Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 July	24 July >

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Jones (baseball player)[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Fails WP:BASEBALL/N as not played at the top level. No significant 3rd party sources that would pass the WP:GNG. Tassedethe (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per neutered baseball notability guidelines. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 20:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable....William 23:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and sportsmean, article has little to no potential. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Umbilical line. by JFW. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umbilical venous catheterisation[edit]

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

Previously tagged under CSD. While the procedure itself may not be notable, it could, perhaps be merged into another article - but on it's own I'm not seeing it warranting an article at this time. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 22:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable technique, documented in detail in papers such as Serious complications of umbilical venous catheterisation and Reminder of important clinical lesson: Cardiac arrhythmias associated with umbilical venous catheterisation in neonates. Warden (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected this to umbilical line, which covers both arterial and venous catheters. JFW | T@lk 20:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pneumatic line thrower[edit]

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

Original research on an unremarkable device. Lacks references to significant coverage in 3rd party sources demonstrating sufficient notability to warrant a dedicated article. Perhaps a mention in the underway replenishment article would appropriate but only with sufficient references. RadioFan (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Unremarkable" is not a valid reason for deletion and unsourced does not equal original research. Since there is a book titled Pneumatic Line Thrower (thesis?) the notability argument pretty much fails as well. This is a basic piece of maritime equipment. In my opinion, all basic tools and equipment are intrinsically notable and should have articles. I requested this article undeleted at WP:REFUND after following a redlink, but otherwise have had nothing to do with its creation. I am not in a position to fully reference this article but I will make a start with what I can find online. Spinning Spark 09:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Notability is not inherent nor it is inherited. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - And your point is...what? What do you suppose I am asserting the subject has inherited notability from? My assertion is that any widely used tool is notable and sources are bound to be available. A tool invented by your five-year-old sister for digging up worms — maybe not notable. On the other hand hammer is unquestionably notable and I don't really need to go grubbing around for sources to prove it. Spinning Spark 21:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lyle gun and Underway replenishment are related topics, and a merge may be possible. Some weak sources on pneumatic line throwers, mostly trade press[1][2][3][4][5] - this suggests that if someone has access to the various Lloyds List magazines and other nautical trade publications there is more coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A merge may be possible, but I think it optional. It's OK as it is. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep - looks to squeak past WP:GNG to me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Green[edit]

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

First of all, can somebody explain to me why there was another page with the same info titled Julian Green (American soccer player) (which I moved twice before redirecting it to this page)? Besides all that, this page fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league and has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment - Just a small side bar, we've been having arguments about this league being a professional league or that league being a professional league or this player has signed or is currently on a fully pro team and I don't know why we continue to have this argument when WP:FPL clearly states the list of fully pro leagues and the fact that a player has to appear in either a fully pro league match, a competitive cup match between two fully pro clubs or a senior international match for their national team. I know WP:GNG is the top priority, but the majority of the articles that I've seen been nominated for not meeting WP:NFOOTBALL have been deleted. – Michael (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Hasn't played in a fully professional league. He hasn't been subject of significant coverage in reliable sources - the coverage appears to be routine coverage. Hack (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A plausible search term for Homeowner association and will be recreated as a redirect to such. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Condo Owners Association[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. This is a lobbying group for condo owners in the Province of Ontario, Canada. As a lobbying organization, its mission is to get its name and message in the news, but the coverage available is little more than those opportunities. The article itself is a soapbox for the organization's positions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence this should be included. It's largely a promotional piece for the org and its founder. Toddst1 (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete, non notable organization. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. Whilst there is discussion requesting that the article be keep and that it be redirected without a merge, I feel that a merge fulfills the !votes of most participants. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Mom[edit]

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

The notability of this article is inherited from Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother by Amy Chua with no sources provided that it is a notable neologism in itself. It seems reasonable to redirect to Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. I am One of Many (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 19:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to WP:NEO, To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. The following article talks about the term "Tiger Mom":

The Telegraph: Why-we-all-need-a-Tiger-Mother

Comment: The problem is that this article is based on Amy Chua and her book Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, it appears to be a classical case of WP:INHERENT notability. Are there reliable sources for this term that are independent of the book and Amy Chua?--I am One of Many (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a source talks about the term Tiger Mom, it will have to refer to its origins, so how can you find sources independent of Amy Chua and her book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FireflySixtySeven (talk • contribs) 20:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The concept is demonstrably notable, so deletion is not appropriate. GScholar has quite a few results that suggest that the concept is being considered separately from consideration of the book (although many of them do appear to mention the book). I think this article probably could be developed into something worthwhile. On the other hand, in its current state, it accomplishes nothing that the book article does not already accomplish. So I think the merge/keep discussion should be a matter for evolving editorial consensus through talk page discussion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother at least until it can be proved that there is enough coverage to separate it. It doesn't help that there are six sources after one sentence that could easily go to developing the article. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother There isn't enough there to demonstrate a need for a spin-off article at this time. Technical 13 (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See wikt:Citations:tiger mother for sources using the term that are independent of Chua's book, including one quote preceding the publication of Chua's book. The sense "fiercely protective mother", which could also be discussed in the article, is even older. But rename Tiger mother. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Very nice, I completely agree. Rename as Tiger mother and incorporate citations.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. You could merge, I guess, but there is only one sentence in the article (the first one, asserting that "tiger mom" is a neologism) that is not already better covered in the article about the book. Cnilep (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. See as a parallell Kafkaesque which redirects to Franz Kafka. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Iordanidis-Kaza[edit]

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

This is an article about a non-notable footballer who has played no higher than the Greek fifth division and failed to get a contract in the (English) Wessex League. Prod removed with no explanation. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:40, 23 July 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) 19:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG... maybe WP:SNOW should be used here? JMHamo (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This player is living person who has played for Blackpool FC Under 20s in 2009 on a 6 month contract which expired because he was injured before it's completion (3rd month), I know that as I am his agent and personal friend and unfortunately I can't prove otherwise as I don't have a paperwork from the FA about him. Furthermore he is 23 years old and he played in these leagues as a pro not in a first team squad but in the Under 20s (still consider pro footballer). As for Sholing FC I have proves but don't expext me to upload official documents online. The issue was concerned from Dusdeeper or whatever his nickname is supporting he didn't play in the Championship which is a true story but this doesn't make him a non-blackpool player. As about the deletion of the article I believe that you have to reconsider things and stop playing around. Kind Regards. --Jordanjounior (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanjounior (talk • contribs) 20:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Blackpool under 20s is not a sufficiently high level of football to confer notability.--Egghead06 (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No where close to meeting the notability guidelines. – Michael (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete article immediately please as I don't want my client to be shown in it anymore. Total unprofessional manner of handling this issue by the members of wikipedia (lack of experience of the professional football/soccer leagues around the world). As soon as possible.--Jordanjounior (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity article for obviously non-notable footballer. Fails WP:GNG as the subject hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NSPORTS - hasn't played in a fully professional football league. Hack (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never played at a notable level. Not sure what prompted the strop from his apparent agent/friend above. If WP "members" have acted in an "unprofessional" manner, does that mean we're meant to be doing this professionally? When do I get paid for my eight years of work? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the term professional doesn't only concern money/payments but also attitude (the manner in which you treat your and others work), you can get paid for it (not my issue, forward your complains to wikipedia) or not but in both ways you can be professional by the way you handle things. By the way I am doing this as a volunteer so don't use irony every time you think that someone hearts you feelings or your work ( I am in the second parameter my self even though I have an article written with more academical way than most of them and with sufficient prove about most of the sources, if I had more I would have given them but they don't exist online ). It's not personal. Kind Regards. --Jordanjounior (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo 64 Game Pak[edit]

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

This was split off from Nintendo 64, however, I don't think that it's notable enough for its own article. Most sources focus on the N64 and not the individual Game Paks. Overall, this information should really just be re-integrated into Nintendo 64. Beerest355 Talk 18:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's way too much granular information here that doesn't belong in a general overview article about the Nintendo 64. Details about the Game Pak production, cost, technical advantages and disadvantages is not suited to an article about the console itself. Either way, there's way too much information there (in pure word count), so it would be inappropriate to include so much in an overview article. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm rather split on this one: while I think it's notable (IIRC N64 was the last major console to use cartridges when others were already switching to CD-ROM, which should lead to discussion about "why the Game Pak"), I'm not finding anything online. I feel WP:Article size/WP:UNDUE concerns are reasonable, as well. Ansh666 20:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found a helpful article written at the time with comparisons between Nintendo (cart) and Sony/Sega (CD-ROM) formats. Brought up some interesting points that we forget about today (e.g. the cost of a CD drive, the development of the 64 Disk Drive). I've incorporated some findings from that piece into the article. It would be great to add some more historical / legacy information to give a better context as to what the Game Pak is all about in the end. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can find something, as well. I have a few books from a class that may have something, but I'd have to go dig those out first, and I'm not sure where they are. Ansh666 21:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, a general history of video games (e.g. Game Over although that's a bit more retro) would be helpful. Something that gives you an idea of the development of console technologies and formats over time. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found some retrospectives that mentioned the switchover from cartridges to discs. Now that I'm into it further I'm not sure if this is exactly what you think was lacking; let me know if you had a different idea in mind. I'm more than happy to address your or anyone else's concerns with this article. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I had in mind was, say, criticisms directed at solely the cartridge system, or something of that sort, so what you found in the EGM article is basically what I was thinking. I'm having trouble finding the books...this is when I wish I had a Ctrl-F for real life... Ansh666 22:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lol I was just thinking the same.. I paged through a very lengthy article I wouldn't have bothered with otherwise to find the word cartridge. I also added some various other details about the Game Paks that I found during my search -- the quote from Howard Lincoln is an interesting one. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While it could definitely use some cleanup, the system's use of cartridge over CD was defining characteristic of the console. (They lost key titles, like Final Fantasy 7, due to its memory constraints, while some multi-platform games would be considered better versions due to lack of loading times.) There's a lot to be said here, and I think it would cause WP:UNDUE issues to merge it back into the already-massive Nintendo 64 article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Sang-Woo[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Fails WP:ATHLETE per lack of evidence of first team appearances in a fully professional league. This remains valid. He has yet to play in a fully pro league or receive significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fail WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Press coverage of the Armenian Genocide[edit]

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

This is just a list of links to newspaper articles about the Armenian Genocide – essentially an "External links" section split out into an article. It violates WP:ELPOINTS ("External links should not normally be used in the body of an article") and WP:NOTREPOSITORY ("Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links"), and there's no clear selection criteria. The list won't ever be comprehensive, and since this is a controversial subject, editors could be accused (and indeed have already been accused) of abusing POV guidelines by cherry-picking headlines. The subject of "press coverage of the Armenian Genocide" might well be notable enough to deserve an article, but to have any kind of encyclopedic value, it would have to actually discuss the topic in some depth, which this article plainly doesn't. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article talks about the newspapers in depth. The lead helps provide that insight for us. The subject is definitely notable and external links may be removed if that seems to be a grave issue. Other avenues can be used to help suggest that for us. We must consider them. For example, we have tags for these. Why send to deletion when a mere suggestion of removing external links can be easily expressed in the talk page of the article? The nominator himself states the articles notability. Don't see why such a notable subject as this shouldn't merit an article. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that the "External links" section is a problem – I meant that the entire article, with the exception of the lead, seems like one big "External links" section. And failing to meet notability standards isn't the only reason to delete an article, it's just one of many possible reasons for deletion. So even though the subject of this article may be notable (I've only done a cursory Google search), it could still be deleted because it falls down in other crucial areas. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I told you that the external links of all the articles may be removed if this is such a grave concern. However, I do not believe an AfD is substantiated or necessary to make such a point on your behalf. I mentioned above that there are other avenues to express your concerns rather than attempting to entirely delete a noteworthy and notable article. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, I see what you mean. But simply removing the links wouldn't address the problem that this article is nothing more than a list of newspaper headlines, with no analysis or critical commentary even attempted. I'm not filing this AfD to make a point, I'm doing it because I believe this article is so unsuitable for Wikipedia that it can't be salvaged. You disagree; that's fine. I suggest we both disengage now, and wait to see what the rest of the community thinks. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The analyses is provided in the top of the article with a 2,000+ character lead. The article is definitely "salvageable", all it takes is just one edit. Unfortunately however, the AfD sure makes it a lot harder for me to conduct the necessary steps to resolve all the mentioned issues. According to this this AfD, the entire article shouldn't be deleted since your only complaint is what the listed items contain external links. What about the lead? There's a wonderfully sourced lead with many sources including peer reviewed journals that depicts a subject that even you as a nominator said is notable enough for a stand alone article. Therefore, as I mentioned earlier, the AfD is unsubstantiated and unnecessary. I shall remove the external links in my next edit. All I need is one minute. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTREPOSITORY/WP:NOTDIRECTORY, without prejudice to recreation as an article that doesn't fall afoul of WP:NOT. I'm unconvinced that the article talks about anything "in depth", and removing the links would essentially render it useless. Ansh666 19:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- With the removal of the external links, this article is now more than useless, and fails WP:LISTN/WP:LISTPURP. Again, I think it could be a decent article, but not in the current form. Ansh666 21:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per AfD nomination, there is no doubt the subject is notable. Per LISTPURP, "The list may be a valuable information source." and organized in a chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists" which is exactly what the article contains. I don't see it much different than other featured lists such as, "List_of_Digimon_video_games". Perhaps I can add a table soon and make it look even more organized. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Armenian Genocide recognition. There's nothing when you strip the external links, and when I first saw this article I thought it was going to talk about how newspapers either turned a blind eye to the genocides or called out the Turks for it; that's essentially what Armenian Genocide recognition is about. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe... but the article does "called out the Turks" for the event in the lead, let alone the hundreds of listed newspapers and sources acknowledging and reporting the atrocities. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

