Ohio's Mr. Football award recipients. There is no relevant information to merge to the list. And having been recognized as Mr. Football clearly does not rise to the level of historical significance of the example cited.

After properly analyzing this article under the WP:BLP1E criteria, the result is a clear "delete." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I disagree with the assertion above that WP:BLP1E is a basis for deleting in this case. That guideline should be invoked to protect otherwise private, living persons where they gain brief notoriety due to their involvement in a single news event such as an isolated involvement in a scandal, escapade, crime, disaster, protest, stunt, etc. It does not apply to a person being receiving accolades for a sustained period of productivity or accomplishment. We should not, and need not, stretch the boundaries of BLP1E to conclude that Tanski is not notable. As noted above, coverage is limited to his playing of "high school" football, and the applicable criterion imposes a higher-than-normal standard of substantial and sustained coverage for a high school football player to be deemed notable. I do not see sufficient coverage to satisfy the heightened standard for high school football players. Cbl62 (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see a good deal of coverage for this individual in the news, ranging from local and regional articles to USA Today. There should be no question he passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Ron and Paul. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have found nothing to determine notability! Artical would need expanding to qualify for inclusion. Deangunn (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Groothoff[edit]

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

Non-notable victim of a non-notable crime; also, parts of the article seem to be original research. My analysis is based on reading the three New York Times articles cited in the article (Models Accuse Man, Cooper is Committed, and Business World for March 24, 1933), plus a few other news stories that are free from a local history website (short items near the bottoms of the pages on [8] and [9]; also stories in column 6 on [10] and [11]). Louise Groothoff was a 22-year-old model who was one of two young models kidnapped by a 24-year-old man who lured them to his house by pretending to be an artist seeking models, tied them up and gagged them, then sat in a corner reading a book. The women were unharmed. Nothing about the crime seems to be notable. The man was declared insane and committed to a mental hospital; end of story. The article asserts that the crime was notable because of its association with a trade union for models, the name and address of which is given in the article. One of the sources does state that the young man had engaged the women through the organization named in the article, but nothing in any of the sources that I found suggests that this fact had any bearing on the disposition of the case or had any future implications for this union. As near as I can determine, the assertion that the connection with the union made the crime notable is original research with no verifiable basis. (Furthermore, if the article topic is notable, it should be recast as an article about the crime, not one of the victims.) Orlady (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see how this gets past WP:CRIME or WP:1EVENT, and it happened in the 1930's. Just not. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to fail WP:VICTIM, because the crime had no broad long term ramifications (and the article doesn't claim any either). I don't understand the claim to notability (member of a trade union) made by the author! Sionk (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails general notability guidlines. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FRF. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:53, 10 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. Overall, the notability arguments in favor of deletion were more credible. In particular, evidence that a phrase is being used isn't sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia, although it is sufficient for Wiktionary. Otherwise, there doesn't seem to be a consensus for a redirect. PhilKnight (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giving him the business[edit]

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

No verifiable sources (only link provided is dead), penalty does not appear anywhere in the official NFL or NCAA rules. RunningOnBrains^(talk) 15:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR (short for "Outside the Rules", or something) Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. WP should not have an article on something that was said two times. Five yard penalty, still first down. Borock (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Penalty (gridiron football). Though it is not official terminology, it has been used by officials in games and there is enough WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE that a merge and redirect is warranted; WP:PRESERVE should be followed here, not outright deletion. There was already an ongoing discussion at Talk:Giving him the business#Merge, as well as a merge tag at the top of the article. This is a kind of personal foul, and should be merged to Personal foul (gridiron football) if it is ever created. In the meantime, there is currently a list entry for "personal foul" in Penalty (gridiron football). Here is a reference two years later in the New York Times to the 1986 incident.[12]. A 2001 article in Daily Herald called the 1986 call "one of the most famous penalty calls in football history".[13]. There's a 2012 mention in The Record[14], and a 2008 reference in The Washington Times[15]. —Bagumba (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not a penalty call. The phrase appears nowhere in any rule book, and the referees weren't using it as the name of the penalty. It's just a funny expression that two referees in history just happened to use to describe the personal foul that the players committed. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 18:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Based on its continued references in reliable sources, it is a valid search term. See {{R for convenience}} for colloquial names used as redirects. It seems pedantic to limit ourselves to official names, and not getting readers the information they are seeking.—Bagumba (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Personal foul (gridiron football) per Bagumba (I don't get why some penalties have their own articles but others don't). – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After further review, the suggested ruling of Merge and redirect by Bagumba and Muboshgu has been confirmed. Neither will be charged with a timeout. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Please reset the game clock to... (getting a little carried away, hopefully no one gives me the business over it)[reply]
Delete funny. But not notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you state that this is funny, as numerous voters have on this Articles for Deletion page, then you are obviously engaging in Original Laughing. You invalidate your comments by saying the article is funny. There is no published source that says that PUNCHING AN OPPOSING PLAYER is funny, nor is penalizing a team funny. I think many of you need to step back and change your votes. The more people comment on this page saying that the article is funny, the more people will read your original research into the subject and start agreeing. Anyone who reads that the article is funny but doesn't get the joke will merely assume that you are laughing for a verified reason and laugh along with you. I think you "funny" people need to go back and edit your comments by removing any mentions of humor, lest we have copycats who repeat this fallacy. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- After further review I still think it's funny. I still think it's not notable. One comment does not invalidate the other. It's possible to be both funny and not notable. If it's "original research" to say something is funny, and others read in my "original research" that it is also funny, that has no bearing on the notability nor on the outcome of this discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has a ref here , here, and here. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to satisfy the general notability guidelines with multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. The article content also appears to be largely original research in violation of WP:OR. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge. Aside from the OR, the phrase is not unique to football by a long shot. The redirect would be implying that it is a football term. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of Wikipedia articles that have not been written yet. There is no deadline. When there are multiple uses for an ambiguous terms, a disambiguation page is created.—Bagumba (talk) 19:06, 10 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. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holocracy[edit]

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

Removed PROD per WP:PROD. Reason in removed PROD was: WP:SOAP Non-notable word/concept Illia Connell (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was able to find several instances of this word through Google Scholar and Books: (1) denoting "universal democracy" (book title, no other instances); (2) a synonym for holarchy, here; (3) a synonym for "sociocracy", here. Each of these uses is essentially neologistic, and so falls foul of WP:NEO. At best the material could be incorporated into the holarchy page, but I doubt it's notable enough even for that. Alexrexpvt (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, why do you say that those references, that actually exist, are THEMSELVES neologistic? Is not your argument rhetorical as well as self-contradictory? --PiPhD (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. In each case the author seems to have coined the word anew, apparently unaware that someone had used it before, and given it an original denotation: to that extent, each word is a neologism. It requires a leap of synthesis to assert that these are iterations of a single well-established term, a leap which WP:NEO specifically cautions against. Alexrexpvt (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Alexrexpvt; this is a textbook WP:NEO. §FreeRangeFrog^croak

Delete per WP:NEO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails general notability guidlines. Non notable WP:NEO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary of neologisms. TFD (talk) 23:08, 5 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 "keep" opinions do not address, or are at odds with, our inclusion rules documented notably in WP:GNG. Sandstein 10:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oxagile LLC[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Article about a possibly non-notable company, where no reliable, independent sources seem to exist. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 13:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I recommended against an A7 on this because it had sources and felt it warranted sufficient investigation first. However, having looked through all the sources given, they're all self-published, primary or press releases (ie: not independent coverage), none of which can be used to establish notability. The only borderline exception is this Microsoft source which talks about its partnership with the company, though even that has the air of a press release about it without actually using that term. Can't find anything else of note on the web. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In my opinion, it would be unfair to delete this article! In Wikipedia there are a plenty of articles about organizations without appropriate, notable sources, but nevertheless they have the right to existence! Moreover, this article has reliable sources that prove rewards received by the company, and its partnership with Microsoft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorexoc (talk • contribs) 17:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC) — Zorexoc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If you know of other articles on Wikipedia that do not have proper sources to establish notability, feel free to nominate them for deletion as well. And just because a source is reliable, it does not mean it is significant coverage or it is independent. You need all three of significant + independent + reliable. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I think you are very strict about the sources. They cannot be called insignificant and unreliable. And I can assure you that the company is growing and operating worldwide, and as new independent sources appear they will be added to the article at sight.

Otherwise numerous published articles should be deleted from this free online encyclopedia, not only about companies. And what for to do that? Maybe just this information will be useful for other people! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaBV (talk • contribs) 21:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find WP:42 and User:Uncle G/On notability are good essays to read as to what is required to establish notability. And yes, articles are deleted all the time because they are not notable right now - Windows Blue was deleted last week and Windows 8 was deleted several times, and protected against recreation, until its notability was unquestionable. It doesn't matter if the information is useful - if I added an article on WP for me to go to the shops and get some cat food tomorrow, it would be very useful (well, for me at least), but totally unsuitable of being in an encyclopedia. There's nothing wrong with waiting a while before creating an article. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Remember, WP: Other Stuff Exists is not a valid reason to keep an article. Each article's notability must be considered on its own. And unless something can be found to the contrary, this company is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howicus (talk • contribs) 00:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why do you think that this company isn´t notable? If you don’t know about it, that doesn’t mean that nobody all over the world know and consider this company worth mentioning in free encyclopedia. By the way, this encyclopedia is intended for providing information to people, if they don’t know something. That’s why wikipedia is so popular! And in this case why do you grudge providing there an article for this international company, global provider of application development, which business activity is growing day by day? I insist absolutely that this article has the right to existence! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaBV (talk • contribs) 12:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I think that this company isn't notable? Because I cannot find significant enough coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources! I've stated above some very good essays for you to read. Instead of stomping your foot and crying here, you should read them carefully, then concentrate on improving the article and adding better sources. Then more established editors may come along, see the improvements in the article, and gain a consensus to keep the article - and yes, I'm willing to listen to convincing arguments and change my mind too. As it currently stands, you have not cited a single Wikipedia policy which states why it should be kept, so your chances of preserving it don't look good. As it is, the company's main claim to fame in the outside world is that it won an award for an iPhone app once. That's not really enough.

