Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 June	26 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 19:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Electricity sector in South Africa[edit]

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

This is a very short article with no context to identify the importance of the article. "Electricty sector in <location>" doesn't exactly justify having an article. Maybe moving it to South Africa would be best. Dusti^*poke* 22:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Nomination Withdrawn Dusti^*poke* 19:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move per nom. Dusti^*poke* 23:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't !vote for your own proposals as your support for them is understood. Warden (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have numerous articles of this sort for other countries such as electricity in Mexico. A power grid is a significant piece of infrastructure for a country and so there's plenty to write about. Warden (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a notable topic, and references should be easy to find. There already is an article on Eskom, the main electricity supplier in South Africa, but it should be possible to add information about other, smaller suppliers. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's entirely bare, but it's still a notable topic. It just needs great expansion, not deletion. Ducknish (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with Merging it into South Africa - but on it's own, you're right - it's entirely bare. Dusti^*poke* 19:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging into South Africa would be silly. It wouldn't allow for any of the required expansion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Glitterball[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG SarahStierch (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Minor children's film sure, but meets WP:NF in having screened in festivals and/or retrospectives more than five years after original release. Might be stubby, but that's okay. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The book A Dictionary of Film Studies said that the film is one of Children's Film Foundation's most successful features. The company is notable enough to have their films in the British Film Institute. It is a short review, but Time Out still reviewed a rare 1977 children's film - [1]. I only mentioned those sources just in case someone wants to improve the article, but the film being in a major film festival 33 years after its original release makes it pass WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that Schmidt and Tokyogirl added two of those sources already. Awesome. SL93 (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous arguments. Clearly passes notability standards. Andrew³²⁷ 12:44, 2 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 close as there is already a current AfD. Non-admin closure. Beerest355 Talk 22:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Cianciulli[edit]

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

Highly promotional, mainly based on related sources The Banner talk 21:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request procedural speedy close, as first AfD is still running (although I could not find it at first) The Banner talk 21: 48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You know you can just close it yourself.... Beerest355 Talk 22:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

List of online data sources[edit]

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

This is way too broad of a list definition to be useful. Potentially millions of entries. ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a web directory. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - per WP:NOTLINK and WP:NOTDIR. This is just a collection of external links that have online data on them. The lead is instructions for how you should post more external links on. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - depending on a persons interpretation of the word Data, just about any website could qualify. WP:Linkfarm 1 would apply i believe. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a directory. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Barely anything there and no real need for a list article. Ducknish (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, directory that will always be laughably incomplete. Hairhorn (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sapucaí-Mirim. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sapucaí Mirim[edit]

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

This article is exactly one sentence long. One other article links to this one in a way that if this article were AfD'd, no change in meaning or content would occur. Also, the last addition of substantial content to this article occurred in April 2007. APerson241 (talk!) 19:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect - I can't tell for sure, but this may be the exact same thing as Sapucaí-Mirim, in which case redirecting there would be sensible. Otherwise, it's non-notable and non-important, and so should be deleted. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The two articles are the same thing. Sapucaí Mirim should be a redirect. APerson241 (talk!) 21:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect, obviously. Nothing in the nomination remotely resembles a valid reason for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 01:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camara Sanosar[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Senegal-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - apparently played in the CAF Confederation Cup, further research is needed on notability. Giant Snowman 10:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, the reference indicates that he played one game in the CAF Confederation Cup. Does this meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG? Not really. I to think we need some more info. Im not sure how reliable that source is either.Simione001 (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the footballer in question has only played for Libyan and Senegal clubs, and has never been contracted to a club in a fully pro league, and thus he fails WP:NFOOTY. Playing in the CAF Confederation Cup confers no notability. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:49, 21 June 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yep, appears to fail WP:GNG, which is more important then him (maybe) passing WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since being relisted twice, no additional users have commented. Bold close. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 19:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 PDC Pro Tour[edit]