definitely keep: newspapers of the era widely reported the Armenian massacres and they are a very important component against the official Turkish denial that claim there was no systematic killings. "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article" Let this article be not "normal" then. I insist this article to be kept, because its content is more than notable and very significant in the Armenian Genocide topic and the Armenian-Turkish relations. --Երևանցի ^talk 21:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "I insist that..." is much more likely to make neutral observers ignore your comments as obviously partisan than to make people agree with you. If you want this to be kept then evidence is what is needed, not insistence. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I'm not denying my partisanhip, am I? It's not hard to guess that I'm Armenian. My userpage isn't closed to the public. --Երևանցի ^talk 04:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly projectify (like userfy, but to a Wikiproject subpage or to a subpage of the talk page). These are useful resources for users working on the Armenian genocide article, but not encyclopedic information. The analysis at the top is not adequately sourced to support a separate article - only one source actually analyzes the coverage, and whether or not it's reliable at all (I'm not familiar with it), one source isn't sufficient. The rest of the sources in the lede are backing up general background information about the Armenian genocide and so on, not supporting the existence of "press coverage of the Armenian genocide" as a theme. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Point taken about external links from main text, and a spot of work on that would be a good thing. But I think any researcher or student working on the events of the period would be grateful for this article. There can, as we see above, be reasonable disagreement on doctrinal grounds among regular WP editors, but trying to see things from our readers' point of view I consider this article a good thing to have. – Tim riley (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This entry discusses books and articles specifically about the press coverage of the Armedian Genocide. Clearly the topic has received significant coverage and scholarship. I'd call this a no-brainer. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though I agree that the article perhaps need a expansion of actual text I think the subjects of this article passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all the keep !votes. In addition to being a notable subject, the wide and unique perspective afforded by the scope of the article to any student of the History of the Armenian Genocide is not only remarkable but also interesting and educational. In that regard, I agree with similar points made by other editors here. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:NOTDIR. Article is merely a list of external links and newspaper articles. Nothing worth saving or merging. Perhaps, in the future, if the topic is found notable, it can be recreated, but none of the material currently in the article will be useful. Actually, this list reeks of nationalistic promotion as well. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does one "promote" genocide using old newspapers? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the nom - cherry-picking headlines can make it seem like coverage was exclusively tilted towards one side, which would become a WP:POV page. Not that it is right now, but it could possibly be used for such. Ansh6 6 6 01:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My question was based on the statement that "this list reeks of nationalistic promotion" already. I can't detect any of the old newspapers of some 100 years ago, describing the events as they happened, "reeking" of anything. Also could a statement like that also be made for the Holocaust or is such treatment only reserved for the Armenian Genocide? Of course this is a rhetorical question. Noone, apart from the lunatic fringe, seriously doubts that the Holocaust occurred or raises accusations that it was promoted for nationalistic reasons. What makes the Armenian Genocide ripe for such treatment? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing "two-sides" of the story goes against the general consensus of Wikipedia and the arbitrary regulations under WP:ARBAA2. The side that presents the genocide as fact has been the one adopted by the Wikipedia community through a consensus, while the other side, a minority position pushed by the Government of Turkey, has not. More importantly, this article isn't about massacres...it's about a genocide or in other words, the systematic and purposeful massacre of a race. The race in this case is the Armenian race. Current Wikipedia consensus does not allow us to present any the other "side of the argument" and present it as fact. In fact, if that happens, the user may be risk being banned from editing any articles related to Armenia under WP:ARBAA2. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I was merely answering your question, not referring to the statement you were yourself referring to. However, I would say that your last statement about the holocaust is false - see Holocaust denial and Anti-semitism. Ansh6 6 6 02:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the statement adding "apart from a lunatic fringe". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thank you PB for your policy-based analysis. But I want to go further than that. I just wanted to know why the Armenian Genocide receives such treatment from some quarters while other Genocides are sacrosanct and not subject to such comments. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They really aren't. For example, Holocaust denial isn't really a "lunatic fringe" - it's a huge movement including high-profile figures like former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As an outsider, I find it strange that Arbcom has chosen a side in this issue, especially if a national government has taken a side, since that seems like it's building a WP:POV into the project. But we digress... Ansh6 6 6 02:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage was exclusively tilted towards one side, anyone who has about a hour in a major library to check microforms of newspapers covering 1915-16 will come to that conclusion. Jedi Master 02:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't about 1915-16; there IIRC are articles from the 1890s that sai it wasn't happening even as it was. Ansh6 6 6 03:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some include the Hamidian massacre, Adana massacre and what happened during the Turkish war of independence. On Russian Wikipedia, the main article covers the previous massacres. Jedi Master 04:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I know I'm say off-topic, but where in WP:ARBAA2 does it say this? I'm on mobile so I might have missed it... Ansh6 6 6 02:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denialist literature, whether it be the Holocaust or the Armenian Genocide, is always held separate from Armenian Genocide/Holocaust related articles. In fact, denialist sources and references are considered unreliable and thus unacceptable in terms of Wikipedia WP:RS requirements. Denialist sources and information can all go into the Denial of Armenian Genocide article but never into Armenian Genocide/Holocaust related articles. Yes, Arbcom takes the position seriously, see Admin Sandstein's remark here and here. The user was formally warned for his constant assertion of denialist information and sources and as of this point may be banned if he/she continues. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand what you meant now, thanks. Ansh6 6 6 03:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The headlines clearly demonstrate how much coverage the genocide got during that time period. It is useful for anyone who wants to find news articles about this. This is an important moment in history. Dream Focus 09:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't believe what I'm actually reading here, this article clearly fails WP:DIRECTORY and also it does not conform with WP:LISTS, because its current format fails three basic criteria, and the article does not reflect upon the reality, it may be a valuable information source (its parent article should have all these coverage used as reference, so it is WP:REDUNDANT), it should be useful for navigation and lists are useful for development of maintenance purpose. This is clearly a unacceptable content fork and all its content should be integrated within its parent article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a useful WP:List, not a regular article. Actually, it should not discuss the topic in any depth, as the AfD proposer seem to believe. My very best wishes (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't understand why so many people, both those saying "keep" and those saying "delete", keep saying that this is a list article, when it has 600 words of prose supported by sources about press coverage of the Armenian Genocide rather than examples of such coverage. We can get rid of the list if necessary (that is a matter for talk page discussion) but still keep the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Session (Kelly Clarkson EP)[edit]

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

Per WP:NALBUMS this is little beyond a track listing and thus is not notable for its own independent article. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This passes both WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. There is more than "little beyond a track listing", there is also peak position information, sales information, single information and release history information all of which is sourced. Aspects (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think its pretty rare for these types of re-recordings to charts and/or debut with 15,000 copies sold. Looks like it meets the WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS in that respect. Sergecross73 msg me 15:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment, its a single vendor release, exclusive to iTunes so of course it would sell less than other commercial releases. it didnt chart which is specifically a condition for albums being notable. furthermore according to WP:GNG, subjects should receive independent coverage from third-partyul reliable sources in order to be considered notable enough for an independent article. thus unless there is coverage from sources other than the label or iTunes it fails GNG as well as NALBUMS. this information could be contained at Kelly Clarkson discography or Kelly Clarkson. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But my argument is that it actually did do well despite being a single vendor release. These sorts of sessions release usually dont really move any units, but the article claims both the EP and songs from it charted. Do you contest this? Sergecross73 msg me 01:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it still hasnt received coverage which warrants an independent page which is one if the key criteria at NALBUMS. if we ignore the track listing for one moment (as a track listing alone is not notable) the discography page tells us when the EP was released, its sales and its chart position. Thus aside from telling us the track listing the article serves no purpose. The discography had a listing of the single and a link to the single where there is coverage. apart from the cahrt position/sales, there is no coverage about the album itself as a body of work. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to do some digging. In my experience, when notable musicians (especially very mainstream ones like this) have albums/songs that chart, there's usually enough third party coverage through "Background" or "Reception" type sections to warrant and article. (That's why WP:NALBUMS typically makes sense, after all.) I can't help but think that its available, and as long as its out there, then it probably shouldn't be deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if there was a review or two from reliable critics and some background (I.e. an interview by clarkson or some info about putting together the collection, something other than information about the single) then id agree. at a first glance I couldnt find reviews from the ususl critics e.g. pitchfork etc. and beyind coverage of the sibgke there qa nothing substantive about the collection other than its sales. that leads me to conclude that the only information provided (which isnt listed in the discography) is the track listing, something which then accoring to NALBUMS doesnt make an album notable. pages should not exist to give the track listing of a release. in fact a separate page should only be created where the information is too much to be contained in the discography or at an artist's page. if that information could be found then ill support the maintaining of the page, otherwise as per the substantial number of other deletion discussions for similar releases and past experience as well as the current guidelines I would stand by my original nomination. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some thoughts to consider:

Allmusic confirms it charted in the Top 200 - at 85.
USA Today confirms it at least sold 13,000 copies, and stayed on the charts for at least a couple weeks, as it says it was at #154 on another week.
USA Today staff includes it in their article of recommended music releases in December in another article.
Pop Crush gives some insight on the re-recordings.
MTV reported on it
Artist Direct reported on it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I don't think its ever going to be a super-detailed article, no, but not every one has to. I do believe it passes the WP:GNG though. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if others unanimously agree thst this makes it notable thrn obviously id agree. in my eyes as it wont be detailed or beyond a stub its probably still not notable but the majority goes I guess. :-/ — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boma Diri[edit]

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

Non-notable singer lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:TOOSOON. reddogsix (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the paragraph-and-a-half coverage in the Barbados Today article was the most I could find. An individual article does not appear warranted at this time per WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gong show 18:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTNOW. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Travelers' Century Club[edit]