Does the company have any mentions in cNet or TechCrunch? Have you had any coverage in national newspapers such as The Guardian or magazines such as PC Magazine that are not press releases? If you have, you need to get them referenced in the article ASAP, especially newspaper coverage (as a general rule of thumb I find if a corporation doesn't have numerous articles about them in the national press, they probably aren't notable). I feel I have been perfectly lenient here, as without my intervention the article may have been speedy deleted and you won't even be given a chance to keep it. Go and read the essays, learn about notability and verifiability, fix the article, and we'll all be a lot better off. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I absolutely agree with those who want to keep this article. I find the information helpful, and the company is not small, operates worldwide, has rewards. I think this article shouldn’t be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir5642K (talk • contribs) 12:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC) — Vladimir5642K (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Unfortunately, the article doesn't meet our inclusion standards for this encyclopedia. Also, single purpose accounts whose only purpose is to !vote in a CfD create an appearance of WP:MEATPUPPETRY or WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. I don't know if that is the case here, but your !vote is likely to discounted becuase this is your only contribution toward building the encyclopedia. - Mr X 14:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To my mind, this article should be kept. It´s free online encyclopedia, and I find this information and the sources adequate for being placed in wikipedia. I think the inclusion standards should not be so strict. As for this article, the information looks credible, as well as the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UserUSA123 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC) — UserUSA123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete not notable. No evidence of notable accomplishments. Being a MSGold Partner is not enough for notability , nor is a award for developing ringtones. Essentially are the refs are undisguised PR. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable and blatant promotion. I can't find any coverage outside the SF Chronicle piece and that was reporting on a 22nd place in a league table by bestwebdesignagencies.com that looks more like a commercial agency than a genuinely independent organisation. As above MS Gold partner is not enough either. And the SPA creation and support here leave a bad taste. Mcewan (talk) 13:50, 9 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. KTC (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jalal Nali[edit]

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

Non-notable "politician". Politician in quotes because this gentleman does not appear to have ever held any political office, but rather is a private individual who involves himself in political affairs as a writer and founder of several non-notable organizations. Sources that can be found are based on his own extensive writings, rather than anyone else writing about him. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You Most be kidding, how could an unknown person be invited to all these tv and Radio channels? And who are you to decide who is notable and who is not? you know that is very easy to create a fake famous person...! When you see honorable people you start finding excuses. I am from Mr Nali association, and we will not stop here Mr Wikidan! we ask the opinion of at least 5 wiki admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maroc Intelligence (talk • contribs) 18:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No third-party sources given to establish notability. All links are to articles written by Nali. We can't know if he was on these programs or not unless some sources are provided. Howicus (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The general guidelines for notability are to show that an individual has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. This article cites no secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 5 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. The nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of medical schools in Bahrain[edit]

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

Delete, WP:DIRECTORY it is not. Seems like another indiscriminate list. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Other articles of similar purpose exist such as List of medical colleges in Bangladesh and List of medical schools in Malaysia. The article in question has been made for its respective country. I don't see why it should be deleted. --Droodkin (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of that. I'm not opposed to withdrawing with my apologies. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the issue is resolved? --Droodkin (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i may not like lists like this but if it's consensus it's ok, I'm ok with that. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 03:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Syphax[edit]

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

Unref'd stub for six years. A search doesn't bring back anything other than forks & mirrors of WP. I can't find any reliable sources to indicate notability. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I hate to say it, but I think you're right. I've found a few passing mentions, and a photo of his grave, but not really enough information to establish notability for Douglas Syphax. PianoDan (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will absolutely change my vote to Keep. Nice job! PianoDan (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Possible delete~~ - A regular Google search wouldn't provide much for something from the Civil War days but a Google Books search probably would and it did with results here (second to the last result at the bottom), here and here. I also found this which mentions a Douglas P. Syphax but it seems to be about criminals who were sentenced and pardoned. I also found this which briefly mentions Douglas but focuses more with his son, Theophilius John Minton Syphax (later changed his name to T. John McKee and started passing as a white man including marrying a white woman and severing ties with his black family). I actually visited Virginia two years ago and visited museums but, unfortunately, I can't remember if I read anything about this man. I also found this which mentions a Douglas P. Syphax in the Washington, D. C. area who was a real estate agent. I wish I could find an obituary that may provide information about his life especially after the war but it's probably lost, fragmented or never existed. Additional Google Books searches with "Douglas P. Syphax", "Douglas Prosser Syphax" and "Douglas Syphax Civil War" provided nothing useful. It seems he had a son also named Douglas who lived from 1871 to 1928. I found a family website, syphaxfamilyreunion.com which provides a photo of Douglas Syphax's gravestone here (scroll a little bit from the top, his name will be at the left top corner) though it seems to be his son, not him. The website also provides a family tree available through payment here. Unfortunately, given that there isn't much to either Douglas (son or father), I vote delete. SwisterTwister talk 21:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The irony of what you write is that the same person who created this article also created a Theophilus John McKee article, which claimed that the New York Post had an article on him in 1948. Uncle G (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The user may have been a family member or someone familiar with the family history. Regarding the New York Post article, I found this from a website, mckeescholars.org, which actually talks quite a bit about him but it's a Readers Digest article from July 2006 by Lawrence Otis Graham (the author of one of the books I provided above). A search at both Google News and Books provided nothing else for this 1948 or 2006 article. It seems the Post provides archives but only from 1998 to the present. SwisterTwister talk 03:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Having read pages 181–182 and 384–385 of Graham 2007, I think that exactly the opposite of the right thing has happened here. Theophilus John McKee, the person whom history and the history books remembers, has been deleted, and this person, about whom history records about 1 sentence and mostly in the context of his son, still remains. I'm have contested that proposed deletion and I'm going to ask Aymatth2 a question about Henry McKee Minton. Uncle G (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have pumped up the article a bit. The 1935 Journal of Negro history article, unfortunately only available in snippet view, gives an outline of the subject's biography, and other sources mention aspects. These seem enough to (just) establish notability. There are two main points of interest: wealthy descendant of Martha Washington and one of the few Black Civil War Sergeants. Since the record books will give an outline of the biographical data, which are unusual and should be interesting to a wide audience, it seems highly likely that other offline sources also give thumbnail bios. Although not strictly relevant, I also find the article provides a useful link between undoubtably notable topics such as George Washington Parke Custis, John McKee (Colonel), Calvin Brent, Henry McKee Minton, Theophilus John Minton Syphax and Roscoe Conkling Bruce. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! Happy to withdraw following Aymatth2's excellent article expansion. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY after Aymatth2's work on the article. While it looks unlikely that the subject is massively notable, what notability there is is clearly sufficient for an article. I note that the nominator has declared his willingness to withdraw - are the delete !voters also willing to stand down? PWilkinson (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Thane Koi[edit]

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

No assertion of notability per WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:MUSICBIO; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Speedy deleted once this morning on grounds of notability (A7), and I can't find any sources online to support the assertions now made of notable video appearances and modelling work. Proposed deletion contested by User:TK Productions, in whose sandbox the draft version has been edited by the article's creator. Altered Walter (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. In fact, in my opinion it qualifies for speedy deletion (A7, and arguably G11), but we may as well let the AfD run its course now it's here. There seems to be little if any coverage in independent reliable sources, but massive amounts of publicity posted to numerous websites, and this Wikipedia article seems to be part of the advertising campaign. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient secondary sources to establish notability. Looks like speedy delete was tried and contested, so that's what an AfD is for. PianoDan (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article haven't got reliable sources. Probably it is perfect for speedy deletion. Samuel petan (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he is notable. This article was originally submitted to Articles for creation but was deleted as G12 (copy violation) after I reviewed it. At the time, I remember the article didn't have much information and more of "future and TBA" projects. It's unlikely he would have received attention as a young child for the commercials but possibly for the music videos and recent modelling (though not all models receive attention). However, I haven't found anything useful despite multiple detailed searches. It is also possible his album will receive attention but we can't guarantee that because it hasn't received any now. If he does, I would give him another six months to a year. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails general notability guidlines. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, fails WP:MUSICBIO. GregJackP Boomer! 05:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article, This article has valuable sources and references, so I believe this should not be deleted. I've done hard research and most of the references that was offered supported this biography. MeatloafLovah (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that almost every edit made by THIS account is of the subject of the AfD. PianoDan (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's because it started out as User:Tkproductions Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I've done a lot of research and I felt this article is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Thank you. MeatloafLovah (talk) MeatloafLovah (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No one is doubting your research just your connection to the subject which can compromise your neutrality. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Keep this article because the given references support this article. So I nominate to keep this commentary about Thane Koi.BrianLovesResearch (talk)BrianLovesResearch (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note this is a brand new account who's first and only edit is at this AFD. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:49, 6 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. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broncos–Patriots rivalry[edit]

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

Broncos-Patriots rivalry (note different punctuation) added to this nomination seven hours after it was created. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 30 NFL teams... my bad math suggests there are about 500 combinations of this variety, and there's nothing particularly notable about this combination (despite the continual mass of sports media). Shadowjams (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No secondary sources to establish this rivalry as notable. The text of the article reads like a history of the Broncos. There are certainly a few NFL rivalries that have articles and deserve them, for example the Cowboys–Redskins rivalry. But I see no evidence that this is one of them. PianoDan (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of the duplicate articles - my opinion is, unsurprisingly, to delete both. PianoDan (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I expected, but I asked you because the closing admin will have an easier time because you specifically asked for both to be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Is this a duplication of Broncos-Patriots rivalry (with a Hyphen-minus, where the proposed article uses an en dash)? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tagged as A10. All these borderline NFL 'rivalry' articles always smack of WP:OR but in any case this is a clear duplicate. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added Broncos-Patriots rivalry to this nomination. There's no substantive difference between them; it wouldn't be good to delete one on notability grounds while keeping the other. I declined the A10 tag because it would unintentionally confuse the AFD, since it wouldn't help to get rid of one page when the nominator's statement is equally relevant or irrelevant to the other one. Let's delete both, or let's keep both and redirect one to the other.Nyttend (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I honestly did not think to add the original one to the AFD, but I do think this rivalry is something someone cooked up at some point. So my !vote here would be Delete as well. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge then reconsider for deletion final product. That doesn't seem efficient... but that's where I'm at.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This rivalry is not particularly notable. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - as duplicate material. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If Manning and Brady are still going at it at the same addresses after ten years, then we might have something. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the WP:NRIVALRY subsection of WP:NSPORTS, "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable. Articles on sports rivalries . . . should satisfy the general notability guideline." I see no evidence of substantial coverage of this "rivalry" in multiple, independent, reliable sources to support this subject's notability per the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. In fact, I see nothing to distinguish this "rivalry" from any other NFL game series. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Just because teams play each other (sometimes in the playoffs, so beware the possible Manning-Brady matchup) doesn't mean they have a "rivalry". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. As an NFL fan, I don't believe this is considered to have any special significance as a rivalry (although the Brady-Manning rivalry might). AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Perhaps the Battle of Alberta is different, but this topic is not of significant coverage or importance to prove notability in reliable sources. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 02:15, 11 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 Slight merge and redirect to Willie Maddren. (non-admin closure) — Yash ^[talk] 09:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Maddren Trophy[edit]