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

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

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

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

Does not appear to pass the requirements laid down in WP:SPORTCRIT. Coverage is either from Professional Darts Corporation (PDC.tv), Scandanavian Darts Corporation (SDC), or closely associated darts sources. Does not establish the coverage outside of the sport, does not establish the enduring notability (there was a tour last year, and probably will be a tour next year), and does not transcend the routine coverage of the individual events Hasteur (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a darts tour featuring all of the best players in the world. It can be said of any sport that there is a tour this year and will be one next year.... I fail to see the difference between this page and the one for golf. That page certainly does not transcend the coverage of the individual events. Similar pages also exist for snooker events as seen here. The references for both the golf page and the snooker page come from primary sources or sources closely associated with the sport so if this page is to be deleted then why are they not? Spc 21 (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Evaluate this AfD on its own merits. The golf tour has coverage outside of the specialized field. The snooker may or may not have coverage outside its field, but the majority of coverage in terms of referencs is from the Professional Darts Corporation which suggests that there is little notability outside the world of professional darts competition. Hasteur (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having had a quick look for references I have added over 20 secondary sources on the page which seems to suggest there is coverage outside of the PDC website and the notability you have questioned.... Might I suggest next time you use talk pages instead of nominating articles for deletion? Spc 21 (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd say keep now. -Koppapa (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Should never have been up in the first place. Spc 21 (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was a reasonable question as to its independent notability at the time of nomination. That I had to give the article a kick to have the notability demonstrated only shows that the article's primary author, Spc 21, knows how to properly demonstrate independent notability and referencing but instead was more interested in being lazy and throwing accusations of bad faith. Every article that doesn't demonstrate meeting the criteria can have the question called. Hasteur (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification - you are voting to keep the article now? Have fun nominating other good articles in the future.... What a worthwhile life you lead my friend. Keep it up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spc 21 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spc 21, please remember to treat others with civility. czar · · 05:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The PDC.tv website is merely used as the official reference for the results of various events in a similar sense as the FIFA website might be used as a reference for the results of World Cup qualification matches, or the UEFA website for European Cup matches. As the sport's governing body, they (the PDC) are the official scorekeeper. This does not mean there aren't other sources out there, there are, but merely that the PDC website is cited as the most official one (or rather the official one, it could be argued). After the conclusion of tournaments there is often mention of the results and other noteworthy developments (unexpected wins or losses, farings of popular players) in various official newspapers, such as The Guardian (UK), Der Spiegel (Germany) and de Volkskrant (Netherlands). SkySports does a lot of coverage for English speaking countries, Sport1.de does coverage for Germany, these both being sports news organizations. Finally, there are a number of dedicated darts news websites that report on ProTour events (for example, in English: dartsmad.com, a180darts.co.uk; in Dutch: dartinfo.nl, dartfreakz.nl; there are many more, but I thought I'd just mention these few to give a general impression). So in summation, there is coverage from the sport's governing body (PDC), newspapers, dedicated sports news organizations and dedicted darts news organizations. It should be noted there is more coverage from countries where darts is popular - notably the UK, Netherlands and Germany (but also Belgium, Austria, Australia) - then from countries where it is not - the USA. However, I would argue there is little value in citing a Dutch or German language source for the English version of wikipedia. I would also argue that this does not detract from notability, there is little reporting on baseball or American football outside of the USA (or cricket outside of the countries the Commonwealth), but this does not mean it is not notable to those that do take an interest in it. Here is an article from a Belgian newspaper (HLN.be) about Playerschampionship 2, a Player's Championship event. This is just an ordinary newspaper that has nothing to do with darts or the PDC. Here is an article from Sport1.de about the European Darts Open, a European Tour event. Sport1.de is just a general German sports news organization that has nothing in particular to do with darts. These were found using Google->News and entering the name of the tournament in addition to the winner of the tournament. Or by using the name of the place the tournament was held (e.g. Wigan, Düsseldorf) in combination with its winner. Many more sources like this can be found, so I would like invite anyone to see how many results are obtained by going to Google and entering a tournament's name. Finally, the WP:SPORTCRIT referenced by the OP states: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she...". It is about the notability of sportspersons, not of the sport itself, or in this case, a series of sporting events. This is also evidenced further on, when it is stated: "The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect ... that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards ... if they have ... participated in a major international ... competition at the highest level". The page in question is precisely about such a series of international competitions, not about the sportspersons that have participated in them. Would it be desirable that when sportspersons that have participated in international competitions are notable, the very competitions that they have parcipated in are themselves not notable? Furthermore, the articles on the ProTour of 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 are not nominated for deletion. It would be very odd indeed to delete the article on the ProTour of 2013 and not those on the ProTour of 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. Will there be a discussion again on the article on the ProTour of 2014? The articles on the ProTour of 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 should therefore be nominated for deletion as well. For the reasons I have outlined above I feel notability can be established and the article should be kept, but also that a discussion should be held on whether, in citing references for the results of ProTour event, it is more desirable to use sources from the PDC (as the sport's official governing body) or newspaper articles. ~~dnacrystal (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)~~ dnacrystal (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC) — 145.97.195.247 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Note: Dnacrystal is not a registered user and this comment was left by 145.97.195.247. czar · · 05:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note2: I have registered an account and signed the comment to clear up any ambiguity. dnacrystal (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally someone with a bit of sense.Spc 21 (talk) 01:23, 19 June 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting admin comment - This looks like a straight forward keep, however, I'm not convinced that all the accounts above are different users. I'm relisting this discussion so we can have wider input from more experienced users. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Venkata thanda[edit]