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

Promo, partly copyvio of http://travelerscenturyclub.org/countries-and-territories/retired-territories (list of retired countries), close paraphrasing (or copyvio??) of http://travelerscenturyclub.org/countries-and-territories The Banner talk 15:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears that the proposer is having an issue with the list of territories, not the entire club article. If so, we should talk about that not outright delete the entire entry. The club is notable enough and a large number of secondary and even tertiary references have been provided to support notability. Further, the list is the main criterion for club membership and as such is an integral part of the club. The source page of the list does not display any copyright restrictions (WP:PD), hence, reproducing it here cannot possibly qualify as copyright violation. It is more akin listing all 16 NFL teams in the NFL article having copied it from NFL site in its entirety. If this explanation not sufficient, we can work on addressing it, but deleting the entire page is probably an overreaction.Truther2012 (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong, my friend. a) I consider the whole article promo. b) The whole club with "More than 2,000" members worldwide fails to garner sufficient independents and reliable sources (conform WP:RS) c) Your remark about copyright is fundamentally wrong. Everything is copyrighted, signed or unsigned, unless it is specifically stated that it is free of copyright. d) Your personal comment make clear that you have a Conflict Of Interest. The Banner talk 15:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe, I'm wrong, but let's try this... a) what's your definition of promo? b) the link labeled books at the top of this page results in 612 printed published mentions, i dont even count mutlitudes of internet articles - is it not enough of WP:RS? c) maybe, then what's your take on copying the list of NFL teams in its entirety from explicitly copyrighted NFL website? also, how can one copyright protect a list of countries? d) which comment did you take as personal? how is that an indication of WP:COI? Truther2012 (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - a) advertising, promoting your organisation to a wider audience. b) Not necessarily. It is the quality of the links that makes them reliable sources. A passing mention is a Google hit, but not a reliable source. (Example: [6]). c) Taking a list of NFL teams or a list of countries is indeed seldom a copyright violation. But your list lists countries that no one else will list as countries, as they are not independent states (Example: Alaska). That makes your list unique and identifiable. In this case as copied from the TCC-website. d) What I took as personal and emotional responses were these: It appears that the proposer is having an issue with the list of territories, not the entire club article. and If this explanation not sufficient, we can work on addressing it, but deleting the entire page is probably an overreaction.. Throwing in emotion is a real good indicator of a (too) close connection of the subject.
    - And finally: e) In your first reply you sound like a marketeer trying to protect his article... It is not illegal to write an article for your employer or where you have a close connection with, but it is strongly discouraged. Main reason for that it makes it real difficult to judge if information is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia and to judge if the subject is worthy of inclusion at all. That is why Wikipedia as the common saying Do write about yourself. When you are important enough, somebody else will do it. The Banner talk 21:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - e) let’s get this one out of the way first – I have zero affiliation with the Club - not a member, owner or employee. a) I think, this article seized to be a possible promo the moment the Controversies section was added. b) Sure, but most, if not each, book or Google hit mentions a particular person as a member – this on its own substantiates a claim of over 2,000 membership. At the same time, every other club article on Wikipedia only provides club’s homepage as the source for membership (e.g. Sierra Club). c) I would argue that NFL team list is just as unique and identifiable. Further, posting it here allows for dissemination of educational information, such as links to countries’/territories’ articles. The list itself is based on a set of rules and as such is reproducible (unlike NFL team list). d) No emotion, just wasn’t clear whether you are concerned with the list or the whole article.Truther2012 (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nice try, but one controversy is not enough to whitewash the promo in the rest of the article. The Banner talk 14:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see anything overtly promotional about the content of the article. The club itself meets notability with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Much of the material is behind paywalls, but the club is the headline subject of the articles. See [7], [8], [9]. Also found singificant coverage where they werenot the primary topic: [10], [11]. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic meets Wikipedia's notability test WP:N. Source examples include: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Northshore Town Center[edit]

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

Not notable (fails WP:ORG). Run-of-the-mill U.S. shopping center (of the ca. 2012 variety), consisting of a supermarket and a discount retailer and a few other stores. Sources are the shopping center website and some local press-release-type coverage; these are not indications of notability. Orlady (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. This is not a routine shopping mall, but rather a mixed-use development of the New Urbanism school. It even includes a school. The newspaper references are bylined news stories, not press releases. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "New urbanism", eh? Sure did fool me! I've never actually been in the new Publix-Target development, but I pass it on the highway about once a week on average. When it was under construction, I was aware of the large amount of land that had been stripped of vegetation and bulldozed. Now that it's built, I can see the stores and their huge signs on the hillside from at least a mile away. If this is new urbanism, it's been deftly disguised as a standard Interstate-exit commercial development. (There is a residential subdivision in the general vicinity that fits the "new urbanism" mantra, with newly built houses designed to look like houses from the 1890s-1930s, sidewalks, etc., but that subdivision is not the subject of this article.) --Orlady (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate Eastmain's effort to flesh out the article with decent sources, but (based on my personal knowledge of this place) I'm skeptical. That 2004 "new urbanism" article is about the residential subdivision I described. It shares the "Northshore Town Center" name with the new shopping center, but it's not at all clear that these places are truly connected. As for the school, it's also not clear how connected it is. Until a couple of months ago, when it was named "Northshore Elementary[20], it was the county's "new Southwest Elementary School"[21]. Several sites were considered, and this one was chosen after the developers donated much of the land for the school[22] (a gesture that should help sell residential lots). It's not exactly a new-urbanism-neighborhood school. It will serve a large chunk of the county, and almost all of the kids (967 kids in grades K-5) will arrive by bus. In its present form, this is an article about two new stores, plus some statements about houses and a school in the general area. --Orlady (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable shopping center and development. Dough 48 72 01:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it should stay, People need to know about the Development. --Jesus Lover0000 (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "People need to know" is not what Wikipedia is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy ~~Keep~~ - Somewhat notable given references on concept and design. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought WP:CRYSTALBALL is a good objection (see below). Perhaps the article is premature given the state of development. It might merit mention in the article on New urbanism; Jason from nyc (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to sandbox - WP:CRYSTALBALL. If it develops as planned, it might be article-worthy in the future. As of now, it's two large stores, a couple of novelty shops, and some condos, and doesn't exactly stand out amidst the five dozen other shopping centers in the area. Bms4880 (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - move article to author sandbox, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Userfication would work for me. I don't have any desire to destroy Jesus Lover0000's work; I just don't perceive this center as a notable topic. And it is possible that this will develop into the kind of new urban center that its developers have claimed it to be. (And I hasten to add that this is just one of several developments in this region that have pretensions to New Urbanism, but have yet to deliver...) --Orlady (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 10#Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi. postdlf (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prof.Dr.Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi[edit]

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

This BLP fails notability but is supported by sources so thats why I chose AFD, the sources provided are not good, twitter and other social networks are used throughout the article, there is also a lot of promotional content and lack of neutrality here. The page has a potential to improve, and the person seems to be notable but the sources provided to prove the claim arent enough. Thanks Prabash.Akmeemana 13:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a mess, with a combination of some copyright violation and just plain promotion. There might be a germ of notability of this Pakistani children's writer, but this article does not assert any. It praises Hameedi without indicating why we should care about him other than that he is a children's writer and children's literature is important. True, children's literature is important, but there is no indication that Hameedi is a notable contributor to the field. The cited references are to blogs, articles in which Hameedi has commented, Times of India general search results (but no specific articles), etc. I.e. no real sources to work with. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Weikop[edit]

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

I declined a prod on this article, but looking carefully at the publication record, I don't think he's yet notable either under WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, or the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I found the 4 books and some articles, I think "yet" may be the key. EBY (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete -- the position is important and the book may be when it's out, but it's not yet. When it's published we can see from reviews and library holdings his impact, so no prejudice against recreation. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- He looks as if he is on his way to being a notable academic. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FeralHeart[edit]

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

The prod was contested by the article's creator. I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable game with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Lugia2453 (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ERA 9[edit]

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

Spammy article about a non-notable band. They won a SiriusXM "battle of the bands" contest to appear at the Grey Cup, but even that generated apparently little to no significant coverage. Appearances on CBC and Musique Plus are verified by non-reliable YouTube videos, but cannot be verified independently. Not signed to any label, no major albums (just a couple of EPs so far), no independent national tour (only a tour as part of the SiriusXM contest or in support of other bands). I.e. no indication they meet any of the criteria at WP:BAND. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This blurb was the best coverage I could find; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time. Gong show 18:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems to be WP:TOOSOON, they're getting there, but not there yet says this site. Tek022 | _Comments? 06:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2013 single day box office number one in United States[edit]

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

We already have List of 2013 box office number-one films in the United States that lists number one movies by week. I don't see that listing them by day adds much to the encyclopedia, and seems WP:INDISCRIMINATE. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding the following related articles:

Note all three article created by the same user or his sock. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. No media sources report box office receipts by the day. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To be fair, the article's source, Box Office Mojo, does list box office by day. I don't know how reliable it is, but it's there. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - A lot of press seems to think it's accurate, because I often see its figures repeated elsewhere. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, which says, "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." By week makes sense because of the amount of coverage related to that, but not by day (except for opening weekend days, probably). Erik (talk | contribs) 14:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - We already have a list of number one box office by months, I guess. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Airlines Flight 345[edit]

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

Nose gear collapses are not uncommon[23] and there is nothing notable about this incident....William 10:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 10:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions....William 10:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 10:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions....William 10:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. There is already a summary on the articles about the airline and the airport, which is more than sufficient for an incident of this nature. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reread the article and this discussion following the encouragement for people to reconsider their opinions based on new information. Firstly this is a very good reason why we should not rush to create articles before facts are known, and secondly we shouldn't rush to delete them either. However I have reconsidered my recommendation to delete, and I do not see a need to change it. It wasn't a standard nose-gear failure, but I still do not see why it is more notable than many other hard landings causing damage. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Unlikely a hull-loss. The nosegear will be repaired and the aircraft will be flying again very soon.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PD: I'm considering to start a huge number of articles with the link above provided by WilliamJE (talk · contribs) :)--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete - Fails WP:AIRCRASH. No hull loss, no fatalities. Non-notable incident. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Temporarily striking my !vote to reassess the situation from the discussion below. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The nominator's justification is completely shoddy: Clicking on the supplied link ([1]) after the OR justification "Nose gear collapses are not uncommon" yields a Google result page with "Your search - nose gear collapse jet - did not match any news results." Furthermore, the only result on the page pertains to this very accident's jet being removed from the runway. So how common are these things? Also, the accident happened to a fairly new jet (B787-700), at the time when BF Goodrich's manufacture of landing gear has been put to question (it also failed this week at the Sukhoi Superjet 100 belly landing in Keflavík), and the incident closed a major airport. So if this item fails some guidelines, perhaps the guidelines need adjusting or a more incisive/knowledgeable interpretation. --Mareklug ^talk 18:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Huh? The link is working and secondly the Southwest plane was a 737 not a 787. The entire Southwest fleet is composed of 737s....William 18:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  The 787 was an obvious typo. There is no such plane as B787-700, I clearly meant B737-700. You are most unkind in making a case out of this. --Mareklug ^talk 18:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment You reasoned the article should be saved before it was an accident involving a new aircraft, which it wasn't. You called my justification for this afd as completely shoddy. Your mistake is shoddy, so it was fair game to fire back. Plus I've gone through ASN up to May 2013 now. There have SEVEN incidents this year at least not counting Flight 345 where the nosegear/front landing gear either collapsed or broke off. None of which have articles. I was going to provide the links but the post got lost due to an edit conflict caused by your post. Here is one[24] more of the further 4 I was going to add....William 19:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your justification *is* shoddy. Your link, https://www.google.com/search?q=paul+harney+los+angeles&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=newspapers#hl=en&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&sclient=psy-ab&q=nose+gear+collapse+jet&oq=nose+gear+collapse+jet&gs_l=serp.3...2497.9568.0.10090.22.22.0.0.0.0.653.3691.0j19j1j0j1j1.22.0....0...1c.1.21.psy-ab.Zl8Nlajztgk&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=d312a38c8fe02c1a&biw=1093&bih=422 , yields the following (screen capture): https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/105918205/result.png Me? I just made a typo, a fucking typo, that anyone with a wit of knowledge about civil aviation would be able to interpret correctly... --Mareklug ^talk 19:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My link is working in both Firefox and America Online, so I don't know what your problem with it is. Your browser perhaps? When you write "Also, the accident happened to a fairly new jet (B787-700), at the time when BF Goodrich's manufacture of landing gear has been put to question (it also failed this week at the Sukhoi Superjet 100 belly landing in Keflavík), and the incident closed a major airport" invoking two other types of aircraft having nothing to do with 345 it is more than a typo....William 19:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to revisit your strategy for linking things for public consumption, because this is the second browser (Google Chrome, after Safari -- that makes 2 main browsers people use) that shows the same dismal result: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/105918205/result2ndbrowser.png --Mareklug ^talk 23:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got the same as William using Firefox, IE, and Chrome. Try logging out. Ansh666 23:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "Also, the accident happened to a fairly new jet (B787-700)" According to here[25] the 737 involved in Flight 345 is over 13 years old. That's not fairly new. As I said, what you wrote is more than a typo....William 19:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment Here are 1[26], 2[27], 3[28], aviation incidents in the first month and a half of 2013 alone where nose gear or front landing gear collapsed. How many of those have articles? None, and one of them was a Tunis Air Commercial Flight. Nose gear collapses are very common....William 18:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you even reading what you are linking?