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

Non-notable pre-season tournament. Google search retrieves only 9 results of which only this one is neither a primary source (i.e. from the host club's website) or from wikipedia. Doubtless a worthy charitable event, but simply does not come close to passing WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slight Merge and Redirect to Willie Maddren. Yes notability of this tournament is extremely dubious, but can be mentioned in a sentence on Maddren article page. Secret ^account 19:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Slight Merge and Redirect to Willie Maddren although I not too sure of the merit of a redir. Isn't the WP search engine good enough? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - charity kickabout match involving retired footballers and minor celebrities, such events are a dime a dozen and don't generally attract any coverage other than brief announcements in local papers, this one seems no different -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above, no independent notability. Giant Snowman 11:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Galatasaray SK strip[edit]

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

PROD contested with rationale of "it's an interesting article, it deserves to be debated at least." However, 'interesting' does not equal 'notable'. There is a real lack of meaningful content here, and elements violate WP:NOTGALLERY. There is already a relevant section on the parent article - Galatasaray S.K.#Team colors and kit and I don't see why that cannot be improved/slightly expanded; there is no need for a separate article. Giant Snowman 11:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is some interesting content here that could probably be sourced better, but even with better sourcing, I doubt that notability would be satisfied. – Pee Jay 11:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sure I agree with the WP:NOTGALLERY comment as this seems specifically to refer to articles that are just pictures, not text. However, the article is essentially taken word for word from this, which does not explcitly state that it has been released into the public domain and so should be deleted as WP:COPYVIO. In addition to being a copyvio, the document it comes from is taken from a blog / fan forum and so I would question it's reliability. There is potential that information in the article could be included in the actual Galatasaray article but it would need to be supported by additional sources, but at the moment, the copyvio status of this article is so major that it can't be merged as is. Fenix down (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are similar articles Arsenal F.C. strip and Parma F.C. strip 1886kusagi (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Depending on the outcome of this AfD I will nominate them for deletion as well. Giant Snowman 13:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any information that justifies a separate article outside of the parent. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the kit isn't notable in itself, the club is notable, and the club has the kit. Does not justify separate article. "What about X" comments do not support any decision to keep. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. C 679 16:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - kit fails general notability guidlines. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There are articles such as Arsenal F.C. strip, Manchester City F.C. strip etc. Galatasaray is one of the oldest clubs in Turkey and I think there could be an article about the strip.--Rapsar (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I would imagine most of these similar articles are good candidates for deletion, too. C 679 08:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point :) But I'm not telling if these article exist, this one should be exist too. I'm trying to tell that this article has a lot of content -like the others- and I think it deserves a seperate article -like the others.--Rapsar (talk) 08:53, 11 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. KTC (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sand Castles: A Story of Family and Tragedy[edit]

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

Promotional piece on future film lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Sourced by a mix of press release, local boy does stuff puff pieces, passing mentions and listings. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete without prejudice as being somewhat WP:TOOSOON. Article tells us this film is slated for release in Novemner 2013, and while there is some available about this film's production and filming,[16][17][18][19][20] there is really not enough to qualify this as an exception to WP:NFF. When closer to release, there may likely be enough... but for now, nope. Definitely enough for its current mention in the Jordon Hodges article (where we learn it might be out in early 2014), but not for a separate article.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am an Executive of Oceanus Pictures, as I explained before to the user, when you're an independent film, there are different release dates depending on which film festival you go to. If we end up going to Toronto then release will be 2013 if we go to Sundance it will be 2014. We have made the edit on Actor Jordon Hodges page. No reason to delete a legitimate movie just to be active. I do believe you are wrong in this situation & I respect your willingness to get the right information out there. Please let us know any info you would like and we will get on it. We do not want anymore issues with something so simple again, as it takes too much time when we are in full blown post-production and marketing starting soon. ( KonstantineUO (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KonstantineUO (talk • contribs) 00:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, we include articles about films on Wikipedia when they meet notability guidelines. We have general notability guidelines and notability guidelines for films (including future films). Per the guidelines, if this film "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", then a stand-alone article is warranted. It is completely possible for this film to become notable on a later date; deletion is not permanent. Let me know if you have any questions! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 01:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MichaelQSchmidt's assessment with no issue revisiting this topic's notability in the near future. Perhaps it is worth userfying the article, though those involved with the film should consider WP:COI. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason for deletion - inclusion on Wikipedia is part of their marketing strategy. "That is part of a marketing game plan.". duffbeerforme (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable film as yet. This article's main editor has said Also we have not put it on Indie Wire, or any major publication on purpose. That is part of a marketing game plan. It's on IMDb, Wiki, we have a website, all we want for now., in other words the Wikipedia article is considered as part of their "marketing game plan". No, this is an encyclopedia, not a bill-board. PamD 08:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:KonstantineUO wrote me on my talk page. I responded there and am posting my response here as well....

To KonstantineUO: With you being an executive at Oceanus Pictures, I would ask that you review WP:COI and how concerns about conflict of interest are somewhat clarified at WP:PRIMER#Important cautions. Toward your wishing it be written of in Wikipedia as part of your promotional campaign, I would strongly urge you read WP:NOTADVERTISING. We are not to be used as a means of promotion of self or of products. Now I have no doubt that the project exists, is filming, and has a hoped-for release in late 2013... and though you may have corrected the planned release dates in this and related articles, what IS required for inclusion within Wikipedia, is that the film topic itself be written of in reliable sources somewhere else first. IE: it needs to be the recipient of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources in order to be determinable as notable enough for Wikipedia. Your film topic, as "notable" as it could maybe be in 12 months, is currently premature for us. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:26, 7 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. KTC (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Parker (author)[edit]

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

Promotional piece on author lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. Whilst this initial may look like a well written article a proper look reveals it's problems. It has many sources but none are reliable sources that provide significant about Parker. References appear thrown in to mask a lack of notability. Referencing at time of nomination.

1 listing

2 Yahoo

3 passing mention, doesn't verify claim.

4 not independent, not significant coverage

5 short supplied bio for book fair

6 press release

7 citizen supplied news, not a reliable source, dead link

8 social network, not significant independent coverage about Parker

9 by Parker

10-15 listings and a shop

Due to the misleading nature of the referencing and the lack of caoverage about Parker this article should be deleted. Per WP:5P. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, ...". This is so clearly a violation of the first pillar and should be blown away. ignore all rules to stop the rot. Stop Wikipedia from being overtaken by spam to preserve its integrity. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed, both to the specific and general problems. Spam is now more problematic than vandalism once was. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 15:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spam. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The books are self published, and only the first is even in WorldCat--but essentially no libraries. If the recordings are similar, there's no chance of notability. I agree that our greatest current problem is promotionalism. It was an inevitable correlate of growing recognition by the world, and we're stuck with it. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 7 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. Arguement that sources might become available in the future is acknowledgment that they don't exist yet, hence failing notability per remaining comments. KTC (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Dumping Ground[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable TV show. It may become notable once it is released, but right now it has no significant coverage outside of the BBC, which is producing it. Skrelk (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: More information and reception will be released which is today. It is also part of the Tracy Beaker franchise which is quite notable.--Anna2123456789 (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Was released today. More information is likely to be released soon as mentioned above. 94.173.99.52 (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not much reliable sources. "More information is likely to be released" is just WP:CRYSTALBALL. There's not much reliable sources, it has already been released - it should be deleted. Satellizer ^{talk contribs} 21:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The programme just started today. What can you expect in a matter of hours when a programme has just started. Give it chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.16.102 (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I expect it to have adequate referencing. Note the article can be recreated after more references become available (although I kinda doubt that'll happen...) Satellizer ^{talk contribs} 09:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some new references so it totals up to 7 which is the equivalent to the Tracy Beaker Returns article --Anna2123456789 (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the number of references, it's the source of the references. Significant, non-trivial references in credible secondary sources. Anything ending .blogspot.com is not a credible secondary source. Skrelk (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Three of those seven references are on the BBC's web site. Since "The Dumping Ground" is broadcast by the BBC, these are not independent sources. Two references are on blogspot, which is not a reliable source. The seventh is on a site called www.combom.co.uk, which appears to be a blog, and is probably not a reliable source, and in any case it is only a two-sentence mention of "The Dumping Ground". I quite understand why a new user, seeing that an article is likely to be deleted because of a lack of references, is likely to think that just adding a lot of references will solve the problem, but it won't. If you want the article kept, then I suggest reading the guidelines to notability and reliable sources, to see what kind of thing is needed. Two good references are likely to do the trick, while 200 references of the sort that are in the article now will not. My guess is that the subject probably is notable enough for the article to stay, but I have not yet seen any sources that show that it is. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comment beginning "I quite understand why a new user..." was based on the assumption that only a new user would make that mistake about the need for sources. However, I now see that Anna2123456789 has been here for nearly four years, and has made well over 400 edits. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Both the "keep" arguments amount to saying "there is not much coverage yet, because this is new". Anyone familiar with Wikipedia's notability criteria will realise that this is not an argument for keeping: it is an argument for deleting. Basically, Wikipedia's main notability criterion is that if there is not much coverage in reliable sources, then it is not notable. Why there is not much coverage in reliable sources is irrelevant: if there is not yet much coverage, then the topic is not yet notable, and so we should not yet have an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:10, 7 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. KTC (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A. Gratius Avitus[edit]

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

Subject is a Latin teacher whose claims to fame are founding a Latin club (Circulus Latinus Londiniensis), teaching online courses, giving two scholarly presentations, and publishing two papers. Fails WP:PROF. Cnilep (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors interested in this discussion may also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schola Latina Universalis, one of the two online schools for which he teaches. Cnilep (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He doesn't pass WP:PROF, the sources in the article don't seem to pass WP:RS, and I couldn't find any other sources online that would indicate he passes WP:BASIC. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My own googling didn't find anything beyond what the nominator and the previous commenters have unearthed. Ray^Talk 19:51, 7 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 moved to RFD. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Dumping Ground Episodes[edit]