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

Article has not sources or references. Article has no context. What is a Thanda? Unable to determine. It is duplicating the information found in Anepuram scope_creep 19:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (banter) @ 20:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability and no refs. Jus da fax 06:44, 17 June 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NOTABILITY and has no references whatsoever. Appears to have been created due to religious agitations taking place in the area (from the history), but again no references. APerson241 (talk!) 19:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with the other article - lack of notability. I'm not sure about the legal recognition of such places by WP:NGEO, but I don't think such a small subdivision would be. Ansh666 02:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Ducknish (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus Intellectual Capital Solutions[edit]

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

This article does not meet our strict general notability guideline. (Dear non-Wikipedians: Please see WP:42 for a summary of the guideline.)

Zero Google News Archive hits. I also looked through the first couple of pages of Google search results, but I couldn't find any reliable sources.

The Columbia ref is a mere directory listing.
The company's cited entry on the BusinessWeek Company Insight Center website is also just a glorified directory listing.

—Unforgettableid (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - support nom. wholeheartedly. Dreck; fails WP:CORPDEPTH; should have been PRODed if not for anon IP socks. — Brianhe (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only two references; no evidence of WP:NOTABILITY at all. APerson241 (talk!) 19:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no reliable coverage. SL93 (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not currently notable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Port Moresby International High School[edit]

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

Delete, non sourced school, does not explain notability and the only thing claimed that is that it exists. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Secondary school. Certainly exists. We invariably keep articles on secondary schools for reason endlessly regurgitated on AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Papua New Guinea-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Secondary school, per longstanding precedent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It also falls under WP:ORGSIG which expressly states " No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is" This is even noted on WP:SCHOOL by way of a link to the notability guidelines. As such I will continue to bring these to AFD. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then you will continue to waste our time and yours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Technically could be speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7 but due the exception was made this does not apply. However the article STILL has to meet WP:ORG and WP:GNG which this one clearly does not! PantherLeapord (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a stub, but as a well established mainstream independent school, proven to exist, and providing education to grade 12 and internationally recognised exams, it clearly meets with the long standing precedent to keep such schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the locality article - per WP:WPSCH/AG. PantherLeapord (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And which part of the school article guidelines would you be referring to? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to actually read the article he's given, it's right at the top, it states "Non-notable school articles are generally redirected to the locality article or, for US schools, the school district article if available." That sounds way more condescending then it's meant but it illustrates the notability fact either way. For a school to e notable it has to pass WP:ORG guidelines and show some sort of notability. I think the problem here is that you are trying to use that school articles are usually kept to let's keep all school articles. The fact remaining ua that not all secondary schools deserve or merit articles. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have I got news for you: I wrote a large part of it. You might also like to read the 1,000s of Wikipedia school articles too, especially the one that is the subject of this AfD. And perhaps also this. Please remember that if you want to change Wikipedia practice, AfD is not the place to do it.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SO you wrote a large part of it yet you had to ask...interesting. And why have a request for comment when it is implicitly covered under WP:ORG and the WP:GNG? I'm happy to keep wasting the time of anyone who wants to make blanket notability statements. It's contrary to WP:GNG and therefore I am only asking it to be followed. You are more then welcome to try and get the blanket exemption you seem to want through a RFC but I firmly believe that policy thus far is in my favor. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for schools has a good jump start with the fact that they are exempt from deletion under WP:A7 - and that is a policy. The 'blanket exemption' you are probably referring to has been the subject of many discussions and RfC, and not one of them resulted in a change to the current accepted procedures. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This school is over 50 years old and has played a major role in the expatriate community of Papua New Guinea over that time as well as educating some prominent Papua New Guineans. I spent several years in Port Moresby and I recall many mentions of this school in the local press. I do not have time to chase them up, but I suggest that others look for them before assuming that this school can not meet the notability guidelines. If the school was in the US, UK or Australia, the article would be much more detailed with list of notable former pupils and so on. We do not have many editors in PNG so that country does not get the attention that more developed countries get. We need to avoid that bias. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we are occasionally sympathetic towards eligible articles concerning subjects in countries where media is not as well developed as in Western countries. That said however, according to the well established precedent already mentioned, this school clearly meets requirements. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bduke and Kudpung - secondary schools are inherently notable if they can be proved to exist, which nom states to be true. (Maybe there should be a WP:WASTEOFTIME...) Ansh666 02:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent on English Wikipedia regarding secondary schools: WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but where the keep votes acknowledge the need for changes. Two sections of the article are straight copies of the movement's website [2], which is copyrighted material, and those parts will be taken away. The nomination mentioned lack of sourcing, but that issue has been addressed by Borock. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Wine[edit]