The airplane flew the approach in strong cross wind conditions with wind shear reported at runway 16L some fifteen minutes before the landing. Shortly before touchdown the airplane suddenly lost altitude and impacted the runway with the nose landing gear. This was at a distance of 567 meters from the runway threshold. It bounced three times, causing the nose and main gear to collapse. (atmospheric conditions caused hard landing, collapse of gear)
The airplane landed in gusty wind conditions on runway 19 when a rain squall was passing the airport. At about 1600 meters from the threshold, the aircraft veered to the right and went off the runway 200 meters further on. The plane then turned left and travelled a distance of about 114 meters in the grass. It then crossed runway 11/29 perpendicularly and travelled another 130 meters in the grass parallel with runway 19 before entering taxiway F were it came to rest with a collapsed nose landing gear. (atmospheric conditions, aircraft travels perpendicularly, sheers off gear)
After the aircraft touched down on the 60 foot wide runway, directional control was lost. The aircraft skidded sideways and departed the runway to the left and collided nose first with a large snow bank. The nose wheel collapsed, both propellers were damaged and there is possible damage to the right hand main gear. (aircraft experienced sideways travel on the ground after landing, gear broken off due to collision)

I stand by my characterization of the justification as shoddy, now I will say, shoddier. --Mareklug ^talk 19:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a aviation incident where nosegear collapse no matter what the cause. How can your reckoning be taken seriously when you bring that up or argue a 737 incident should be notable based on what happens to 787s or Sukhoi Superjet 100's. You couldn't properly link to the newspaper archive I gave also. The hole you're in is preposterously deep but if you want to keep shoveling fine....William 19:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first and second of the three clauses listed under WP:AIRCRASH stipulate hull loss or fatalities. Fair enough, probably no hull loss occurred and nobody died. But the third clause reads: The accident or incident invoked a change in procedures, regulations or process that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry. I would argue that a day after the accident and before the investigation is published is not the time frame to interpret this text in the negative, particularly if systemic problems do occur with the landing gear. So, feel free to delete this article when it indeed fails the third clause. --Mareklug ^talk 18:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Following Mareklug's reasoning, the last Ethiopian's 787 fire at Heathrow also warrants a stand-alone article, and it was redirected shortly after it was created. If there are deficiencies with different manufacturer's parts, then include the incidents at each manufacture's article. Not because there's a glitch with BF Goodrich I'll start articles on every incident around.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Hold your horses. I am not one to lay the blame at the feet of BF Goodrich for this mishap and the Sukhoi at KEF just yet. Equally likely it was pilot error or yet another cause. The point I am making is that a day after the accident is not the timeframe to delete the article based on the criteria that allow keeping articles where a major policy adjustment etc. came as a result of the accident. Also, in the case of La Guardia Airport, an unusually steep approach is necessitated by the surroundings on that particular runway. The FAA may well rule it unusable for heavier aircraft as a result of this gear collapse, mandating over-the-water approaches only. And that would fulfill the third criterion for keeping the article. --Mareklug ^talk 19:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - In 2007[29], a Southwest Airlines Flight 3050 had its nose gear collapse. No article on that. Heck it is so insignificant Aviation Safety Network doesn't even list it[30]....William 00:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:AIRCRASH currently (any suggestion otherwise is WP:CRYSTAL), and WP:NOTNEWS. Ansh666 20:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - looks like things are starting to get interesting. I'm thinking we should let it go for another week or so at least, first... Ansh666 05:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...or not. Possible merge/redirect to something...don't know what. Ansh6 6 6 00:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried to fix the indenting, but I was edit conflicted, so oh well. Ansh666 20:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Oppose deletion at this time. First of all, nose gear collapses are rather rare. But, what is more important is why it happened. The initial reports seem to indicate it was a hard landing, not just a case of a defective nose gear actuator. At least one news source indicated that the plane suffered some serious damage. If that turns out to be accurate, then it does meet at least one of the criteria in WP:AIRCRASH

I see no harm in waiting for awhile to see what the NTSB comes up with. If factors such as pilots not paying attention to proper glide slope profile and/or Air Speed, or trying to land in conditions that required a go-around, either by limitations in the flight manual, or Company SOPs, then it could develop into a very notable accident. Since we don't know why it landed so hard, at this point in time, I think it prudent to wait for some NTSB press briefings about what the FDR and CVR reveal. EditorASC (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted articles can be quickly undeleted, so if del'd the page won't be lost for good.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fails WP:AIRCRASH, we don't create an article on subjects and then wait to see if it becomes notable, we create articles on subjects that are already notable. LGA _talk^edits 08:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The WP:EVENT guideline is not met: There is no ongoing coverage, but only initial news reports.--FoxyOrange (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. There is ongoing coverage in technical press. I find it funny that you declaim that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and then give as argument that there is no ongoing coverage (which I am about to disprove by example). On Jul 23rd 2013 the NTSB reported, that an investigation into the occurrence rated an accident has been opened. The nose gear collapsed rearwards nd upwards into the fuselage damaging the electronics bay, the aircraft slid 2175 feet (663 meters) on its nose along the runway until the aircraft came to a stop off the right hand side of the runway. The occupants were evacuated via slides, which deployed normally. 9 people were treated for minor injuries as result of the evacuation. The flight data and cockpit voice recorder were already read out. http://avherald.com/h?article=465c1158&opt=4096 --Mareklug ^talk 19:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, my earlier comment might have been too short. So here again my reasoning, a bit more elaborate. News articles published shortly after an incident took place (a so called news spike) are not sufficient as the base of a Wikipedia article. The WP:EVENT guideline states that in order to be notable, there should be "significant or in-depth coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle". I don't think that this is the case here. There is no ongoing coverage; and I have not come across any source which is not some sort of rewording of a press release (deeper analysis would be needed). The later published sources you cite are only anouncements that there will be an NTSB investigation. But as any aviation incident leads to an investigation, this cannot be used to establish notability.--FoxyOrange (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really should search more thoroughly:

By Matt Pearce
July 23, 2013, 6:01 p.m.

The landing gear didn't just collapse when a Southwest Airlines jet touched down in New York City and plunged nose-first into the tarmac: The landing gear punched into the plane itself as it skidded for almost half a mile.

The new revelations came Tuesday as the National Transportation Safety Board continued to investigate its second major landing accident by a Boeing jetliner in three weeks.
— http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ntsb-landing-gear-20130723,0,6305237.story

This is not, as you characterize it, a restatement of a news release, but continuing in depth coverage by a major newspaper. And it has only been 2 days. --Mareklug ^talk 06:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I humbly stand corrected.--FoxyOrange (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

*Neutral - Not a notable incident, did not result in loss of hull or life. However, the investigation is not yet done yet. Airplanegod (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's not notable, then the article should be deleted. Reasonings like "there might be more to say about it in the future" are just WP:BALL.--FoxyOrange (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -You are correct then, my mistake Airplanegod (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - May not just be regular gear failure. Gear appears to have jammed into electronics bay therefore almost confirming the

Hard landing, as reported in the press (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This just reeks of some guy reading the news and wetting himself because he gets to be the first to report it on Wikipedia. Just not notable enough, with no loss of life. Beerest355 Talk 21:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep it professional, ok? User:Justinhu12 (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete; this is not a standard nosegear collapse (which I agree would not be notable), it is a semi-uncontrolled nosegear-first crash landing which could have ended very badly. It is well worthy of continued discussion and analysis.Nankai (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think everyone who has already voted to delete this article, as well as the nominator, should revisit it as it stands now, after the two disclosures form NTSB on 23 and 25 July. This is NOT a nose gear collapse event. It is a crash landing on the nose gear, with major repercussions for the aircraft (it MAY become a hull loss, economics depending), airline and the airport, if not general guidelines. It is not the article you were led to believe you were debating. --Mareklug ^talk 05:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Which could have ended very badly" - note the words "could have". It didn't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting a Google Search using the "verbatim" setting on Search Tools, I tried southwest oakland nose gear giving About 612,000 results while southwest laguardia nose gear gives About 2,380,000 results - I believe this is good empirical data on the relative notability of this incident relative to Oakland which was your classic aircraft nose gear collapse.Nankai (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If nose gear collapses are very common, this article can be expanded and renamed to include others. If this article is just about one pilot that landed on the nose gear, than it should just stay here. Apteva (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability of a dead slug, with no notable consequences or changes in certification, procedures or maintenance. Barely even warrants a mention on the aircraft, airport or airline artricles!!--Petebutt (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the Aye-sayers still haven't given any valid reasons for retention of the article. It is as though they think that we delete all articles that we just don't like, which is as far from the truth as you can get and I cannot, for the life of me, understand why they are wasting theirs, and everybody elses time, contesting this delete with such weak arguments. Oh well, that's life.--Petebutt (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has been all over the news. It was not a nose gear collapse as initially reported, which would still be notable, it was a landing on the nose gear. Has anyone looked at the landing gear of a plane? There are two wheels on the landing gear and one spindly strut. The main landing gear has four wheels and robust struts capable of supporting the landing impact. Front landing gear are only designed to withstand landing impact on gliders, and that is the only landing wheel that a glider has. Apteva (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "All over the news" - WP:NOTNEWS, and in this day and age of digital news being "all over the news" doesn't establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NB all of the other Southwest incident articles, such as Southwest Airlines Flight 2294. We can not just delete the ones that are embarrassing. Apteva (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that other stuff is irrelevant to whether or not this article should be kept or deleted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This shouldn't be an article. Really, nothing notable about it. Alex (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's wait for more info before making a decisionUser:Justinhu12 (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is fairly strong consensus for Wikipedia:AIRCRASH, even if it is not a guideline or policy, and this incident does not pass muster. I could go along with a redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you need to re-read the meaning of the word "consensus". This AfD so far features nontrivial dissent by several knowledgable aviation editors, for good reasons, too, and a (premature) misrepresentation of the accident by the nominator as a "nose gear collapse", as well as a pile-on of delete-voters parroting the same reason, that it does not meet WP:AIRCRASH. In no way does this represent "fairly strong consensus". Even one well-reasoned dissent negates any consensus, and AfD is not a vote mechanism. --Mareklug ^talk 22:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian is saying that there is consensus for using WP:AIRCRASH to determine notability, not consensus for this specific incident failing. Also, "Even one well-reasoned dissent negates any consensus" is wrong, as consensus does not have to be unanimous, and implying that it does turns it into a vote. Ansh666 23:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A single well-reasoned dissent has nothing to do with unanimity or lack of it, and claiming that lending it weight somehow implies voting is straw-man argumentation. A single well-reasoned dissent negates consensus on the merit of its own reasoning. It may be opposed by every other participant, who gives inferior or insufficient support for his or her position. Consensus is general agreement, and it only takes one meritorious dissent to negate it. --Mareklug ^talk 00:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not a newspaper [and] considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.", this is that classic example of a newsworthy event that has no encyclopaedic notability, I will concede that it might in the future but as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball either we will have to wait and see, during that time a brief mention on the Southwest Airlines is all that is called for. LGA _talk^edits 00:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went through all your edits, out of simple curiosity, and there is not a single aviation-related one among them. Not one content edit in anything technological, in fact. But here, you claim that this accident fails WP:AIRCRASH, notably doing so before NTSB revealed on the 25th the nose-first-landing aspect of this accident, as well as the extent of the damage to the aircraft (probably requiring a write-off). On the other hand, your edits contain a lot of wiki-litigation and logging speedy deletions. So, please humor me, and kindly indicate rationale, preferrably on the merits of the case, as to why you think we need to delete this article. And, by the way, quoting/pontificating about what Wikipedia is not to 8-year-wikiediting wikipedian, editing in aviation crashes, no less, is a bit pompous and gratuitous, wouldn't you think? --Mareklug ^talk 02:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions are of no relevance, nor is your length of service. What is of relevance are WP's policies and guidelines and in my view (and the view of others above) the subject of this article does not meet the inclusion policy guidelines for a stand alone article. The burden of proof is on everyone wishing to retain the article to demonstrate that it does meet those policies. So is this crash "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance"? and does it "have significant impact over a wide region" ? at the moment the answer to both of those is no. LGA _talk^edits 03:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, comment on the content, not the contributor. Ansh666 05:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At this point the AfD is moot, as this is now simply a B class sub-article of Southwest Airlines. Apteva (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Counter-comment - from the assessor, on the talkpage: "Note:Just because I have assessed it as B-class does not preclude this article from the AfD process.--Petebutt (talk) 08:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)"
  Interesting. Are we sure Petebutt is correct in his assertion? Would an FA article also be subject to a meaningful AfD proceedings? What is the cut-off in rating and AfD, if any? --Mareklug ^talk 23:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at least one FA has wound up at AfD, and in good faith too (don't remember if they were deleted, but I would like to think they weren't). There is no cutoff in rating at AfD. Any article can be nominated, as long as there is a reasonable rationale. Ansh666 00:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuing that line of reasoning, as this AfD was filed prematurely and under misrepresenting reasoning (a garden variety nose-gear collapse), should it not be dismissed on formal grounds? Perhaps then someone will still wish to relist it, but it will be a different article and set of justifications that will be debated. --Mareklug ^talk 00:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reasonable rationale does not have to be the nominator's rationale, it could be that of anyone participating in the discussion. For example, a nomination in bad faith with no rationale is still valid if another editor provides a good-enough reason for deletion (that editor then effectively becomes the nominator). This AfD isn't as drastic: concerns above that this article still fails all 3 clauses of WP:AIRCRASH are still a valid rationale. Ansh666 00:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can this article be said to fail the "serious damage to the aircraft" clause (repeated for aircraft, airport, airline article inclusion)? It also satisfies all clauses of the general notability guideline, so under WP:AIRCRASH it merits its own article. The delete-voters are simply making an unsupported claim! --Mareklug ^talk 01:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for everyone else, but personally, I !voted delete but am right now on the fence (if there was an "unusual incident" clause in WP:AIRCRASH as there is in WP:CRIME, I'd be firmly keep). I'll also remind you as I did above, comment on the content, not the contributors. Ansh6 6 6 01:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the deletion rationale have changed or not, the article still fails notability according to WP:AIRCRASH. Merging discussions won't be there if the article warranted stand-alone status.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication that this meets Wikipedia policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. All available information shows that this was a simple mechanical failure or pilot error accident, resulting in an accident with little continued news coverage. There is no indication that it will be a hull loss or have any lasting consequences, such as Airworthiness Directives, Service Bulletins, changes in ATC or training procedures or any other lasting effects. As noted above we don't retain articles that don't comply with Wikipedia's policies in case they become notable in the future. - Ahunt (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article should wait for further report and investigation in the matter to comply with WP guidelines for notability and WP:FUTURE. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reaffirming my original delete !vote - From what I can tell, nothing has happened so far that would indicate this air crash meets the criteria set forth at WP:AIRCRASH. Keeping the article under the assumption that the crash will become notable in the future is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Right now, the subject does not meet notability guidelines. However, if and when the subject becomes notable in the future, then by all means, speedily recreate the article. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether the damage counts as serious damage. I think all that happened was the front landing gear collapsed harder than usual and crushed some of the equipment stored above. It shouldn't be serious enough to write off the aircraft or significant enough that it is a reason for including it in an encyclopedia. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of the cause of the incident, this doesn't cross the notability bar. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitly a americanized story I mean had this been anywhere else in the world no one would even consider making this article. OK so the airplane landed abit dramatic but overall everything went fine. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really notable one of many similar bad landings that result in bending the aircraft, nobody hurt so really a notnews event. MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pipeline (magazine)[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine. The article lacks related references of substance - those in article are in lists or unrelated to magazine. No non-trivial independent coverage. Article verges on advertisement.reddogsix (talk) 09:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I edited the article, removing puffery and (most, but not all) unsourced claims to see what would be left. The nom is right: no independent sources, all sources given are just phone directories, in-passing mentions, listings, etc, but nothing substantial whatsoever. Does not meet WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unaware if there is a specific guideline for newspaper or magazines and their notability criteria, I may apply WP:NBOOK to co-validate my position. The magazine hasnt been subject of multiple non trivial works published independently from the subject, it hasn't won a major award. It hasn't been considered significant by non trivial reliable sources. It is not historically significant. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) Theopolisme (talk) 05:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Todmorden Markets[edit]