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

Upcoming TV show, not notable. I did a search for this and was unable to find anything other BBC's promo page. If it was notable, it would have a standalone page, not an episode page. Skrelk (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what have i done to you? this is my second article and i please just want to keep it on here — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolDan3 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CoolDan, I just wanted to state that it's nothing personal. Skrelk has nominated the page for deletion because so far there is nothing to show that this program is notable right here and now. Its predecessors might have been notable, but that notability is not extended to every spinoff or product that is created. Notability is established by the show having been covered in multiple independent and reliable sources, which I don't see a lot of at this point in time. Don't feel bad- very few shows achieve this level of notability before their release. We can't guarantee that it will become notable, although if it does then you're certainly welcome to help re-create it. On a side note, there is a page for the TV series (The Dumping Ground) and it has issues with notability as well.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to assure you it's not personal, and I replied to you on your talk page and mine. Skrelk (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is now redirected to List of The Dumping Ground episodes, as of three hours ago. That page seems to be further along than this one was, so the redirect makes sense (and the title is better), but I don't know that the notability question has been resolved as yet. So, yeah. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing and moving to RFD, since this is now not an article. You can find it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 4. Nyttend (talk) 18:06, 4 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. As regards deletion. But among those who want to keep the article, consensus is that it should be moved to Air transport in Yugoslavia or similar, and limited to the period in which Yugoslavia existed. Sandstein 10:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of the busiest airports in the former Yugoslav countries[edit]

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

Previously nominated but kept without consensus - it was not country-tagged using WP:DS and the article wasn't tagged with modern-day country WikiProjects so it didn't show up on the Article alerts there. This alone should have caused the previous discussion to be relisted... Anyway, this is a WP:SYNTH violation. There's no such relevant geographical/aeronautical grouping such as "Former Yugoslavia" - if there is by any chance, it needs to be documented first. Until then, this is a classic synthesis of published material to promote the biased notion of a Yugosphere. Which is fine when someone does it on their own website, but for an encyclopedic entry this kind of synthesis first has to happen in real life reliable secondary sources. Also, this kind of an advocacy can easily be seen as a violation of WP:ARBMAC. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. 10:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. 10:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. 10:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. 10:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. 10:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. 10:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. 10:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. 10:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 10:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep and Rename. - There are 232 articles with lists of airports in different countries. Yugoslavia and its airports existed and therefore it is certainly notable topic. If the problem is the term "former Yugoslav countries" in the title of this article (and I agree it is) then the article should be renamed, not AfD-ed. Any possible issue with the content of the article can also be resolved without deleting it or WP:ARBMAC threats. Especially because the main contributor to this article chose different, and I think more appropriate, name for this article before it was renamed by editors who supported deletion option. Therefore SYNTH accusations and implying motives to creator of this article ("to promote the biased notion of a Yugosphere") are not justified and could be seen by someone as an Appeal to fear fallacy. They are also inappropriate, especially for editor with sysop rights who did not inform the main contributor to this article about this deletion request. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reading into the motives of the contributors - I'm saying what the result is, and also how it can be interpreted. It's contrary to the original research policy, and you now aren't showing an actual effort to fix the original research, instead you are wikilawyering by arguing how I'm a evil and wrong an out to get someone or something. Seriously, that's plain disingenuous. And this is not the first time I've seen you employ a victimization routine in the last couple of weeks. You really need to rethink your behavior here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lists of airports by countries or within other administrative borders make sense, lists of airports by non-existing countries don't. This is trivia without encyclopedic value because any interpretation of such data must necessarily invoke original research - unless of course the data is from the time before the country's dissolution (which in this case isn't). Once it's complete, Wikidata will be perfect for making such random collections as is in the article now. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exact time period to which the presented data refer to is not a valid argument for deletion but an improvement opportunity for the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it's not a simple quantitative improvement issue, but one that requires a totally different set of data, along with totally different interpretation. Keeping the current data until somebody eventually maybe does it (which will require considerably more effort than pulling numbers from internet databases) doesn't make sense. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You !voted for deletion based on two arguments:

this list refers to non-existing country (there are plenty of lists which refer to non-existing countries and they certainly can be very useful)
certain data refer to post-Yugoslav period. (The data presented in couple of columns of the main table and few additional tables can be easily erased without much effort and without affecting the quality of the list)

I think that none of your arguments are valid arguments for deletion. Am I wrong? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Certain" data!? Tell me, what data would remain if you erased the "couple of columns of the main table and few additional tables" that refer to post-Yugoslav period? Please also note that WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument in this discussion (or any other, for that matter). — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would remain is the list of airports in Yugoslavia which is actually the subject of this article. My argument was not based on WP:OTHERSTUFF but on opinion grounded in a common sense that lists of xyz of historical countries "certainly can be very useful". Exclamation mark and harsh tone of your comment were not constructive. I remain unconvinced that "non-existing country" and excess of data are valid arguments for deletion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article is actually list of airports in Yugoslavia by traffic - you could hardly maintain quality of such a list by removing the complete "by traffic" part of the content, don't you think? However, it would help if you specified what exactly should the list be repurposed and renamed to (which Yugoslavia, to begin with). It's rather unconstructive to make other people guess what you mean. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained that "The main contributor to this article chose different, and I think more appropriate, name for this article before it was renamed by editors who supported deletion option." in one of my previous comments. Couple of hours after the first AfD was closed the name of this article was renamed by an editor who supported its deletion and now the new name is used as an argument for deletion. No, that is not valid argument for deletion, only for renaming.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those titles are essentially the same, and both reveal that the subject of this list are airports in Yugoslavia by traffic. By simply renaming it back, we'd accomplish nothing, unless somebody dug up historical data, which (as I argued before) is extremely unlikely to happen anytime soon. So again, what do you propose to rename it to? — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. By renaming this article back the "name issue" will be resolved and it will clearly refer to the former country, not to Yugosphere which is the main (appeal to fear) argument of the editor who proposed this deletion. I think that previous name 'List of the largest airports in the Former Yugoslavia' (before this renaming) was better. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you missed the main issue completely (clearly stated as WP:SYNTH in the deletion proposal). Instead you got stuck with the proposer's personal opinion which isn't exactly relevant for this discussion. And no, the main issue wouldn't be solved at all by juggling with semantics of the title. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAPOLICY is an argument to be avoided in the deletion discussions. The same refers to the Subject no longer exists argument of yours. Taking in consideration that one of the arguments for deletion was based on the lack of the references I think it is really hard to apply WP:SYNTH argument here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my concerns regarding WP:SYNTH at least twice, so implying that I use WP:JUSTAPOLICY is slightly dishonest, you know? As is misinterpreting/ignoring them again. What exactly do you intend to achieve by that? — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I explained that the data presented in couple of columns of the main table and few additional tables can be easily erased without much effort and without affecting the quality of the list. Therefore it would be absurd to apply WP:SYNTH here just because of the excess of the data which don't even refer to former Yugoslavia and should be removed from the article. Your comment is again unnecessarily harsh and contains unjustified accusation and violation of wp:agf and wp:civility. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I cannot assume good faith if you don't demonstrate it and it's not uncivil to point out the fallacies in your arguments and ask you what's the purpose of stubbornly sticking to them and constantly trying to derail the discussion. So please stop wikilawyering and I'll try to explain for the last time:

I explained that the data presented in couple of columns of the main table and few additional tables can be easily erased without much effort and without affecting the quality of the list

False. Then it wouldn't be a "List of the busiest airports in the former Yugoslav countries", nor would it be a "List of the largest airports in the Former Yugoslavia" anymore. Just a "List of airports in former Yugoslavia" - the only remotely sensible title for this collection after deleting wp:synth'd data, but it would still have to specify which former Yugoslavia it refers to (I assume Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). Is it understandable now? — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is again unnecessarily harsh. Nothing I wrote gave you right to violate AGF in my case. You used fallacy in your discussion not me. It is notability fallacy explained here: Existence. It is incorrect that the subject of this article has to be result of synth. There are of course many reliable sources which cover the topic of this article. Yugoslavia collected and published data about trafic on its airports trough statistical publications. In case of this article SYNTH can not be valid argument for its deletion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently do not understand the concept of WP:SYNTH. Please read the fine manual. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are apparently joining discussions on multiple pages or topics I edit or multiple debates where I contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit my work.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*facepalm* I literally haven't even taken a look at the history of this article before nominating it for deletion. It doesn't matter who wrote it, it's still an unambiguous violation of the improper synthesis policy. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now that I have taken a look, I'm even more confused at your accusation because you haven't edited the article before this AfD, instead Euro.Serb (talk · contribs) seems to have written most of it. Are you saying that's actually your account, or? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for my mistake. I forgot that it was you who nominated this article for deletion. I appologize.