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

No independent sources for any of the information, written like an advert. SheffGruff (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 7 June 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, BusterD (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Badly written article, as noted by nom. But this source indicates that the organization, movement, or whatever is notable. Borock (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- The organisation runs a high profile Carismatic Christian conference. The article may well need improvement, but that is no reason fopr deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete or Incubate (Wikipedia:ATD-I) - Notability requirement per Wikipedia:NONPROFIT requires third party and reliable sources which have not been found to support almost all of the content. Article also falls foul of Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING as is not objective/unbiased and not verifiable with independent sources. As regards the Christian Today article - as per Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH - is the CT article suitably independent and if so is the audience of the source suitably notable? Even if both of these conditions are met the source doesn't cover most of the article's content. I've tried searching google for news articles related to "New Wine" with Shepton Mallet and the Royal Bath showground among other related search terms and nothing relevant turns up except the results from New Wine's own website, Wikipedia:DEL-REASON point 7 would seem to be met IMO. SheffGruff (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Long article with only 5 references, doesn't seem notable. APerson241 (talk!) 19:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm sure there are several notable organisations and/or movements with "New Wine" in their title, but I'm not sure which of them this article is about. -- 202.124.72.14 (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian da Silva Fiel[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. He never played at the fully pro level in Brazil, and is yet to make his debut in Cyprus meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT. The coverage he's received are the usual trivial match reports, transfer announcements, and player profiles, which does not amount to significant coverage. The article therefore fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now.Although this player has loaned to APOEL,a club which plays in a fully professional league,he hasn't made any appearance for that club.However,once he makes an appearance,this player will meet criteria 2 of WP:NFOOTBALL,and the article can be recreated then.L smll 02:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Santa Barbara, California#Private schools. Done by means of the standard procedure for non-notable schools that do not teach secondary education. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crane Country Day School[edit]

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

As this is not a high school, and no widespread coverage of the school exists to show notability independent of its existence as a school, this article should be deleted per WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG and historic AfD's of similar institutions. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Santa Barbara, California#Private schools. Fails WP:GNG; only passing mentions were found in a search of Google News Archive. As a K-8 school it does not have automatic notability, but it can be redirected to the article about the appropriate locality. --MelanieN (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Santa Barbara, California#Private schools as per standard procedure documented at WP:OUTCOMES#SHOOLS for nn schools (notability is not inherited from its notable alumni). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decius (Religion)[edit]

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

I think this might be a WP:HOAX. Müdigkeit (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. If it was even slightly real we'd have reliable sources that discuss it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's probably a WP:HOAX because there are no references at all. APerson241 (talk!) 19:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Likely hoax, as there is no information about it anywhere. According to the article, this is because it is so secret, but I'm pretty sure that we still knew that Scientology existed before Robert Kaufman wrote a book about it. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that the banner templates take up more space than the actual content should say something about the perceived accuracy of this article. Ducknish (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, at best unverifiable. Even the checkable facts are wrong: Decius did not die "in Italy" but at the Battle of Abritus in the province of Moesia in what is now Bulgaria. JohnCD (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs) per CSD G11. (non-admin closure)—Mike moral ♪♫ 23:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Best Exhaust[edit]

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

Article is written like an advertisement and notability is disputed Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of people executed for homosexuality[edit]

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

There are only 7 names listed which are also listen on List of people who were executed#Homosexuality Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of people who were executed#Homosexuality. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

!Voting on your own proposal is redundant. Warden (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In my estimation, this is an encyclopedic topic. Much work to be done, but that's neither here nor there. Clear inclusion criteria, limited in scope. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a reasonable split and even if it weren't, the remedy would be merging back into the larger list, not deletion. Warden (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needed not AFD. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least as encyclopedic a topic as List of people executed by the Tudors, if only in my opinion. Eventually, as more people are added to the list, the section on List of people who were executed will be just a brief description and maybe one or two of the most notable, and this will be the main go-to for people wanting a more comprehensive list. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove list from List of people who were executed, preserving wikilink. List of people who were executed is too general to keep as a single list, so breaking it up makes sense. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable topic. SL93 (talk) 05:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and encyclopedic and educational. — Cirt (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eminently expandable (I'm about to add a name), so the nominator's rationale that it can be kept in another article fails. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Union Hill Middle School[edit]