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

The article has had notability and advert tags on it for almost three years and there have been no significant updates to the article during that period and certainly no attempt to address the issues. Scribble Monkey (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Scribble Monkey (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup and we don't have a deadline. A quick browse indicates that the market is covered in The British Market Hall: A Social and Architectural History, for example. Warden (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it was only the notability of the article in question, I might agree, but this article has been tagged as an advert since its creation. It was disputed content prior to that when it was originally included in the Todmorden article. - Scribble Monkey (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point of the Colonel's first sentence. An article having maintenance tags, however long they have been there, is a reason to address the issues identified by those tags by editing, not a reason for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Monroe[edit]

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

Fails GNG - only notable for the one newspaper article - don't think she's notable enough to sustain an article Gbawden (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator, although I understand why this was nominated - I've not yet completed it! There are articles - significant ones - in The Guardian, a comment piece in The Independent, another piece in The Guardian, one in the Financial Times, a prime time BBC News piece, a piece in the Daily Mirror, the Mail Online, another in the Independent, the Sunday People, etc etc - more than enough to cover notability and write a full and frank article about something which we don't cover very well! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 13:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She's all over the media, in the Guardian and Telegraph. I came to Wikipedia today to write an entry on her as she's clearly notable. I've added a stub marker and references to the Mirror, Guardian and Telegraph, which alone ought to prove notability. She's also apparently now a columnist for the Huffington Post. Bmcollier (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BASIC. Source examples: [31], [32], [33], [34]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VVAALLEEball[edit]

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

There is absolutely no evidence at all that this subject is notable. (WP:PROD removed by author.) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It looks like this is a brand new sport that someone recently made up. No coverage. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at Google, I'd say this so-called "up and coming" sport has a long way to go before it warrants an article. Gong show 18:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP and WP:CRYSTAL. Ansh666 19:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tek9[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill web forum for Call of Duty 4 fans. Fails WP:GNG due to the lack of significant, external coverage. The article is also totally spammy, and has been tagged as failing GNG for 2 years, near enough. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the GNG. All of the sources in the article originate to the website itself, or come from non-notable, non-RS websites. Seems more like self-promotion for a fansite... Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 18 July 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, czar · · 08:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Web forums (and similar) tend not to be notable and are rarely kept, and I don't see this being an exception. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muni 4: Ganga[edit]

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

The original Muni (2007) was a box office hit; Muni 2: Kanchana (2011) had a turnover of crores of Rs and won many awards; Muni 3: Ganga is in "post" and will be released in December 2013. As for Muni 4: Ganga there are vague suggestions in Bollywood, Tollywood, the a to z of Filmi-woods that it is tentatively slated to be released in 2016. Maybe. Stop (ie: by analogy, delete): Hammer Time. Shirt58 (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per TOO SOON to Muni (film)#Sequels until such time as the film meets WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:00, 6 July 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, czar · · 15:18, 11 July 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, czar · · 08:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ess Vee[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 15. Snotbot t • c » 05:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Theassocmg (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link in the article to The Source (magazine) doesn't work. Searching there I see only a brief mention and link to their video. Any significant coverage in reliable sources out there? Dream Focus 00:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was created by someone representing the band. They admitted that when they requested help. As I asked on their talk page, has this band been interviewed or reviewed anywhere in a printed magazine or newspaper or on a broadcast radio or television show? Dream Focus 01:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think Dream Focus found everything I was able to find. I think given what is out there, this may well be a case of WP:TOOSOON. I'd have no problem with userfication but I'd be concerned about someone with an obvious COI babysitting this until they thought it was ready. Happy to consider alternate suggestions but I don't think this should be in mainspace right now. Stalwart111 23:08, 20 July 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, czar · · 08:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per essay WP:TOOSOON, the article fails pretty much every criteria. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft in Tunisia[edit]

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

(1) The article is based fundamentally on primary sources. Specifically, we're talking about a report by a third-party, namely a US diplomat, who met with Microsoft representatives. This diplomat did not have access to the terms of the agreement and its not clear that he discussed the deal with Tunisian representatives. In some places, the author of the cable makes clear that he is speculating based on his knowledge of the country but without hard facts. This is not a source that we should be using directly, it requires secondary sources to put it into context. (2) Where secondary sources are used, they don't seem to be doing much more than quoting the cable. This is particularly true of the cited ZDNet and Techweekeurope articles. (3) Is there any notability here? The title of the article, Microsoft in Tunisia, is a bit misleading. This is an article about a specific business deal that was concluded in 2006, not about Microsoft's activities in Tunisia in general. Is every multimillion dollar business deal notable? It seems to me that the only notability stems from the novelty of the leak of the cable. GabrielF (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is now the 3rd AfD on this article in less than a fortnight: see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Microsoft_Tunisia_Scandal and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Tunisia Scandal (2nd nomination) both prior to its retitling. Perhaps a period for editing, discussion on its title using the Talk:Microsoft in Tunisia, etc., i.e. the normal article improvement apparatus, would be better? AllyD (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The first two AFD's offered no policy grounds for deletion. The discussion in those cases focused on the nominator's conflict of interest and (in my opinion) missed the fundamental question - whether or not an article can reasonably be written on a topic when coverage consists entirely of a primary source and a few trade publications that reprint that source without further analysis. It's not clear to me that the normal article improvement process can work on this article for reasons that were not explored in the previous AfDs. GabrielF (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This topic passes the threshold of WP:N, with enough sources available to support a Wikipedia article. Please note that the All Africa articles listed below are all paywalled, and the article links provide only partial coverage of content within those articles:

Diplomats questioned Microsoft deal with Tunisian regime. The Register.
Microsoft's North Africa Opportunity and Challenge. The North Africa Journal.
Wikileaks: Microsoft aided former Tunisian regime. ZD Net.
Latest WikiLeaks: Microsoft aided dictator. Salon.
Microsoft’s Close Watch of North Africa: Lobbying for IT Upgrades and Strong Anti Piracy Enforcement. The North Africa Journal.
Tunisia: Microsoft Opens A Subsidiary In Tunisia. All Africa.
Tunisia: Microsoft Supports Country's Employment Strategy. All Africa.
Tunisia: Nation and Microsoft to Set Up Excellence Center for New Educational Technologies. All Africa.
Tunisia: Education Minister Meets With Regional Microsoft Director General. All Africa.
Tunisia: ICT - Microsoft Launches 'BizSpark' Program in Gafsa. All Africa.
Tunisia: Microsoft Launches 'Intajyia' Program. All Africa.
Tunisia: 'Basma' Association and Microsoft, Honor Disabled University Graduates. All Africa.

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article exists solely because of its exciting origin—a wikileak. If someone had created Microsoft in Brazil using a regular media outlet to verify that Microsoft had entered into negotiations with various levels of government and educational institutions in order to promote their products, and to displace other products, there would be no discussion because such an article would fall in the obviously how business is done category. The fact that major companies push their products with as many governments as possible is not notable unless secondary sources write articles about the particular situation with focus on the issue, and comments on its significance. At the moment, all the article has is a leaked document and a brief flurry of media commentary on that. This is an article effectively based on a press release about an ordinary day-to-day event, where the press release was actually a leaked document. What would be more notable would be if someone could find a country where Microsoft has not attempted what is reported in the article. If there is ever some encyclopedic information regarding Microsoft's actions in a particular country, the article can be recreated with a very brief mention of the fact that some cables were leaked. If the article were properly edited to remove all the original research (factoids that an editor felt were interesting), there would be nothing but a stub: Microsoft negotiated a deal with a government; Microsoft is searching for new markets; Microsoft has a problem with piracy. The previous AfDs should be disregarded as the nominator was clearly unaware of how Wikipedia works—no discussion occurred in those AfDs other than to point out the inappropriate statement from the nominator. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 12 July 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, czar · · 08:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per verifiability and third party sources, article lacks them both. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as Johnuniq points out, this is utterly WP:RUNOFTHEMILL in all respects, except for the media having jumped all over it very briefly because "omg a leak". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why Worry (Dire Straits song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song, never released as a single. No sources that show any notability. Fails WP:NSONGS. Tassedethe (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - because several things called "Why Worry" exist, a redirect (normal procedure for WP:NSONGS where the song's on a notable album by a notable artist) isn't appropriate. We should probably create Why Worry (disambiguation) with the Clannad single and an entry pointing to Brothers in Arms (Dire Straits album). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 16 July 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, czar · · 08:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have boldly created Why Worry (disambiguation) as suggested above and included the Dire Straits song there. No need to keep this as a redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

INIsmo[edit]