I think this issue is very simple but I will try to explain my position about the SYNTH violation for the last time. The synth violation exists only in the data which refers to post-Yu periods and which should be removed from the article. It would be wrong to delete this article because of this part which will be removed anyway. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that most of the article is indeed such data. The background part can be easily upmerged into some other article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Antidiskriminator managed to ignore the crucial part of my argument again (therefore reaffirming my opinion about his lack of good faith), so I won't bother explaining again. I'll just say that keeping this list under the current or previous title would be misleading and therefore dishonest to the reader. It's as if we made an article about Hermann Einstein with the content describing his son's life, then deleted everything but the death date and kept the husk with the rationale that someone may someday write something about mr. Hermann as well. That, I believe, would be utter nonsense. This list can still be recreated later when somebody actually does contribute the relevant data. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The previous AFD cited the Nordic and Baltic lists. I don't see Yugoslavia as being a defining characteristic such as those two are. I mean, it's like having a list of airports in the Commonwealth of Nations. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Keep, but delete the tables and post-1991 data. I wouldn't have any problems with the article if: 1) it listed Yugoslav airports with contemporary (i.e. pre-1991) data only, or 2) it could be shown that there are reliable sources with listings, comparisons, or analyses of airports in the former Yugoslav republics which are grouped together and referred to as such. Otherwise, the list criteria seem arbitrary and artificial. There is legitimate content here though, which is best moved to e.g. Air transport in Yugoslavia. GregorB (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article's section "The Former Yugoslavia" describes the history, presumably correctly, but it's also entirely unreferenced, so we don't really know. It could be moved to an unreferenced stub article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of references is not valid reason for deletion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And nobody's insisting on deleting possibly valid content, but it has to be disconnected from improper synthesis. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It seems my position is compatible with the underlined comment by Antidiskriminator above. So, on second thought, forking and deletion would not be the best option then. (Article history?) So: do we have a consensus that removal of identified WP:SYNTH content + rename would do the trick? If we do, then let's do it and withdraw this nomination. GregorB (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my position accordingly. GregorB (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GregorB's comments - criteria for inclusion of modern data in the list come off as arbitrary.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but delete lists with modern data and rename article to Aviation in Yugoslavia. It is relevant to a part of history. --Smihael (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to gutting the article, but it has to be done carefully, per WP:EDITATAFD. And, which exact new title is best? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it's either Aviation in Yugoslavia (per Smihael) or Air transport in Yugoslavia (suggested by yours truly). Both have precedents. The second one is more narrow, but fits the content. GregorB (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, we should keep this article somehow, but not under this name... Air transport in Yugoslavia looks ok for me too. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Seven days has passed, and we appear to have consensus for a gutted version moved to Air transport in Yugoslavia. Someone please do it (the rules expressly forbid me to do it as I am the original nominator). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geek's Guide to the Galaxy[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY. insufficient trivial coverage from non reliable secondary blog sources Hu12 (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am seeing some reliable source-ish coverage: [21] [22]. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC) - not reliable source-ish, those magazines belong to the podcasters themselves! Sorry, my error. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This show is, as the article notes, one of the world's most prominent literature podcasts. It's certainly not hard to find coverage of it online. Here are just a few examples: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.166.132 (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are just blogs and sites hosting links to Geek's Guide to the Galaxy. None of those demonstrate notability.--Hu12 (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, they're not just any old "blogs and sites," they're sites like Boing Boing and Gawker, two of the most popular blogs on the internet. And they're definitely not just "links" -- they're articles and interviews covering the content of the podcast. Do you think any science fiction literature podcast is notable? Similiar science fiction literature podcasts such as Escape Pod and Comic Geek Speak have entries already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.166.132 (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage in varied references. — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some of them? Mostly seem to be self-published sources. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the podcast is hosted by Wired (see [28],[29]), a reliable source. Diego (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hosted by a reliable source = notable? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 16:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is Not inherited, nor is wired.com independent of the source in this case. Additionally those links are written "BY GEEK'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY". --Hu12 (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've tried really hard to find anything in non-blog sources, but drawn a blank. However, it's written by two notable people, and the advice in WP:NWEB states "In such cases, it is often best to describe the website in the article about the notable person." I can't decide which of David Barr Kirtley or John Joseph Adams the content should belong to, so for that reason, the article should stay. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has a mention in the LA Times ^[1], coverage in BookBanter ^[2], and is a nominee for the 2012 Parsec Awards best science fiction news site ^[3] as well as This is Horror's podcast of the year ^[4].

^ "LA Times".
^ "BookBanter".
^ "Parsec Awards".
^ "This Is Horror".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.85.106 (talk)

The LA Times article states "Gibson's interview marks the launch of the new Wired podcast, The Geek's Guide to the Galaxy. That's all I know about it". That's not really significant coverage. The other references don't have much in them, either. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BookBanter is definitely more than a passing mention. Also the Parsec Awards is a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization , which could qualify it for the Wikipedia:Notability (web) notability criteria. Let's wait and see until the award is decided. Diego (talk) 15:33, 4 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 The Beginning (The Black Eyed Peas album). (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do It like This[edit]

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

Per WP:NSONGS, notability aside, songs should only be given their own article where significant independent coverage is given from reliable sources. This has not received extensive coverage and the subject of it being released as part of an iTunes countdown is already covered on the album's page. This single didnt chart either. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To The Beginning (The Black Eyed Peas album) as a plausible search term. This song never has charted in a chart. No kidding. No standalone notability; fails WP:NSONGS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 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, Mediran (t • c) 09:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Beginning (The Black Eyed Peas album) per the above. This song does not appear to meet WP:NSONGS, which suggests redirecting to the artist or related album. Gong show 22:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The_Beginning_(The_Black_Eyed_Peas_album)#Background - Google News archives found mixed reviews here, here, here, here, here and others from various countries (Ecuador, Greece, Brazil, etc.). If the article were kept with these sources, it would, at best, be a stub so I think redirecting is better. However, I think we can mention some of these mixed reviews although it never charted. I would have performed the redirect myself but I would like to see other users agree. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capsugel[edit]

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

I tried to fix up the article, but in the end, it offers no information that can't be found on its website. Prof. Squirrel (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This company passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, (but are not limited to): [30], [31], (in Dutch) [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 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, Mediran (t • c) 09:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Proposal offers no valid reason for deletion, and Northamerica1000's links establish notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:18, 4 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. Consensus one way or the other might had been formed if the nomination were not bundled together. KTC (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas Aces (inline hockey)[edit]

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

Non-notable team, fails WP:GNG and verifiability. Sole reference is a dead link. Blue Riband► 03:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages which are also inline hockey teams as they are lacking both notability and verifiability. Links to team sites are dead links.

Blue Riband► 04:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Phonix Dragons and Harford Fire Ants both were professional teams who joined what looks to be a new amateur league. The other two were new to the second league I believe. -DJSasso (talk) 13:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Per nom JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to American Inline Hockey League per the standard results for non-notable individual teams of a league. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:45, 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, Mediran (t • c) 09:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Prison Service[edit]

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

Completely unsouced page, all either original research or promotion. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 08:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it's a notable entity IMO, although the article is in a bad way with an over-use of promotional wording and fluff. Institutions managed include Changi Prison which is notable in its own right. I think it needs a scalpel taking to the content, that's all. Shritwod (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added: I note that a lot of recent editing has been done by IP 202.90.250.22 (talk · contribs), which is WPP in Hong Kong (a marketing company). Before that a user called Singapore Prison Service (talk · contribs) edited the page but was subsequently blocked. However, the page updated by that user as of 12 December 2012‎ might be viable as a stub? Shritwod (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most of the text, from "History" to the end of "Organisation Structure", seems to be a direct copy or close paraphrase of 1, 2, and 3, which are asserted to be in copyright. Alexrexpvt (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of the article is notable, I agree the article can be improved.If there are copyright questions the wrong part have to be deleted.User:Lucifero4

Keep The subject is notable enough, and there are plenty of sources about it (see here for an example) Instead of a deletion, how about adding maintenance tags on it and work from there?--Lionratz (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree it is a notable and noteworthy entity. — Cirt (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fijit Friends[edit]

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

Non-notable toy. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 07:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a quick google glance shows plenty of reliable sources [37] [38] some win for Toy of the Year (I only saw the preview, as the link is broken, but it's from the Wall Street Journal). There's ton more sources out there. Secret ^account 19:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RS exist, I have added 3. Rich Farmbrough, 18:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 5 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 05:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Dino Chomp[edit]

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

Searching "Teen Dino Chomp" on Google results in no results for the program, unreferenced, fails Wikipedia:Notability (software), and a possible hoax. iXavier [talk|edits|logs] 07:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Hoary (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. - sink it. Fish ^Barking? 22:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as G3, vandalism - Multiple detailed searches provided nothing so unless this product is foreign or was never released, there is no evidence to support this existed. It is worth mentioning the author has been blocked indefinitely due to a username violation. SwisterTwister talk 23:23, 4 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 Procedural close. Redirects should be nominated at WP:RFD instead of here. Hut 8.5 10:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Western Sahara[edit]

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

Target isn't about Hinduism in Western Sahara Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:41, 4 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 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Edwards (footballer)[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reserve team player who has not played at top senior level, thus failing guidelines mentioned above. C 679 21:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate if he makes his debut. As a player he is progressing in the right direction, I don't think it will be far off when he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fail WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation once one of the criteria is met. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails all yardsticks. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 10:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As clear cut as these come really, hasn't been near Reading's first team, and has no loan spells. SCIAG (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete nomination is solid against my WP:BEFORE check. Mkdw ^talk 08:55, 10 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 Child_safety_seat#New_Zealand. (non-admin closure) — Yash ^[talk] 09:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legal requirements for child car seats and restraints in New Zealand[edit]

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

It is too much of a "how to" and a legal guide rather than an encyclopedia article. It is also a bit of an odd one out in the sense that there are no articles of a similar type for other country. While that is the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument it is something that can be taken into account in this case. Also, some of the links may have been added for promotional reasons (the article was created by a SPA) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 03:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge to a new New-Zealand-specific section in Child safety seat (where the legal requirements in specific countries are already covered) and delete this unlikely search term. I can't see a New Zealand section getting so big that it justifies a specific article. Stalwart111 04:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure what would best be done with the article though I tend to favour a merge. However, the title/redirect should not be deleted so that external sites linking here maintain their CC licence compliance. e.g. here. Thincat (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vaguely related side discussion

Query - isn't that just a WP mirror site? As their bots trawl WP, their site is updated as WP is. Or is that something else? If there's a valid need to keep the title, then by all means... Stalwart111 10:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, maybe this site will delete the material if we do. Even so, our deletion procedures, if not actually unlawful, certainly actively put others in breach of licence. There was relevant discussion here. See the later part of the discussion, particularly Coren's contributions, which might lead to our procedures becoming less abusive. Thincat (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an interesting suggestion/discussion but it is nowhere near being policy or even guideline yet. That would seem to require a rethink of AFD entirely. Is there a particular reason this article should be a test case? I don't actually think our policies put mirror sites in breach of CC - especially those that simply include whatever is on WP on any given day. Sites that actively keep old content (there's one called speedy delete-apedia or something like that) know they are in CC grey area. If this goes, it will go from that site. The new information in a new article will appear on that site at a corresponding page. But this AFD isn't really the place for that, nor is any other AFD. It's really a matter for WP:VPP. No? Stalwart111 12:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should say, I wouldn't strongly disagree to keeping the title as a redirect if others think it worthwhile. Stalwart111 12:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right there's nothing very special in deletion terms about this particular article and I probably should have kept quiet. It is simply that, if it is a piece that does not fit in as the type of article Wikipedia holds, other sites may be good (long-term) hosts. Sometimes people !voting "delete" recommend alternative external hosting. Maybe I picked a poor example site since backup sites are likely fair use anyway. Indeed, it is the "likely search term" criterion that is considered when deciding on keeping redirects and I agree it is not likely in this case. Generally, we frequently routinely deny the attribution our editors are entitled to and which we require of others and I hope things will change. No urgency. Thincat (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You and I are in agreement there, I think. I understand exactly where you're coming from. Best we leave this AFD to the whims of WP:CONSENSUS, but please do recruit me for any organised campaign in furtherance of the above. Stalwart111 13:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Stalwart111. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It would make more sense to merge to main child safety seat article. I think the detail should be trimmed down in the process. I know it is hard to argue that articles should be shorter. But in this case we really wouldn't want people to rely on us for legal advice, or safety advice either. They should go to official sources to make sure they are following the laws correctly. Borock (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Stalwart. The merged section should emphasise how (if at all) the NZ requirements differ form those of other countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:20, 5 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. KTC (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gianni Palermo[edit]