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

US middle schools do not generally have articles on Wikipedia unless there is something notable about them independent of their existence as a school. Although this article is well written and referenced, the only assertion of independent notability is some history of being an exceptional high school, which could and should be covered in the article on the high school. Re-purposing buildings is common practice for school districts, and the history should follow the school, not the building, unless the building itself is historic. Note that the standard procedure of merging the article to the school district was attempted, and would be fine with the nominator, but another editor objected. Gtwfan52 (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Union City School District (New Jersey) per longstanding precedent on middle school articles. If for some reasn that can't be done, then delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Union Hill was a high school from its construction in the early 20th century, and has only been a middle school since 2009, so it should not be considered in the same way as other middle schools. It meets general notability criteria by virtue of being covered significantly in secondary sources. Of the 14 citations currently in the article, 13 are secondary sources that include two articles in The New York Times, as well as articles in New Jersey Monthly, The Hudson Reporter, NJ.com/The Jersey Journal, etc. It is noteworthy for being the alma mater of notables such as actors Bobby Cannavale and Allison Strong, politicians Rudy Garcia and Bob Menendez, athlete Nikos Galis and Nobel Prize-winning physicist Frederick Reines, the co-discoverer of the neutrino, and possibly the only scientist in history so intimately associated with the discovery of an elementary particle and its properties. The high school where Reines and these other people went to isn't notable? Of course it is. Nightscream (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources -- more than for the overwhelming majority of high schools -- to demonstrate that it meets the Wikipedia standard of notability. Given that the high school was merged into another entity, there is far more convincing logic to keep the history in this article. Alansohn (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Comment Now I understand the problem. Somehow or other, Union Hill High School has gotten redirected to Union Hill Middle School. That is what isn't right here. I would be fine with reducing the content about the middle school in this article to the fact that it is now a middle school and page-moving it to Union Hill High School. That would be much more in line with what the school article guidelines call for. That would conform this article to the majority of historic high schools' articles. Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, it's the same building. It's not like it doesn't exist any more. Yeah, technically the entity that building housed is different from the one it houses now, but does that hair really need to be split? If Union High High School was notable, then shouldn't its notability extend to whatever it is now, since they have a shared history? Just because middle schools generally aren't notable doesn't mean that this one can't be an exception. Nightscream (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would have no objection to renaming the Union Hill Middle School article to Union Hill High School, leaving in all of the details regarding the former high school, discussing the merger and the reuse of the old high school building as a middle school. Alansohn (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal Since no-one wanted this outright deleted, not even me, I would propose deleting the current redirect page at Union Hill High School, page moving Union Hill Middle School there and doing a rewrite as needed, and creating a new Union Hill Middle School as a redirect to the school district. Anyone object to that? If the Admin involved in this discussion would consider doing what an admin must to make that happen...we could maybe close this with everyone happy? Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate your suggestions, Gtwfan, but I do not favor removing material about its current status as a middle school (such as the Administration section), nor changing the article title to one that refers to a now-nonexistent entity. I went into a bit of detail on my reasons for this in my most recent message on Gtwfan's page, which I made a minute or two ago. Nightscream (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was once a high school so it does not loose that notability in spite of the current page name (there is a cat for defunct schools), and the well sourced article provides valuable, relevant background to whatever it has since become. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is a clear keep with edits due on the article. That all can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 19:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kendo Nagasaki[edit]

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

This piece of synthesis fabricates some sort of overall narrative for a wrestling character which isn't present in any reliable sources. Various different wrestlers adopting the same or similar names does not automatically make said name a gimmick. Dealt with fully in the various articles for the wrestlers in question, along with a note in Peter Thornley detailing the various other wrestlers inspired by his persona. All that is required is for a hatnote on Thornley's article, or at the very most a dab page (though with only two articles with strong claims to be the primary topic, that shouldn't be required). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -

(1) This is how shared/proliferated character/gimmick names are commonly dealt with on wrestling pages - examples: The Hollywood Blondes, Tiger Mask (professional wrestling), Black Tiger (professional wrestling), Moondogs, The Executioners (professional wrestling), Doink the Clown, Lord Humongous.