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

Very sparse stub on a non-notable art movement that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The article cites no sources and links to a Blogspot site as its sole external link. None of the people mentioned in the article fulfill WP:ARTIST. The article provides virtually no detail about the actual essence of the subject, and further research into the subject yields no relevant and reliable third-party sources. ozhu量 (talk·contribs) 20:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 8 July 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, czar · · 18:18, 15 July 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, czar · · 08:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability found. AllyD (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 via G5. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MySammy[edit]

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

Promotional article that fails WP:CORPDEPTH--does not have significant in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Sources 1 and 4 are decent outlets but these are interviews that only briefly mention the subject of the article. Source 2 appears to be an autobiographical blog. Source 3 is a memoir in interview form. Source 5 is a press release. Source 6 refers to the subject tying for third place (with two other products) for a minor award. Google News search turns up zero additional coverage for subject of article. To put things in perspective, Google Play indicates that the Android app has only been downloaded 100-500 times and has not been updated in more than a year. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just to start with, I'll declare that I have a COI in this case, so please bear that in mind - apologies for not flagging this when creating the article, I have only since discovered the assorted Wiki recommendations for dealing with a COI. In response to the above, I'd firstly dispute that the AOL interview only briefly mentions the subject - while the subject is only mentioned by name twice, the interview is an in-depth discussion of the software, in terms of its functionality, alternatives, and place in the marketplace. That seems sufficiently in-depth to me. I'm also confused by the claim that source 2 is an autobiographical blog - it isn't obviously written by an employee of the company (note: it's by Edward Yang, not Kwang, which may be a source of confusion), and isn't first-person. Another source has recently been added, from entrepreneur.com, in which MySammy is one of 3 pieces of software discussed in some depth. There's also some coverage from the LA Business Journal (http://labusinessjournal.com/accounts/login/?next=/news/2013/mar/18/app-lets-bosses-keep-close-eye-telecommuters/), and a Chinese language paper (http://www.worldjournal.com/view/full_news/22112034/article-%E4%BB%A5%E9%A1%8F%E8%89%B2%E3%80%81%E5%9C%96%E8%A1%A8%E8%80%83%E6%A0%B8%E5%9C%A8%E5%AE%B6%E4%B8%8A%E7%8F%AD%E8%A1%A8%E7%8F%BE-%E9%84%BA%E5%90%9B%E6%87%8B%E3%80%8C%E5%98%B8%E8%9D%A6%E7%B1%B3%E3%80%8D%E8%BB%9F%E9%AB%94-%E8%86%BA%E6%9C%80%E4%BD%B3%E7%94%A2%E5%93%81%E7%8D%8E) - I didn't originally include these because one is behind a paywall, and the other is not in English, but they must presumably go some way to establishing notability, even if they would not necessarily be optimal sources for specific facts in the article. It seems to me then that there are several in-depth & independent sources for the article, enough to establish notability. With regards to the comment about the app's download figures, please also bear in mind that this is primarily software for Windows, with apps being secondary, so this is not necessarily a good indicator of popularity/notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dompreston (talk • contribs) 18:15, 9 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 8 July 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, czar · · 18:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response I don't think the Keep vote from the person who was paid to write this article is worth much. With regard to the AOL article, again, it only briefly mentions MySammy. It's mainly an interview about software monitoring in general, and not the subject of the article, which only gets a passing mention. With regard to the blog on hr.com, it's clearly a blog. It relies very heavily on direct quotes from the founder of MySammy, Mr Kwang. Whether that counts as a biography or an autobiography, I don't know. The point is that this too is not a reliable third-party source to establish notability of the subject of the article. It is a promotional interview with a guy who is saying he is great. As for the entrepreneur.com source, I strongly disagree that it is of "some depth." That section is less than 200 words, and about half of that is details like pricing info and which version of Windows it will run on. This is the essential problem, that paid PRs will just say anything. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I hope that the arguments that I contribute to this discussion count more than the COI that I've already disclosed - if I'm right about the page meeting the requirements, then it shouldn't matter whether I have a COI or not. As I have already said, I think it's clear that the AOL piece is about MySammy and the market that it's in - it's only by divorcing the piece of any context at all that it could seem to be not about the software, but perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. The HR.com piece is a blog, I haven't disputed that - last I checked being a blog isn't a disqualifier. Again, agree to disagree. And as for entrepreneur.com, the coverage may be short, but here's what the Wiki notability guidelines say about significant coverage: ""Significant coverage" 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." Not sure how this source doesn't meet that. The subject is address directly, in detail (yes, including the details about pricing and compatibility - relevant details for a software product), with more than a trivial mention. You also haven't mentioned the two new sources I mentioned earlier, both of which focus on MySammy and are from newspapers - significant and independent coverage there. Dompreston (talk) 07:57, 19 July 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, czar · · 08:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hang on, so there are actually two editors with a COI here - the editor above and the other editor who has contributed significantly to the article who declares his COI here? And one of the articles being relied on for the purposes of notability was written by that other editor - the company's PR agent? As for blogs, see WP:BLOGS and with regard to the interviews, see WP:PRIMARY into which category those clearly fall. The simple fact is that the product doesn't inherit notability from its creator anyway. Two of the sources are from the same author and are considered one source for the purpose of notability but are those primary source interviews anyway. Another is clearly a press release from the company itself. We need significant coverage in independent reliable sources about the company itself per WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm not seeing that at this stage. Stalwart111 09:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dubai Properties Group. Nominator withdrew their nomination and agreed to a proposed merger. No point in keeping this discussion open. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Properties[edit]

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

Comment: Withdrawn by nominator, agree with merge proposal Flat Out let's discuss it 08:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Not notable. Reads as an advert, the only reference is the company website Flat Out let's discuss it 11:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dubai Properties Group (DPG) - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per [35], [36], [37], [38], but the topic could be consolidated into DPG. At some point in time, this company's name was changed to "Dubai Properties Group" (see merge discussion at Talk:Dubai Properties Group – Merger proposal). Also of note is that per WP:NRVE, topic notability is not contingent upon whether or not reliable sources are present in Wikipedia articles; significant coverage in reliable sources only needs to exist. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:55, 9 July 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, czar · · 18:22, 15 July 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, czar · · 08:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against recreation once notability is established. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Worry Yara[edit]

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

It is an upcoming movie, but no date of release or any reference provided. Fails notability guidelines at WP:FILM as there is not any significant media coverage. To me appears as a work of someone directly related the production and this page is created merely to promote the movie. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this article has been renamed to Don't Worry Yara. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nom seems premature. There is quite a bit of coverage out there and from what I can tell the film will be released September 20. It includes notable participants. I don't see how deleting it now improves the encyclopedia. If for some reason it is cancelled that might be a different matter. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having notable participants does not mean notability for the film. Whatever coverage it has, is in few website very close to the area (Puhjabi films related sites). There is no independent coverage in the reliable newspapers.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 03:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't sites covering Punjabi films exactly where we would to expect to find coverage of a Punjabi film? I don't see the utility in deleting a movie that is headed for imminent release and has every indication of being fairly notable. I would rather see it deleted later on if it doesn't materialize, which seems highly unlikely at this point. The article is off to a decent start, let's see what develops. It will be hard for the article to be improved if it's deleted. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not questing the article quality or if it can or can not be improved. I have not nominated because article is not properly written. I doubt if the movie is really notable per WP:MOVIE. The punjabi films sites, IMO, while can be used to get information about a movie, those can not be used to establish notability. They are more like Punjabi version of IMDb. They report or have pages for almost all the under production movies, which does not make all those movies notable. See this case, where a movie was send into article incubator until it was released and became notable. I do not have problem in recreating the article when the movie becomes notable in future.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also I will like to point that you should not have moved the article while it is on AfD. I noticed on your talk page that you moved another article during AfD. Per WP:NOMOVE, do not do it in the future.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, the rule about moving articles while they're at AfD has been modified. At WP:EDITATAFD, part of the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion information page it states "Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion. If you do this, please note it on the deletion discussion page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing administrator)." Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NorthAmerica for pointing out the new modified rule.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 06:01, 9 July 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, czar · · 18:25, 15 July 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, czar · · 08:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FUTURE - we're not a crystal ball, one individual on the cast has a wiki page. It appears to fail WP:FILM as User:Vigyani said. If the film becomes notable the perhaps a page can be started, but as of now the one person that has a page could have it listed under their works. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 17:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. If the subject becomes notable or comes to fruition, its content should be recreated. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

José Cordero de Torres[edit]

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

From what I'm able to find (which is nothing) I'm seeing no assertion of notability and a Google search pulls up nothing for notability. Dusti^*poke* 03:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, a google search does give a few results, such as http://www.catedralescatolicas.com/?tag=catedral-de-sevilla and http://www.arhuertas.es/personajes.html . These don't seem as very good WP:RS, but no indication that the info would be fraudulent. Considering the fact that this person lived in 18th century, these mentions do indicate a degree of notability. However, I'm concerned that there are no google book hits. --Soman (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say they aren't good reliable sources. Perhaps this article is better for the es.wikipedia. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 20:09, 25 July 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, czar · · 18:28, 15 July 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, czar · · 08:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Brown (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Not notable. Previously prod deleted as Matthew Brown (producer). None of the third party refs in the entry are actually about this person, they are all about companies or films he is associated with. He is mentioned in some refs, although not at all in the Vanity Fair piece. Consequently, he appears to fail WP:GNG. Hairhorn (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability and very promotional. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:33, 9 July 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, czar · · 03:47, 16 July 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, czar · · 08:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CITV Old Skool Weekend[edit]

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

Unremarkable one weekend programming gimmick which basically says "CITV aired old programming to celebrate their anniversary", but stretched out with adapted pieces from the CITV article, a heap of unsourced information and the usual ratings information of interest to only a select few. Depends mainly on three sites which basically ripped and read paraphrased ITV PR. All children's networks do this from time to time and this is hardly extraordinary in any way. Nate • (chatter) 03:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nate • (chatter) 04:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Nate • (chatter) 04:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This event might merit a paragraph in the CITV article, but not an article to itself. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:30, 16 July 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, czar · · 08:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 vias G5. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Materials Corporation[edit]

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

Promotional article that clearly fails WP:CORPDEPTH, despite having 15 references. 1 and 3 are stock ticker pages with links to press releases. 2 is self-authored SEC filing. 4 is brief mention in local paper of move out-of-town. 5 is sourced from press release. 6-14 do not mention subject of article at all. 15 is press release from PR firm that gives "awards" to its clients. Maybe some of this material could be included in the quantum dot article. Google News search turns up some more press releases. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Firstly, just to be open, I (the original article creator) do have a COI in this case. I've only recently been informed (by Logical Cowboy) of the recommended ways of declaring this - I had intended to in this case, but it slipped my mind, and the deletion request came through before I had a chance to add it. Happy to add a note on the talk page about the COI. In terms of the potential failure of WP:CORPDEPTH, I think it does have sufficient notability. Source 4 is admittedly brief, but I don't think I'd call it trivial coverage - but I may be wrong there. Source 5 may be sourced partially from a press release, but clearly goes beyond the content of any press release, suggesting independent research and fact-checking from the cite, so I would have thought that was suitable. For 15, as far as I can tell, Frost & Sullivan is a market research company, not a PR firm, so the objection doesn't seem to stand. I feel that some of the sources from 6-14 contribute to notability, demonstrating as they do the notability of the product and method, and QMC is the only company that uses that method to bulk produce tetrapod quantum dots. Being a publicly traded company, there are also a fair few articles around on the company's stocks & shares, if you dig deep enough in Google. I can track these down if they might have some relevance to the notability issue? As CORPDEPTH notes, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability" - there is no single very strong source (of the ilk of an in-depth article in a major newspaper), but there are several independent, in-depth sources, especially counting these financial discussions. Dompreston (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding to my original comment (hope this is the right way to format all of this, please let me know if not). Have found this, which is an IB Times piece on the Hague Corporation, which is what QMC was previously called: http://www.ibtimes.com/hague-corp-hgueob-one-watch-231527. That's obviously significant and independent coverage, I think. I've also found that QMC are covered in a good deal of market research reports on the quantum dot industry. I couldn't find any specific word on how market research reports count as sources, but since they are surely independent & reliable, it seems that they should have some impact. Here's a representative sample: http://wintergreenresearch.com/reports/QuantumDot.htm, http://www.reportlinker.com/p01121029-summary/Global-Quantum-Dots-Market.html, http://www.reportlinker.com/p0865190-summary/Quantum-Dots-QD-Market-Global-Forecast-Analysis.html, https://portal.luxresearchinc.com/research/profile_excerpt/Quantum_Materials_Corporation, http://www.futuremarketsinc.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=221&Itemid=92. I'm not sure how much those will all meet the significance criteria, covering as they do the whole industry, but all have seen QMC as warranting mention, so should indicate some notability. I've also tracked down a few of those articles on the company's stocks: http://www.aimhighprofits.com/qtmm-quantum-materials-exits-stage-left-at-the-open-23591, http://articles.thehotpennystocks.com/quantum-materials-corp-pinkqtmms-first-appearance-on-the-promotional-scene/, http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/265221-world-market-media/78095-quantum-materials-corporation-otcbb-qtmm-9m-marketcap-26. Again, there are quite a few bits of independent and significant coverage amongst all of this. The piece in the IB Times is particularly noteworthy, as that's undeniably a reliable source. Also worth noting that the reason so many of the article's original sources are purely discussing the science is because a big part of what makes QMC notable/important is that they are the only company currently capable of manufacturing these tetrapod quantum dots in quality & quantity. I also hope to include some of this info into the quantum dots article, and a couple of other relevant ones, but there still seems to me to be sufficient notability for this company article. Dompreston (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another addition here. Have read the CORPDEPTH & Notability pages in more detail. The latter specifies that possible sources aren't limited to newspapers, magazines, etc. so it seems pretty clear that independent market research publications qualify, and the fact that 6 of these have studied QMC over the last year or so is surely a strong sign of notability. The fact that these aren't used as sources in the article itself is also no problem, as the notability rules specify that these sources need only be available - but perhaps it would be better to add them to the article? Thoughts on that very welcome. Dompreston (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. Traded over the counter and shockingly little news coverage. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:31, 9 July 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, czar · · 03:58, 16 July 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, czar · · 08:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Legends (Black Ice)[edit]