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

Only a one sentence article lacking specifics, it has been tagged for notability for over 6 months with no improvements. Also an orphan. IMDb credits are only four minor works and net searches find no significant independent RS. Fails WP:NACTOR. Michitaro (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Small number of roles fails WP:ENT.[39] Lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable by far at this time and detailed searches at Google News including both this name and his alias, Giovanni Di Pietro, provided nothing relevant or useful aside from this. A search for his two theatre roles did not provide anything useful either but I did find this profile which provides some information about him such as training. Although it seems he was born in Italy, his work has been in the United States but I have no objections if Italian sources are found though I can't see it happening, considering the few jobs he has had. SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 10 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. KTC (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katja Kankaanpää[edit]

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

Female MMA fighter that fails WP:NMMA since she has no fights for a top tier women's MMA organization. Jakejr (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete the article. She has fought numerous fights in BP and Cage, both of which are among the largest MMA organizations in Europe, and is ranked #1 Female Strawweight in Europe. jk2exp (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there are specific notability criteria for MMA fighters (male and female) and she doesn't meet them. See WP:NMMA and WP:MMANOT. Jakejr (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MMANOT says also that criteria supporting notability includes Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage or press releases from organizations. That's definitely met. jk2exp (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA and article fails to address notability within prose. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 17:18, 9 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.

How retarded is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.193.175.87 (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Ben Saddik[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP about a kickboxer that fails to show he meets any notability criteria. He's never fought for a major title and there's a lack of non-routine independent coverage of him. Jakejr (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has competed and won in It's Showtime and Glory, two of the biggest promotions in the sport. He has defeated top-10 heavyweights Rico Verhoeven and Errol Zimmerman as well as the legendary Remy Bonjasky. Recently finished third at Glory 4: Tokyo - 2012 Heavyweight Grand Slam, which was the biggest tournament in heavyweight kickboxing history. Shaolin Punk (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per comment posted above. Has fought in top tier kickboxing promotions. Seems as if this whole thing has turned into a democracy with users Jakejr and possible mirror user JadeSnake. (talk) 29:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Owens[edit]

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

Prod removed. Unspectacular athlete. Curb Chain (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Multiple sources of signficant coverage from reliable independent sources cited in article.—Bagumba (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person has received ongoing significant coverage in reliable sources, thus the subject passes WP:BASIC for a Wikipedia article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't see anything unique nor has any sources been provided to show that he his.Curb Chain (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curb: Please read the guidelines that supporters are citing. There is no guideline that says that "unspectacular" people need to be deleted, nor that they need to "unique". Multiple reliable, indepedent sources devoting full articles to people are treated as an indication of notability in Wikipedia. Basketball players do not need to be Michael Jordan to be worthy of an article.23:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:01, 5 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. KTC (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Carvalho (fighter)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NMMA since he has no fights for a top tier MMA organization. His BJJ accomplishments do not meet WP:MANOTE. Jakejr (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:MANOTE --TreyGeek (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per his non-trivial reference in Gracie Mag. Passes WP:GNG and WP:V including the refs already in the article. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article is his manager saying he's signed with Bellator. He still has no top tier fights (WP:CRYSTALBALL). Jakejr (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal I'm not as concerned with essays/guidelines on mma notability. what I am concerned with is the fact that this third party publication published him. This serves make him have WP:SOURCES under WP:V which is a policy. This USA Today article enhances his notability enough to pass the WP:GNG. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Fails WP:NMMA, passes WP:GNG. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your manote essay says Reliable sourcing is the most important factor. Have I not presented reliable sources for you which are verifiable? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing it out, I changed my rationale. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More refs Here is an interview, , as well as another quality ref where Bruno is the subject here, as well as a USa today ref of high quality. Easily passes WP:V] with multiple, quality, third party sources PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE, or WP:NMMA --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per PortlandOregon97217 comment. Sepulwiki (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. JadeSnake (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC) JadeSnake blocked as a sock of the blocked JonnyBonesJones. ✍ Mtking ✉ 07:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Unless more sourcing about his grappling titles can be found and added to the article. Fails WP:NMMA Luchuslu (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously fails WP:NMMA and I don't see enough non-routine coverage to support claims of him meeting WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 17:21, 9 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. KTC (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post It Awards[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOT#OR and WP:GNG. Article does not cite any references, not even primary sources. LlamaAl (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this student competition is notable. AllyD (talk) 09:49, 30 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 01:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails general notability guidlines. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Lunde[edit]

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

The article does not assert notability or give reliable sources beyond the authoring of two books on computer processing. Supporting material on the topic Ken Lunde does not seem to exist in reliable sources. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything that would get this past WP:GNG and writing a few computer books does not merit inclusion under WP:AUTHOR. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two books on a specialized topic by the major publisher in the field is enough for notability as an author. Reviews would be nice, but considering the reputation of the publisher, not essential. I'll accept the judgement of the publisher's reviewers. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per DGG - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:56, 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 01:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with DGG--two highly regarded, peer reviewed, books by a reputable publisher, one with two editions, is notable enough. He is also an editor of a code space in the Unicode consortium. Mark viking (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per DGG. Most certainly meets the requirements of WP:AUTHOR. -- BenTels (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per DGG. -—Kvng 04:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Max Cooper (electronica musician)[edit]

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

This article was brought to my attention by a disgruntled new editor whose similar article had been rejected at AfC. Cooper seems to have recently (2010) turned to producing dance mixes and I can't see any reliable coverage about him online (though he's due to appear at a major festival in 2013). There's an Independent blog post, but it is Cooper describing himself. The IDJ magazine (cited in the article) does not seem to have anything about him in its online archive. Seems at the moment to fail WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Note that the article is authored and devloped by Cooper's manager, which raises a major WP:COI problem too. Sionk (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. A non-notable individual, who hasn't been picked up by any secondary reliable sources. -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 13:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO LK (talk) 06:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A Google News search found recent results here and here while Google News archives also found results here. This and this suggest he performed at the Decibel Festival three months ago in Seattle and performed at the GLADE Festival this past June (it's not easy searching for reliable sources to find the festival date but found a decent one here) at Houghton Hall with a link here and an interview here. This mentions he has collaborated with other electronica acts including Echaskech. I haven't found that much but this tour listing suggests he has not become widely known yet but is starting to gain attention (his website has several tour dates listed for the new year) and is mainly based in the UK. He also recently released an EP, Conditions One, collaborating with Braids, Ghosting Season and D/R/U/G/S (aka Callum Wright). I plan to improve the article later today, SwisterTwister talk 17:46, 30 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 01:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. SwisterTwister has done a sterling job of inserting some reliable, secondary sources into the article, and I think these show that WP:MUSIC is met. Bravo. — sparklism ^hey! 14:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and barnstar to SwisterTwister for saving this. I didn't check every source he added, but there's enough significant magazine coverage of the article's subject to establish notability. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - SwisterTwister sums it up pretty well; has nailed it. — Yash ^[talk] 09:46, 11 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. KTC (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Burton Richardson (martial artist)[edit]

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

Subject is a martial arts teacher and author, but there's no indication he meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:MANOTE. Article is full of claims about studying under famous martial artists or competing in other sports with well known athletes but all of that is WP:NOTINHERITED. I also don't see significant independent coverage of him in reliable sources. Jakejr (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the subject has authored two books, but the subject does not appear to pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG as there doesn't appear to be sufficient significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to indicate passage of the aforementioned notability guidelines.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article looks like an attempt to claim notability by association, but WP:NOTINHERITED. He doesn't meet WP:MANOTE or [[WP:AUTHOR] or any other notability criteria. Mdtemp (talk) 17:08, 9 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. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Sackmann[edit]

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

Unreferenced WP:BLP, no assertion of notability per WP:NSPORTS, can't find decent references online supporting the claims made of notability per WP:BIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Altered Walter (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable basketball coach. Never received a major college award, therefore not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NCOLLATH. Never played or coached in a major professional basketball league, therefore not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NBASKETBALL. Coverage in independent, reliable sources is insufficient to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Existing external links are either subject's personal website or the website of the subject's employer organization, and are not independent of the subject. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, and doesn't meet any SNG.—Bagumba (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The man is not only not notworthy but theres no citations for anything. 174.49.170.145 (talk) 19:37, 5 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.