(2) There is no simple case for redirection to Peter Thornley - most American and Japanese wrestling fans are more familiar with the character portrayed by Kazuo Sakurada. Thumperward/Cunningham assumes a universal predominance of Thornley which simply isn't true.

(3)There were more shared aspects of Thornley and Sakurada's "Kendo Nagasaki" than just the name - consider also the wearing of a Kendo Men, the carrying of a weapon (sword/Kendo stick), general samurai image. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep possibly with edits to first paragraph. I reckon if this page gets made into a redirect there will be the most godawful revert wars between British and American fans! Both convinced that "their" Kendo Nagasaki is the "real" one. Also I can't really see how the article "fabricates some sort of overall narrative". Are you saying that first line implies some sort of kayfabe storyline link between Thornley and Sakurada? If so perhaps you could suggest a different wording which does not give that impression. 95.144.99.26 (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC) — 95.144.99.26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Just because a wrestling character is played by multiple people doesn't mean it doesn't deserve its own article (IP's top comment has a number of good examples). The article is largely unsourced but here are some sources that do prove Thornley wasn't the only Kendo Nagasaki as well as the similar SMW character.[3][4][5][6][7]LM2000 (talk) 23:42, 16 June 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 · · 15:20, 18 June 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 · · 15:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (That's two relists now, IMHO I don't think trying again is going to do any good.) 62.190.154.115 (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs generally aren't relisted more than twice. czar · · 19:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the verdict on this one? It was due yesterday (2 July) 62.190.148.115 (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though possibly gut and turn into a dab page pointing to the wrestlers who have wrestled under the name or persona. Before we can have an article treating these individual portrayals as linked or part of the same gimmick, we need some solid sourcing indicating that they are indeed related. This should be hashed out at the talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:10, 3 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 since the nature of the sources here has been deemed insufficient for meeting WP:ENT guidelines. A request for userfy is granted, and the page will be moved to User:Consiliul/Dana Rogoz. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Rogoz[edit]

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

The subject lacks independent, in-depth coverage in reliable sources. I'll ignore the YouTube links, but let's look at what else we have.

A self-submitted biography (quite close in phrasing to the current text, I might add) hosted by a kind of substandard NNDB.

An article in a tabloid informing us that the subject loves to wear white.

A search of stories that contain the subject's name and that have appeared on the site of some soap opera TV station. To get a sense of the level of coverage, I'll translate a sampling of titles. "Dana Rogoz ate snake, kangaroo, crocodiles and ants in Cambodia"; "Dana Rogoz suggests you wear an original autumn outfit"; "Adela Popescu and Dana Rogoz, in extremely sexy poses"; "Dana Rogoz spent a night in the desert, under the open sky, in India"; "Dana Rogoz is preparing a French menu for Christmas". I think you get the idea.

About the above, I will note that Rogoz is an employee of Pro TV, the parent company of Acasă TV.

I will also note that in the past month, I have sent two articles about Romanian celebrities by User:Consiliul, who is fairly new, through successful AfDs. (Cristian Sabbagh and Jorge.) This would be the third. I hope this cycle doesn't continue indefinitely, and that someone drums some sense into him. (I suppose the formal name for that is adoption.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i'm Consiliul!