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

This is second time this article has been nominated for deletion. There has never been a reliable source found to establish its notability. Other than a mention in The Guardian blog of The Urban Legends Mixtape that incorporates some of the same tracks. Though Ice-T is very notable, Black Ice is not a notable group nor is this collaboration album notable. Wlmg (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 9 July 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, czar · · 04:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find a single legitimate review by a reliable source, which is usually the absolute minimum required for this type of article. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:25, 16 July 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, czar · · 08:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Devo 2.0. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Stoehr[edit]

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

Just because a girl was part of a notable tribute group and had a small role in a popular film does not make her notable. This is the case with Nicole Stoehr, and when searching about her on Google News, all I could find were articles about DEVO 2.0 mentioning her. EditorE (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Devo 2.0. All coverage appears to relate to the band [39][40][41]; doesn't appear to have individual notability (per WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ENT) to warrant separate article at this time. Gong show 14:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea.

EditorEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

15:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:09, 16 July 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, czar · · 08:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppa Budae[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NEO. There are several Google hits, but not enough coverage to satisfy any notability guideline. Andrew³²⁷ 21:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Neologism with almost no significant coverage in reliable sources. The article itself doesn't establish notability. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 8 July 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, czar · · 04:09, 16 July 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, czar · · 08:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a definition-only stub with no indication of notability for the underlying concept. Cnilep (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imani Hakim[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Essentially an unsourced BLP at the moment. I am unable to find substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Too soon. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC) SummerPhD (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 8 July 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, czar · · 04:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being one of the stars of a national hit TV series that lasted four seasons in itself demonstrates notability (WP:TOOSOON would have applied before the series). While there doesn't seem a specific piece that goes very in-depth on this person the sheer large mass of coverage that has been given to this person in combination passes WP:GNG ("The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources"). --Oakshade (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Being one of the stars of a national hit TV series that lasted four seasons" does not demonstrate notability. WP:ENT calls for "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". This leaves us with WP:GNG, calling for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I have not found significant coverage ("sources address the subject directly in detail"). If you have, please note where. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most people employing common sense consider one of the stars of a hit four season television show as notable despite what the letter of of WP:ENT says as oppose to WP:ENT's principle. I would consider a person who had staring roles on two 1 season shows less notable than Hakim, but that person would pass the letter of WP:ENT. Just by cherry-picking one word ("multiple") in a sub-section of a sub-guideline whilst ignoring the principles of our guidelines is a classic example of WP:GAMETYPE. --Oakshade (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most people do not like to be accused of lacking common sense or of gaming the system. Most people should feel free to disagree with me and my ideas, but I would hope they would assume I am neither an idiot nor gaming the system. If you don't like the deliberate wording of a guideline, feel free to work toward adjusting that. As for the "sub-section of a sub-guideline", it would seem WP:ENT would be her best bet. She doesn't seem to have a "large fan base or a significant 'cult' following" or "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". That leaves the multiple notable productions, which she doesn't seem to have. If you feel she meets another section of Wikipedia:Notability (people), please explain.

Long story short: no subject is notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Yeah, "substantial". I know. If we have that coverage, we have a subject, if we don't, we don't. If you cite it here, I might even agree with you. Having been unable to find it myself, I can't really have an opinion other than what I've already expressed. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, as I stated in my first comment, I consider the sheer mass of coverage as "substantial", that in combination of being one the stars of a major hit television show. --Oakshade (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see a substantial number of Google hits. In looking through the first few pages, all of them were bare mentions (actor = character), blogs and press releases. I haven't been able to find any substantial coverage and remain unaware of any. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see a substantial amount of coverage with news archives, not just "blogs" found on a raw google search that you did. I consider the amount of different sources as "substantial" per WP:GNG. You don't. Fine.--Oakshade (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is the very Google search you referred to early that my first few pages consisted of blogs/blog-like sources, bare mentions and press releases. If you've found something more, it would be helpful if you would be more specific. If not, I still don't see sources for more than the tiniest of perma-stubs. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:01, 25 July 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, czar · · 08:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The WP:GHITS or not, the fact remains that after being listed for two weeks nothing has been added to the article with regard to sourcing, and the article is, as mentioned, essentailly a UBLP at this point. The fact that no sources have been added to the article in two weeks indicates that none of the "sheer mass of coverage" rises to the level of "substanstial coverage" in reliable sources and thus this should be deleted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take away the common sense of someone co-starring on a national hit show that lasted four seasons is somehow considered "non notable." We have articles for people who have achieved far less but they are deemed "notable" simply because an article somewhere was written about them. Our guidelines are failing us in this case. --Oakshade (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The policies (not guidelines) WP:V and WP:RS, you mean? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Vorontsova (Tretyakova)[edit]

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

Almsot certainly not notable under either the GNG or WP:PROF, based on the information given. The ed. is apparently creating articles about every faculty member in the department, regardless of likely notability DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 9 July 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, czar · · 04:16, 16 July 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, czar · · 08:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said for the nom on prof. Kozyr, I wish I knew more about law or the Russian academic system to comment more authoritatively; the works list looks both impressive (in size) and run-of-the-mill (in forums published) at the same time. I would prefer not to be commenting, but since no one else is, my feeling (which is more sure than with the Olga Kozyr AfD) is, agree with nom. Delete -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Could be considered a WP:SOFTDELETE if sources are found to make this not a UBLP. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Matthews[edit]

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

Completely unsourced biography of a living person, and am unable to find any coverage. The 'biggest role so far' is a character that is not even mentioned in the article about that tv show, and the sole expansion of content in the last five years has been the addition of five sentences about new jobs she has gotten. Revent (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few passing mentions in reviews of Reefer Madness, no significant coverage. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Revent (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 16 July 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, czar · · 08:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inna Ignatieva[edit]

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

Associate professor, not at all likely to be notable based on the information given DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 9 July 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, czar · · 04:18, 16 July 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, czar · · 08:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said for the nom on prof. Kozyr, I wish I knew more about law or the Russian academic system to comment more authoritatively; the works list looks both impressive (in size) and run-of-the-mill (in forums published) at the same time. I would prefer not to be commenting, but since no one else is, my feeling is, agree with nom. Delete -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Narysheva[edit]

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

Associate professor, not at all likely to be notable, based on the information given. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 9 July 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, czar · · 04:19, 16 July 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, czar · · 08:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said for the nom on prof. Kozyr, I wish I knew more about law or the Russian academic system to comment more authoritatively; the works list looks both impressive (in size) and run-of-the-mill (in forums published) at the same time. I would prefer not to be commenting, but since no one else is, my feeling (which is more sure than with the Olga Kozyr AfD) is, agree with nom. Delete -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Haustov[edit]

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

associate professor, not at all likely to be notable based on the information given DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 9 July 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, czar · · 04:20, 16 July 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, czar · · 08:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said for the nom on prof. Kozyr, I wish I knew more about law or the Russian academic system to comment more authoritatively; the works list looks both impressive (in size) and run-of-the-mill (in forums published) at the same time. I would prefer not to be commenting, but since no one else is, my feeling (which is more sure than with the Olga Kozyr AfD) is, agree with nom. Delete -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Kozyr[edit]

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

based on the information given, does not seem to meet WP:PROF or the GNG DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 9 July 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, czar · · 04:21, 16 July 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, czar · · 08:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I knew more about law or the Russian academic system to comment more authoritatively; the works list looks both impressive (in size) and run-of-the-mill (in forums published) at the same time. I would prefer not to be commenting, but since no one else is, my feeling is, agree with nom. Delete -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Concur with User:Mscuthbert. Good Assistant Professor but she is not passing WP:PROF. Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nadejda Zaslavskaya[edit]

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

not at all likely to meet WP:PROF, Status, according to the official web p. at the university, is assistant professor--even tho the article says only a teaching assistant .no significant publications. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 9 July 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, czar · · 04:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not notable. EBY (talk) 03:08, 17 July 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, czar · · 08:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in reality this is nothing more than a CV of a junior academic and hardly makes any claims to notability. Sionk (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - of all the Moskow State Univ. dept. of law nominations that DGG made, this is the only easy one. definite NOTYET case. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no prejudice against recreation if reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deportes Rengo[edit]

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

I removed a PROD tag on this article, maybe hastily, so I am bringing the article here. This article has no sources, but is about a professional Chilean soccer team. There is also a Spanish language article on this team, which is longer, but also unsourced. My impression is that because the team plays professionally in Chile, there must be sources. But I don't have access to any. Going to let the community decide. CitizenNeutral (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Does the team play professionally? I see no reliable sources which verify that claim. Giant Snowman 08:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - plays at the third/fourth level of soccer in Chile; doesn't meet the standards, I believe. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honglong Tech Company Ltd.[edit]

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

Non-notable company, article has no references, Google hits show up little in terms of reliable sources. Seems like corporate spam. CitizenNeutral (talk) 07:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is a promo soapbox for an non-notable company. No reliable sources are found. --Cold Season (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources to establish notability. -Zanhe (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hodges machine gun[edit]

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

This article is entirely based on a patent, which is WP:PRIMARY source as far as WP:GNG is concerned. I wasn't able find any confirmation that this particular patent was actually used in some machine gun. Its appearance in a long list of machine gun patents in a US gov work (by Chinn) does not make it sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the description in the wiki article is inaccurate that the design had "no chamber". It's similar to the Agar gun or the Treeby Chain Gun in that disposable/reusable steel contains were supposed to be employed, although the feed system is different. I'm not surprised that the proposal went nowhere since by the 1920s when this was patented, much more practical systems existed.