I'm Possible (DJ Sackmann's employer) has a YouTube channel with visual evidence supporting claims relating to NBA training. The individuals posting deletion reviews on this page need to reboot their computer and try again. DJ Sackmann, along with Micah Lancaster are innovators in basketball skills training. Garysays (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garysays (talk • contribs) 08:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Marion[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking ghits and gnews of substance. Cannot find any evidence of Tony or other award nomination. References are mostly line items and non-credible IDBM and IMDB entries. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete as being TOO SOON for this Broadway producer. I gave the article a major face-lift,[40] but his career is far too short,[41][42] he has received no coverage, and the purported awards are not verifiable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:27, 30 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 01:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Puffery and vanity almost certainly written by the subject himself. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:35, 4 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. —Darkwind (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Vasiloiu[edit]

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

Blatantly promotional piece by a single-purpose account, but precious little evidence of third-party sources establishing notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Vasiloiu is a well known personality in Romania and abroad. More sources may be added, but no one can say she is not a person to be in Wikipedia, being well above most entries from her country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Basildon (talk • contribs) 21:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." If you'd like this article to be kept, you would do well to demonstrate, with evidence not assertions, precisely how Vasiloiu meets these criteria. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable according to GNG. FurrySings (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, requires significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:25, 6 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) — Yash ^[talk] 09:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Stay Stay[edit]

(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] 17:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This passes NSONGS No. 2 criterion three-times.HotHat (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the album. --Michig (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be enough critical attention for this song to justify an article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The song doesn't fail WP:NSONGS, it has charted on two main charts, plus a component chart. It is relatively small, but it can be expanded and improved. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 02:49, 8 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 Red (Taylor Swift album). Anything worthwhile can be merged from the history. (But I don't see what that could be.) Sandstein 10:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come Back... Be Here[edit]

(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] 17:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC) — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 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 01:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the album. --Michig (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:58, 10 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 Beyoncé Knowles discography#Charity singles. KTC (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Star Spangled Banner (Beyoncé Knowles song)[edit]

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

This version of the US National Anthem did not receive any type of significant independent coverage that The Star Spangled Banner (Whitney Houston song) received and does not require its own article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Beyoncé Knowles discography#Charity singles. The only thing that's really missing there is the chart placing. If that's added to the notes, a redirect there won't lose anything. --Michig (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 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 01:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as per Michig's rationale. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 20:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like a reasonable target. I added in its chart placement in the notes. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:42, 9 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. KTC (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accelerated orthodontic treatment[edit]

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

The entire article is a mess and is written in an unencyclopedic way. Not notable with no reliable sources. Satellizer ^{talk contribs} 01:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've cleaned it up. There were 2 sources. It needs still needs expansion though.--Auric Talk 14:01, 6 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 00:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - scholar.google.com and Google books show that the topic meets wp:N. As for the wp:NOT issues (mess and is written in an unencyclopedic way), I cleaned up the article a little more. -- Jreferee (talk) 09:20, 11 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 05:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harmony Samuels production discography[edit]

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

Discography somehow connected to a non-notable producer. No references. Fails WP:NOTDIR - Mr X 01:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - seems to fit under G8 (dependent on non-existent page; I recall a similar scenario with Allele discography). There is no main Harmony Samuels article, and after some searching he would not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC at this time. Gong show 22:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn per Gongshow's improvements. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Garver[edit]

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

Deprodded with sources, but they mention only his connections to Brooks and say literally nothing else than "He was Brooks' guitar player and inspired a line in Friends in Low Places". The "25 credits" is misleading, as the source only shows him to have been on a handful of Garth's albums and literally nothing else. I could find no substantial information on him at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep here's a good start of online source. Unfortunately, they are all pay-sites. Google News +"james garver" +guitar turns up what looks to be some good leads. As the long-time lead guitar player for Garth Brooks he has had significant participation in multiple albums, tours, broadcasts, and the like.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I see is six articles that say nothing more than "Blah blah blah, Garth's band includes James Garver on guitar" and no other mention of him. That's not non-trivial. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A general google search of James Garver Garth Brooks yields around 200,000.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using quotes though, you get only 491 unique results, most of which are just directory listings for the Double Live album on which he played. I see nothing in regular Google that qualifies as a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another search of "Jim Garver" "Garth Brooks" yields another 400+. Obviously there's a lot of chatter. It's enough for a stub, which is what the article is.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And out of that, what do you think is a reliable source? All I'm seeing is directory listings. We can verify that he played guitar on a handful of albums, but we don't know a THING about the guy otherwise. And that's not enough to build a BLP on. Where are the reliable, third party sources? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any number of them, newspapers, etc. We know he's from Concordia, Kansas. We know his name. We know he has been in Garth Brooks's band for a very long time. We know he's been in several movies and videos. We know he's had influence over the performance career of Brooks as a writer, musician, etc. We even know a few fun facts about him, like how he helped name the bar "The Oasis" in the song "Friends in Low Places" after a hometown dive. I doubt that's enough for you because that was all in the article before you nominated it for deletion. It should be more than enough for any reasonable passing admin who closes this.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, all the sources on Google News do is name-drop him. I was name-dropped several times in my local paper — for a piano recital, for graduating at age 15, and for having a website about a dead mall in Bay City. Does that make me notable? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. But that's a poor comparison. Have you gigged with Garth Brooks for 25 years, appeared in any videos or movies, been credited to any major works... doesn't even compare. I realize you think it does, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're still dodging the issue that the sources you found are all trivial. Which of these is in-depth coverage? None. They're all name-drops. Association with a famous act doesn't transfer to notability; see WP:NOTINHERITED. Not everyone who worked with Garth is inherently famous. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - See WP:WABBITSEASON. I'm not "dodging" the issue. We just disagree.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my additions. An article on Stillwater, consisting of info on all the band members, might be preferable. But there are indeed multiple reliable sources which address this person beyond mere passing mentions. I've incorporated three of these sources into the article. Gong show 00:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Yash ^[talk] 13:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Vivekananda: Messiah of Resurgent India[edit]

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

As A nominator I withdraw this AFD Shrikanthv (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Does not meet notablity criteria Shrikanthv (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

article creator's comment: one of the most reliable "scholarly studies" on Swami Vivekananda. widely used in research works. In Wikipedia articles of Swami Vivekananda too we have cited this book multiple times. --Tito Dutta (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment : please note that the main idea of moving this to AFD was to find if it is really notable according to wikipedia, do let us know if any notability or proof exists in saying "most reliable" and " widely used" , if any body come up with any other source of notablity interms of citation in newspaper or other authors, I will with draw AFD myself. Shrikanthv (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the google books link above may give some idea! --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Certainly, Swami Vivekananda is notable. As such, it is my opinion that any reliable third-party book that examines his life and philosophy should be deemed to meet the broad notability criteria of Wikipedia. Perhaps this won't be the most frequented article on Wikipedia, but it still enhances Wikipedia to have a short article describing a significant book about a personality of Vivekananda's stature. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment :please note that this AFD is not against Swami Vivekananda or his notablity but the notablity of the article about a book about him, which when searched, you may find hundreds and is it fine to add thousands of them with just mentioning they are widely used or known ? Shrikanthv (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For Wikipedia, notability is NOT INHERITED. This book needs to have independent reviews to be considered notable. LK (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with the above: any reliable third-party book that examines the life and philosophy of such an historical figure should be deemed to meet the broad notability criteria of Wikipedia.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tito Dutta and others.Shyamsunder (talk) 18:40, 30 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 01:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears to me that a consensus had already been reached prior to the relisting, and that the consensus is that the article shoudl be kept. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 10:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies[edit]

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

I withdraw my nomination of AFD Shrikanthv (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Does not meet wiki notablity criteria Shrikanthv (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

article creator's comment: This book, originally written in Bengali on 1957 with the name of Yaogik Cikitsa and after translated in English, has some historical significance because it was one of the first books published by the indian philosopher Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. It also plays a particular relevance for the detailed explanation of using ancient and traditional indian herbal remedies, yogic Ásanas and Mudrás, water, proper diet, sunlight and air for the treatment of certain diseases.--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This book meets the WP notability criteria on two grounds: (3) The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. (5) The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 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 01:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article creator's comment: after the Shrikanthv's proposal of deletion I've expanded the article and inserted new academic/scientific sources to highlight the clear article's encyclopedic value.--Cornelius383 (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficiently referenced. Nominator's talk page is also relevant here, where the nom has been taken to task for improper nomination of articles for deletion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:29, 4 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 List of schools in Enfield. Appears there is at least as much support for redirect as deletion Monty ₈₄₅ 19:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Primary School (UK)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Run-of-the-mill elementary school. No school district to redirect this article to. Delete unless the school district can be found. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the United Kingdom, state schools are generally run by the local municipality rather than a separate school district. (But see Inner London Education Authority for a now-defunct exception.) Where there is no school district, a non-notable school should be redirected to the article about the community or local authority. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Run of the mill, no value to a redirect. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fopr preference; alternatively merge/redirect to an article on education in Enfield London Borough. However, there is really not much in the article worth preserving. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a policy at wikipedia which defines what schools can have articles and which ones cannot? If so it would be nice if a pointer would have been provided by the nominator. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not policy, but it does tell us what to expect from an AfD such as this one. As far as policies go, WP:GNG and WP:CORP are as close as it gets to a policy on schools. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. How is this school different from others listed in the same category?Ottawahitech (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE applies. Some of those, like Fleecefield Primary School, look like they wouldn't pass AfD either (and after we've sorted this AfD out, then it might have implications for that one too). In contrast (just an example I happen to know of), Rogiet Primary School demonstrates (and sources) notability for its architecture, more than its educational aspect. It's not a blanket rule that all secondary schools are notable and no primary schools are, but there are few reasons why a primary school becomes notable, and few achieve this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Enfield, where it is in fact already listed. There is nothing currently in the article that suggests that anything more is warranted - though if a direct relationship with any of the Walkers of Southgate could be established, then that might be worth mentioning somewhere. However, even if something could be established, it would probably be only that the school was named after them, well after their time. PWilkinson (talk) 14:51, 6 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.

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2013 January 13.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A close call here, and I note that Sandstein (who generally contributes to AFD by closing discussions instead of participating) entered a keep vote where he dissented from what appeared to be consensus at the time. I have reviewed that vote and find that it has sufficient merit to block there from being a consensus. In particular, citing WP:CSB as a deletion argument and "doesn't look notable to me, regardless of sourcing" seems rather irrelevant.