Dear Biruitorul, excuse me for my contributions, i didn't know how it's work on Wikipedia. I try to ask about uploading image on Wikipedia, but nobody want to help me. It's not unffair to delete all my posts, because i am begginer, and i know a think in this world, people help eachother. If you want, you can edit this posts of mine- Luminița Gheorghiu, Dana Rogoz, Jorge, Aurelian Temișan, Christian Sabbagh. Please help me, these are our celebrities, and i want to make them known all over the world.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consiliul (talk • contribs) 15:28, 11 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per meeting WP:GNG, even if discoverable sources are in Romainian. In looking at the just the first page of Google News we have significant coverage in Evenimentul Zilei (2008) Realitatea (2012) Gazeta de Sud (2006) Evenimentul Zilei (2008) Gândul (2008) Egirl (2009) Evenimentul Zilei (2011) Evenimentul Zilei (2008) Realitatea (2012) and Showbiz (2011) and there are many more pages. Yes, the article's current state is rough, but notability is dependent upon coverage and not upon source usage, and addressable issues such as needing more use of found sourcing is a fixable issue not requiring deletion when we have someone arguable as notable to Romania. That makes this a "keep and fix". And to User:Consiliul: we were ALL new here once upon a time. Ask for assistance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Romania and someone will surely come forward to help in translation of the many available sources. Thanks for bringing Dana Rogoz to Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you even look at the level of coverage you brought in? Dana Rogoz spends her vacation in Turkey! Dana Rogoz cooks turkey for Christmas! Pictures of Dana Rogoz! Cabral will marry Dana Rogoz... live on TV! Dana Rogoz - adventures in Bulgaria! Dana Rogoz and her sport-themed 25th birthday party!
- This is great fodder for tabloids, but in terms of WP:ENT, falls way short. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, but those few listed in my response were from only the very first of dozens of pages of Google News links. Bing News gives better translations. The information provided by the sources, even if not major or earth-shaking news by western standards, is more than a trivial list mention... even if the event being covered is minor... and will allow the article to be expanded and sourced accordingly. Dana Rogoz is not some commonplace janitor or waitress. She being so often reported on over many years in Romanian news sources, even if some of the coverage is for less-then-earth-shaking life events, meets WP:GNG. We would only look to the SNGs such as WP:ENT only if the GNG were failed.... and seeing years-long cumulative coverage I do not see that primary notability guideline as failed. Not being expert in Romanian cinema or television, I am not so prepared as you to dismiss Romanian interest in a Romanian film or television personage. Notable, even if "only" to Romania, is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you look a little more closely at the "dozens" of hits given by Google News, you'll see the majority come from Click! and Libertatea, which are tabloids, and which we really should not be citing.
    - The point is not that an event has to be "earth-shaking" to merit our attention; but it should at least be quotable. And you're never going to find a legitimate way to mention in a proper article the fact that this individual cooks turkey for Christmas or had a sport-themed 25th birthday party. None of what you brought up can "expand" the article in a meaningful way.
    - Insofar as this individual is known (and remember, fame ≠ notability), it's for her role in the TV series La bloc. But the fact is that that show is itself barely covered in the press, despite running for thirteen seasons. That says something.
    - No one is claiming Rogoz is the equivalent of a janitor or waitress; merely that she's a third-rate celebrity with no place in an encyclopedia. And I'm sorry, but your insinuations about what I "dismiss" are absurd. Insofar as serious (i.e., non-tabloid) Romanian media has paid attention to her, it's been in cursory fashion. By all means let's have expanded coverage of Romanian actresses worthy of our time - Maia Morgenstern, Irina Petrescu, Anamaria Marinca, Maria Popistașu, Dorotheea Petre - and leave the tabloid grist aside. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Something being authored in a Broadsheet or Tabloid-style short-form newspaper is not necessarily bad, and should not be automatically dismissed as if it was all sensationalist or inflammatory "Tabloid journalism". While certainly some tabloids are garbage, the bad ones do not mean that all are (ie: while all bee are insects, not all insects are bees). I do not appreciate your labeling someone who has caught the attention of broadsheets popular in and to her country as "a third-rate celebrity". You fine WAX comparisons notwithstanding, Wikipedia is not only about the most notable persons, and welcomes those less-than-most-notable when they can be determined as just notable enough, even if barely so. What matters toward inclusion criteria is enduring coverage of the individual over multiple years. The coverage you find in more "acceptable" mainstream publications, while brief, is somewhat-more-than-cursory, addressing the actress directly and in enough detail. The article will benefit from attention, certainly, and the project will benefit by its remaining to be improved over time and through regular editorial attention. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Nothing to do with format; everything to do with content. The main coverage of Rogoz is found in Click! and Libertatea. Without even knowing any Romanian, you can click those links to see for yourself what types of publications those are, and why an encyclopedic work should not be quoting them. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:45, 15 June 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 · · 15:02, 18 June 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 · · 15:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As it currently exists, article has only 1 reference. Not WP:NOTABLE. APerson241 (talk!) 19:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Someone being reported on for years doesn't matter if a big chunk of the coverage is about her vacation, her birthday, and cooking turkey. SL93 (talk) 05:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As notable to Romania "should" be good enough for en.Wikipedia, I would be happy to have this userfied back to its creator at User:Consiliul/Dana Rogoz AND am wiling to advise and instruct new editor User:Consiliul on how to use sources and fix the article in anticipation of a return to article space. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support proposal to userfy as per (and with kudos to) User:MichaelQSchmidt - sounds like the best solution all round. Mabalu (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G11 promo Secret ^account 01:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Farook Mahmood[edit]

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

non notable businessman Uncletomwood (talk) 06:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could on find trivial mention which includes short quotes from him. 08:28, 19 June 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 · · 14:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer[edit]