Delete. Not notable. Just another article based on a patent. There is no information anywhere that this gun ever existed. The article is two sentences long and the information provided is questionable at best.--RAF910 (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Ansh666 19:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roller gun[edit]

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

This isn't a class[ification] of firearms that can be sourced, and the title is pretty misleading as well. I was expecting this to be abut roller-delayed blowback. However, looking at the first image, what was intended by this article is to cover the use of a [rotary] feed sprocket, which is found in a good number of machine guns. Information about the various feed systems and their classification should be included in machine gun (see Chinn, vol. 4, chapt. 5), but this article has no useful material to merge. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Speargun - all I could find on almighty Google was "roller spearguns", which this article has a hatnote for. It's more conceivable that someone could be looking for that than a WP:NEO class of machine guns. Ansh666 06:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page seems pointless. It appears that it was created for the sole purpose of linking to other pages. None of which are notable and are on the verge of being deleted themselves.--RAF910 (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the mixture given in the example section, this article also confuses a couple of issues, namely the sprocket-type feed mechanism (although the ShKAS is somewhat more elaborate than that because its "squirrel cage" also cams the rounds along the axis of the barrel) with the so-called split-breech or "nutcracker" breech design, which is perhaps even more obscure; the latter has only been used successfully in low pressure applications such as the Mk 18 Mod 0 grenade launcher cf. [42], which is unfortunately not given as an example here. (The Fokker-Leimberger, which attempted to use this principle in a high-RPM machine gun had unsolvable problems with ruptured cases. The other two examples of this kind from the article, the Johnston machine gun and the Hodges machine gun are basically just patents). I've not been able to locate a good source for the internals of the obscure Soviet Savin-Narov machine gun, but given its external aspect, it's likely it doesn't use a "nutcracker" design. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've written [43] a paragraph about this "nutcracker" breech design in our (rather undeveloped) general article about breechblocks given the unclear scope of breech mechanism. Given the obscurity of this design I'm not going to put it in a separate stub. There's too much fragmentation in this topic area anyway. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and the navbox with it, for the reasons given above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've got nothing on this one.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Park Sung-Jin[edit]

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

No appearance for national team or a fully professional league,and therefore fails WP:NFOOTBALL. L smll 05:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Through Google search I was unable to find any evidence that this player has played in an FIFA sanctioned senior international match. The article presents no evidence of this either. Thus this player fails the first test of WP:NFOOTBALL. This player was drafted by in 2013 by FC Anyang, which plays in the K League Challenge league. This league is not considered a fully professional league and thus this player fails the second test of WP:NFOOTBALL. I think it is clear this player does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL and I vote to delete. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 19:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hall & Oates in popular culture[edit]

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

Mostly unsourced references. Trivia, list of covers, name-drops, passing mentions. No other musical act has an "in popular culture" list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "No other musical act has an 'in popular culture' list." You sure about that? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically no more than fancruft.TheLongTone (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason the few sourced facts can not be placed (merged) into the main article. I sympathize as to the reason it was separated from the main article (length), but in general unsourced trivia does nothing to improve articles, or Wikipedia's reputation. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Delete" is not the right result here. If (as seems likely) it's concluded that there's not enough sourced material to justify a separate article, this should be merged back to the main article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the content is artists covering their work. We generally don't include every cover, just particularly notable ones. (For instance, if Artist X wrote a #1 song for Artist Y, then it's fine to mention it on Artist X's page. But probably not so much if Artist X only wrote one album cut for Artist Y that got only a passing mention.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about most of this content, but not all. The information about the tribute album from The Bird and the Bee is clearly relevant, and possibly the "Koot Hoomi" tribute album as well[44][45]. And the two items under the heading "On the Internet and other media" are both sourced and relevant. That's why this page should be merged back to the main article, with at least these few items salvaged and restored to the main article, rather than deleted in its entirety. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to indicate how the specific subject "Hall & Oates in popular culture" is meaningful: trivia. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 00:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as {{db-a7}} by User:Jimfbleak. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Liphadzi[edit]

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

Non notable person. Google news search returns 0 hits. Likely made up from original research. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: real person per Google Scholar, but no more notable than any other South African with a Ph.D. Creator has one edit. —Geoff Capp (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article says where he was born, where he studied and where he works. That's all, just a standard CV. There's no claim of notability, no suggestion that he meets WP:GNG. Google brings nothing significant. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is likely that the "WRC" in the article is the "Water Research Commission", and in that context I did find one article quoting the subject (South African "Mercury", 2009 – via HighBeam Research (subscription required) ). But that is effectively a passing quotation which just establishes the subject as a Senior Researcher; insufficient to establish attained biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note also that the article text wavers between the 3rd and 1st person pronoun. I have flagged it as an autobiography. AllyD (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, nonnotable organized event. Also per WP:MADEUP; author's argument against deletion was " I believe that the creation of new games of the nature is paramount to the enjoyment of people everywhere." NawlinWiki (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom ball[edit]

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

Google results in no hits in relation to a "sport". Rules seem to be original research. The exceptions look as though some friends created this sport and each have added their own rules. Probably a hoax. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Ansh666 05:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per WP:MADEUP. I so wish there were a speedy criterion for this sort of thing... Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO, it could possibly fall under the blatant hoax category, but if it were up to me, I'd do the safe thing and either WP:PROD it or bring it here, as Dusti did. Ansh666 06:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete and salt - has already been deleted from the looks of it, and then recreated. Stalwart111 08:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as something made up in one day. And SALT, I have a recollection of this as a recreation... Carrite (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G3 and salt, looks pretty blatant to me. I tagged it for CSD. Salt to prevent recreation. This was already deleted once before. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC) 16:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This was speedied before by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs). See log. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duck! The Carbine High Massacre[edit]

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

Not enough substantial reliable sources cover this film - fleeting mentions in books and little news coverage means this fails WP:NFILM Beerest355 Talk 02:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, it's worth pointing out here that the relevant guideline reads "'Significant coverage' 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". There is no notability guideline requiring "substantial" coverage... which is not the same thing... and not a Wikipedia requirement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the article needing work (an addressable issue), this film meets WP:NF and WP:GNG. A little looking shows it reviewed in Film Threat [46] and production spoken of in more than a trivial fashion in such as The Gazette [47] and MinnPost [48] The New York Times [49] (via AllRovi) B-Independent review [50] and others.[51] It's not a big budget blockbuster like Star Wars, but is is notable enough to allow this to remain and be improved through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Minnesota Post is small, unsubstantial coverage, the AllRovi one doesn't work as it was written as a summary, B-Independent is not a reliable source, and that books is minimal coverage at best (a few sentences in a section about an entirely different movie just isn't enough). Beerest355 Talk 22:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but MinnPost, The Gazette and Film threat all give information about the film that is direct and in detail and not trivial in nature. WP:SIGCOV is met, as is WP:NF. The other independent sources you dismiss (except perhaps the B-Independent) can be used to verify various portions of the article. And while the book source discusses this film in relationship to the the film's inspiration... the Columbine High School shooting... it also deals with the topic of THIS film in a more-than-tivial manner... and lest it be forgotten, an article topic need not be the sole topic discussed within a source. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Books - Peep Shows: Cult Film and the Cine-Erotic and From the Arthouse to the Grindhouse. SL93 (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the Grindhouse book was mentioned, but I disagree about it not being significant. SL93 (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another article about the legal case involving the film - [52]. SL93 (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Headpress: The Journal of Sex, Religion, Death: Bad Birds. For this book, a page long review for the film can be found on page 45. SL93 (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- [53] at United Press International. SL93 (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I invite editors to take a look at the original unsourced version as was first nominated for deletion, then look at and judge the improvements made to determine for themselves whether or not WP:NF is met and whether or not the project is now better served. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suggest that the nominator withdraw this AfD. The film is clearly notable and is now at DYK - Template:Did you know nominations/Duck! The Carbine High Massacre. SL93 (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly meets the HEY standard now, good job both editors (though I must say I do disagree with the film's premise itself) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NEBAS Baseball League[edit]

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

A non-notable regional sports league. There are some links to articles, all of which are non-significant local sports coverage. Alansohn (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really don't think this amateur league has much more than very few scant local sources about a league title, so for now it looks like it doesn't pass the notability guidelines. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 20:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, Wikipedia:Notability (high schools), WP:CCC, and WP:SNOW. There are now at least two reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amherst Central High School[edit]

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

This article reads like an advertisement of a non-notable school. The only newspaper sources I could find about this school were from the Amherst Bee, which is reliable but not significant enough for a Wikipedia entry. There were only so rare things I could find that indicate a few famous people went to this school. Fails WP:SCL Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 02:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. This is a sizeable public high school and per longstanding consensus we keep such articles, see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Plenty of potential sources at GNews[54] and probably GBooks [55] as well.

--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Sadly another WP:LOTSOFSOURCES argument, and also arguing that because the school is so big it has to be shared on Wikipedia. Articles on Wikipedia should not only have coverage about locally where it is, but also from newspapers and magazines out of Amherst, NY. Could you at least find what sources out of that search we could use to establish the notability of this school in the article? Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 15:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep of course per the long established precedent documented at WP:OUTCOMES#SCHOOLS. Furthermore, citing a failed proposal as a guidelines is little more than a joke and wastes the commnuity's time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even the cited proposal recognizes that senior high schools are presumed notable, and covers only articles on non-senior schools and those with little content and whose references do not support notability. This article is relatively well developed and there are many sources in The Buffalo News, a sizeable regional newspaper, of which I have added one on Newsweek ranking the school among the top 100 academically in the US; I also added a book reference on the opening of the school. The article thus establishes that the school is in fact notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have removed the ad content. This looks a significant institution which has produced many notable graduates. Still has flaws, but continuing developing the article and fixing those flawes seems by far the best approach. The Whispering Wind (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, articles about verified secondary schools are typically retained in the encyclopedia. Promotional tone can be corrected by copy editing the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as usual for secondary schools for reasons reiterated too many times to repeat here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff West services[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donington Park services

Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination)

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

Declined speedy. It appears to be that many similar areas are notable. Therefore, sent to AfD. I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can see no justification to keep this article about a privately owned refreshment and refuelling zone. There's no evidence of any reliable secondary coverage, so it clearly fails WP:NCORP. We wouldn't keep a similar article about a shopping mall or a petrol/gas station, so what makes motorway service areas so special?! Sionk (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User:Sionk was the editor who tagged the article for A7 speedy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNothing at all notable about the place.TheLongTone (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, I see nothing notable in this article or the rest of the service station articles. You would not find them in an encyclopedia. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a services section of M4 motorway. Dough 48 72 01:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ROADOUTCOMES - "In the UK, motorway service areas are not considered to be equal to rest areas in the rest of the world and are generally kept as notable." (related AfD) and, sure enough, the place appears to be a minor local landmark for Cardiff. I've expanded the article and explained how it's mildly notable as an association with Cardiff City FC and for various fuel protests, which IMHO makes it borderline notable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely unexplained, why all motorway service areas are presumed notable. I can understand why a mass deletion of 50 areas en masse would have been problematic, but generally these are private businesses, with no timetables or public services etc., hardly comparable to a bus or train station. Sionk (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's another, slightly more recent AfD here which goes over similar ground, but in more depth. I think significant coverage might be up for debate, but there can be in no doubt now the services has coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - It presents a difficult situation for everyone when so many articles are nominated in one go. Cardiff West services was an unimpressive stub when I nominated it. You've added some substance. I'll let the people decide whether it is sufficiently improved to remain here. Sionk (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - I believe Ritchie's additions to the article make it worthy of retention through squeaking past GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We established long ago that motorway service stations in the UK are notable. They are legally established entities, although operated by private businesses, with certain legal requirements such as 24-hour opening and no charging for parking or use of toilet facilities. They are not just rest stops. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a UK motorway service station is not like a truck stop or rest area in most of the rest of the world, these are major multi-million pound installations each of which requires an Act of Parliament to establish. Canterbury Tail talk 16:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - See the previous AfD - it should be noted that this is actually a second nomination for this article and was previously kept, the discussion can be found here (if someone can template this into the article it would have been appreciated. I can't seem to find the template, seems it's only easily accessible when you create the article that I can find.) Canterbury Tail talk 01:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. And considering that, a serving of seafood might be in order for the chap who placed the speedy tag. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never actually realised until I looked at the talk page that this is actually the third nomination. Oops. Canterbury Tail talk 11:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hardly, Bushranger, no need to get personal. Insignificant stub, little way of knowing there had been a previous mass nomination that had resulted in a generic 'keep'. It's a strange decision on the surface of things and open to question. Sionk (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - In all fairness to Sionk it did look like an unassuming stub, with no real reason to go checking the talk page for other AfDs. Honestly if I'd come across it and hadn't been involved before and was from outside the UK I would probably have had a similar reaction. Canterbury Tail talk 12:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Voice (Australia series 2). postdlf (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie sannia[edit]

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

Declined speedy deletion. Brought to AfD for discussion. I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Voice (Australia series 2) for now. Most of the refs are either iTunes or Wikipedia itself. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Voice (Australia series 2). Independent sources do exist: [56], [57], but I don't think it is enough to compile and maintain a stand alone article. I agree with User:Erpert, redirect is the best option for now. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Voice (Australia series 2) per above. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 13:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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