There is quite a bit more merit to Jreferee's argument who pointed out that many of the sources really about the site's founder Joly MacFie, and he argued that a biographical article on MacFie would be better. Having looked at this article, I see that a substantial portion of it is about MacFie's accomplishments already, and it seems like a viable option to simply rename the article and change the lead sentence so that it becomes an article about MacFie. The combination of Sandstein's well-reasoned objection, and the possible option of a biographical article on Joly MacFie seems like sufficient grounds to call this a "no consensus" despite the 4-2 majority for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Punkcast[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Punkcast

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

This page seems to read like an advertisement. There is only one major contributor, WWWwhatsup,whereas if you Google punkcast, the first link says it is sponsored by WWWwhatsup. MarioNovi (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sort of per WP:WEB but especially per WP:CSB. We are trying to create an encyclopedia here people. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CSB is a reason to keep, but certainly not a valid reason to delete. (Joly is an acquaintance of mine, so I'm going to comment here, not !vote.)--Pharos (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's true I have a direct interest. In the essential aspects I stuck strictly to secondary referenced material, and generally to NPOV. I would hope that notability is established by the two Village Voice Best awards and the use of Punkcast material to launch the WNYC NY Noise tv program. Also I have added to the article that a large exhibit of Punkcast was used to launch the FILMER LA MUSIQUE series in Paris in 2007. So, if one uses the same notability criteria as WP:MUSIC I think the article should pass. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note While any AfD stands or falls on its merits, if you look at the contribs of the nominator, it would appear to be a WP:SPA, what's more an inexpert one. ~~I suspect some payback as I've done some tagging in my time..~~ Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Wwwwhatsup. I don't think that I terribly need to respond but I will. Whether I have edited before without a username isn't relevent, but the instructions for deletion say that "You must sign in to nominate pages for deletion. If you do not sign-in, or you edit anonymously, you will get stuck part way through the nomination procedure." Why are you pointing this out, if you say "any AfD stands or falls on its merits" then why even mention it? If I have a motive for doing this it isn't stronger than your motive for creating the article. I'm sorry if you feel like you have that many enemies here but accusing me like that I don't think helps you. If I do have a COI as you do it does not matter. If someone with a COI nominates an article for deletion out of spite and it shouldn't be deleted then no one will vote delete. That's the wikipedia's protection. If someone with a COI creates an article about their business and is the only editor, then anyone can nominate the article, and it will be at AFD. That's wikipedia's protection. Everything is going like it should. There's no reason to accuse me of spite because if my AFD had no merit it would get all keeps. Or am I wrong here, you're right I'm not that seasoned. If I'm wrong please tell me. Now I wish I didn't do this because people are accusing each other alot. I'm sorry if I seem angrered but I feel that you're accusing me. If the article's improved the it shouldn't be deleted that is obvious. But it seems like no one else edited it alot and it doesn't have alot of good sources. So I hope people see why I did it. Doesn't a company need more than a few passing mentions? A reason I nominated this article is because I realized that lots of sources listed, which are not really even good sources,were added years after the article was created,which also looks weird. I'm sorry for my long reply. I copied it in two places too. MarioNovi (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - NOTE: This user has admitted to editing as an IP before this, and that they created their account before nominating this article for deletion. They have done nothing wrong. gwickwire^talk_edits 13:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree that MarioNovi has done nothing wrong in making this AfD request. Assume good faith isn't just a good idea, it is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. There is not clear evidence that MarioNovi is trying to harm the project. MarioNovi is entitled to an assumption of good faith and Wwwwhatsup should strike out the comment "I suspect some payback". -- Jreferee (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't look notable to me, regardless of sourcing. If it gets a bit longer (with relavent good information), I may rethink. gwickwire^talk_edits 13:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a bit thin in that, given my interest, I was careful to maintain NPOV, not embellish, and stick to the sources. The deeper story, which is detailed fairly well in the Village Voice article is that MacFie had a background in in the punk P2P tradition, badges and fanzines, which led him to pioneer putting user-generated punk video up on the Internet, founding Punkcast in 1997 for that purpose. Then, as the local Brooklyn scene took off in the early 2000s, Punkcast videos of bands like the Moldy Peaches, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, and TV on the Radio were instrumental in giving those bands early exposure. Then, when the City took over WNYC TV as a municipal tv station, it launched it's official alternative music tv program on the back of the punkcast catalog. This was notable enough for the VV to run the feature. It is perhaps difficult now, with YouTube and when everyone has a camera in their phone, to perceive the site's historic role. Wwwhatsup (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See WP:SIGCOV. The Village Voice article goes towards supporting a Wikipedia article on Joly MacFie, not Punkcast, as do several of the other references listed in the Punkcast article. Joly MacFie is mentioned in several Wikipedia articles.[43] Wwwhatsup, I suggest taking the information from the references and writing a biography article on Joly MacFie, which would have a much better chance of getting past AfD. Information on Punkcast could be included in the Joly MacFie article as it relates to his life and then Punkcast could be redirected to the Joly MacFie article. -- Jreferee (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm aware of good faith policy, one has to recognize that the only contributions of the nominator are put up to two articles that involve Macfie for AfD. Nevertheless I have struck my comment. To me Wikipedia acts as a reference, and I feel more people are likely to reference Punkcast than MacFie, and that is its role as an early web video site that is notable. MacFie wasn't the only contributor to Punkcast. I fail to see how the Village Voice article fails WP:SIGCOV. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article cites reliable source that substantially cover the subject, notably the Village Voice article linked to above. Several of the "delete" opinions are weakly argued. "Systemic bias" is not a reason for deletion (rather, for creating more articles about other subjects), the article does not read like an advertisement, and "doesn't look notable to me, regardless of sourcing" is nonsensical because notability is exclusively a matter of coverage by reliable sources. Sandstein 10:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing Indian films worldwide[edit]

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

A totally unsourced and orphaned list, completely full of unsourced figures and other inaccuracies. BollyJeff | talk 16:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Unsourced" does not mean "unsourceable"; the former is not a deletion rationale, the latter is. But that nitpicking aside, I know from prior AFDs that there have been genuine concerns raised with whether box office figures for Indian movies are even verifiable. I don't know if that would apply to the Indian film industry, or just box office from within India. postdlf (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The most likely source is Box Office India, but their info is not free. For the List of highest-grossing Bollywood films there was an RFC where is was decided that only certain elements 1, 3, 5, 10, etc, could be added, not the whole list. Off topic, but is there a better way to do lists? Right now the item in number 1 is not even an Indian film, but to remove it would require updating every row of the table. BollyJeff | talk 18:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed those British films. There is no reason to keep wrong info just for the reason that readers might think Wikipedians don't know how to count. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You missed Monsoon Wedding. Is that considered an Indian film? It does appear on other Indian film lists. BollyJeff | talk 14:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice it then. But now i am not sure of it. Golden Globes calls it Indian. But then they do the same with Gandhi. But Gandhi has been described as British/Indian in many other sources. More reason to delete this list. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources could be found. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Waste of time. there are other cleanup tags in case u have douts on what is an Indian film exactly. All sources available otherwise. The lister mostly thought its WP:SYNTHESIS but its not.Hometech (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Inaccuracy is the very reason for deletion of this list. You can't rank entities based on some wrong info. Another issue is that the list is using various sources. Ideally, it shouldn't be a problem. But various discussions on various talk pages related to worldwide gross has only concluded on the fact that various sources have considered various incomes in gross. Eg: some have considered only original-language market whereas some have also added incomes from dubbed versions of films. Another point that i would object is that all the figures are not adjusted to inflation and even if adjusted are not taken from a certain fixed short period. eg: Sholays entry has been taken from a source after adjustment till 2012. For others (its basically unsourced) it is mostly from different ages. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:It lacks source and hey There is another article related to bollywood collections. It has no neede on wiki.Pks1142 (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These types of articles help keep English wikipedia relevant to the rest of the world outside the United States of America. StanleyTAnderson (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasonable list; interesting as one approach to assessing most "important" films from India. Sourcing problems are content issues to be raised at article's Talk page, not justification for deletion. If there is an issue of too much overlap with List of highest-grossing Bollywood films (which is possible), then that should be addressed by Talk page discussion, e.g. a merge proposal. --do ncr am 03:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its not simple content issue. The issue is not on who the producer of the film is or when it was certified or such. The issue is on the main gross value itself which makes the list. And its not sortable at all. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information - Jimmy Wales. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. The topic is appropriate for a list, and sources are available and should be used. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, the article is a complete vandal magnet as well. Those of you saying keep are welcomed to try and fix it. At least have a look at the activity over the last few days/weeks. The sources... on second thought, I give up. Please just close this. BollyJeff | talk 01:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete things because we're afraid of vandals. Dream Focus 17:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any problems you can discuss on the talk page, and they can be fixed. No valid reason given to delete this. They have a massive film industry there, in a nation of over a billion people. Dream Focus 17:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone is gonna discuss things on talk page. All keep voters are gonna forget about this article as none of them are members of WP:INCINE and after its kept after so many tries of having it deleted, all Delete voters are gonna wear i-dont-care masks. This wrong information is gonna stay for ever. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page currently has no discussions on it by anyone. You can list why you don't consider the sources to be accurate there, and start trying to figure out how to find more accurate ones if that's a real problem. Surely their media covers box office information. And we had this same discussion almost two years ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Bollywood films (2nd nomination). As I said then, WP:VERIFY The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. That's policy. If the sources are considered reliable sources, then that's it. Dream Focus 09:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: right info or wrong, topic is a valid one. BTW, its not that only members of WP:INCINE can add values to articles related to Indian cinema.--GDibyendu (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Problem solved! In that case we will simply keep the wrong info. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmadhyaksha, you keep on claiming that the information in the article is wrong. Fine, but do you know what the correct information is? Salih (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have to echo postdlf's comments. The deletion rationale states that the article is unsourced and orphaned. Being an orphan is not relevant. Being unsourced could be, but only if reliable sources are not available. A later comment by the nominator suggests that sources are available, but may not be free. Lack of free sources is not a reason to delete, i.e., WP:PAYWALL. Rlendog (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at List of highest-grossing Bollywood films to see what the non-free source did there: 1,3,6,10,etc. Even that has been changed over time. This article is showing all of them, but with different or no sources. Is that better? In reality most high grossing Indian films are Bollywood films, so this list would be the same as that list with the addition of 2 or 3 extra films. Maybe a merge would be better than a straight delete, but in reality the data to be merged is already there, just not all of it. Okay how about delete do to duplicate data? I don't know what is the right way to frame this in wiki-policy-speak, but to me the article is serving very little purpose other than that already served by List of highest-grossing Bollywood films. Maybe I am just upset because that one was hobbled to 1,3,6,etc where this one is a free-for-all. BollyJeff | talk 19:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell from the discussion around that article, the issue is that the source is not providing objective facts regarding the highest grossing films but rather their own estimates. If that is the case, and if there is no objective information regarding the grosses or rankings of grosses, that would imply that the subject is unsourceable, which would be a valid reason for deleting. Although if a solution along the lines of the Bollywood list is acceptable and meets copyright requirements, there may still be an argument for keeping or merging (or, if this entire list would replicate the Bollywood list, then redirecting). Rlendog (talk) 20:59, 10 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:MADEUP. Possible WP:HOAX, see creator's sandbox. Not a snowball's chance. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Penalty tick[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character Skrelk (talk) 00:07, 4 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] "LA Times".

[2] "BookBanter".

[3] "Parsec Awards".

[4] "This Is Horror".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]