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

This article was nominated for deletion in 2006, where the nominator stated that even though he passes WP:NFOOTBALL, he only played 7 minutes in a fully pro league which shouldn't be enough. The result of that discussion was to keep the article, but recent consensus in deletion discussions shows one appearance in a fully pro league is not enough to confer notability when the subject fails WP:GNG. 7 years after the first deletion discussion and 11 years after his sole appearance, I can't find in-depth coverage in reliable sources to improve the article (even though it looks from his article that he has played on amateur level throughout his career), so I think this should be deleted. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this player's only claim to fame is a 7 minute cameo in a league match. He fails WP:GNG comprehensively, which outweighs the fact he only barely/technically passes WP:NFOOTBALL. It has been over 10 years since his sole appearance, he is unlikely to make any more and he will probably never get any more notable. There is also plenty of consensus that barely passing NFOOTBALL but clearly failing GNG does not make you notable, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Otazu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandr Salimov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Semenchuk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artyom Dubovsky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marios Antoniades and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Sinclair (footballer born 1991). Giant Snowman 12:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 12:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 12:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 12:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:OUTCOMES, with reference to the list provided above. Stalwart111 14:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. The obvious failure of WP:GNG outweighs the fact that he barely passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Walls of Jericho (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Matton[edit]

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

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

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

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

Subject is not notable; fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Article is promotional with exaggerated claims. For example, role in Side Effects (2013 film) was restaurant guest (uncredited) and Contacts, aka Everything's Gonna Be Pink has not been released. Articles about subject were previously deleted. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 00:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The person seems to be notable not only for WP:NACTOR but also as WP:NMODEL Male model scene. WP:Film please confirm. Jmanagement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmanagament (talk • contribs) 09:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC) — Jmanagament (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sockpuppetry confirmed by checkuser.—Kww(talk) 21:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All of the references are reliable, except the twitter ref that could be excluded. The person seems to be notable mainly because of an active fan base of close to 1100 views per week of a web film "I have PSD" with more than 1.1M views and Vimeo's staff pick, Vimeo I Have PSD, WP:Film please confirm.Sockpuppetry confirmed by checkuser.—Kww(talk) 21:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changingfilm, it is customary to sign comments in a discussion. The Internet Movie Database is not a reliable source per WP:UGC but is used several times as a source. According to IMDb itself, the subject's bio was written by him making it a primary source that is even less acceptable for establishing notability. Press releases are considered self-published sources, not acceptable for establishing notability. Views of a 2 minute promotional video on vimeo.com doesn't constitute "an active fan base" and is not helpful in establishing notability. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 12:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is notable; and WP:NACTOR. For example, role in It is what it is seems to have given Johan Matton an award for best ensemble Changingfilm Join WER 10:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)— Changingfilm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Moved this comment from above the nomination to here. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 03:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC))diff.Sockpuppetry confirmed by checkuser.—Kww(talk) 21:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Along with over 25 others in the ensemble cast of the musical, Matton received a prize as a member of that ensemble; it was not an individual award for him. The award was made by a little known film festival that has existed less than three years. A nomination for an individual major award like an Oscar or winning an individual award at a major film festival like Berlin would help establish notability; being listed as a member of an ensemble does not. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 03:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - The sources of Mr. Matton is in production of his feature film 'Till We Meet Again' and that he is playing the role of 'Host' in Everything's gonna be pink is in fact covered by the sources at IMDb. Till We Meet Again is in the Top5000 movies on IMDb and people might find it helpful to find out in Wikipedia who Johan is. Should have someone at someone at WP:FILM here. WP:GNG. I found IMDb and also another news page after another google search CWEB News — 176.70.231.210 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 08:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC). Sockpuppetry confirmed by checkuser. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the references are unreliable, including several from IMDB and one from Twitter. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Most of the references are reliable, and the person seem to be notable mainly because of his own written feature film Yahoo News article interview Oncetherewasasheep 11:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)— Oncetherewasasheep (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sockpuppetry confirmed by checkuser.—Kww(talk) 21:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had high hopes to put a keep !vote here after looking at his website, but after searching for WP:RS, they just aren't there. Unfortunately for Mr. Matton, there just isn't any coverage to support WP:GNG. I found a FansShare article but not sure how reliable it is. Probably need an opinion from someone at WP:FILM but until then I still say this is a delete. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 02:52, 16 June 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, SarahStierch (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin: Please note the results of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Changingfilm. --Rs chen 7754 21:26, 24 June 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 June 25. Snotbot t • c » 06:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article has quality issues and does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY. APerson241 (talk!) 19:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above - notability issues, reliable source issues, article issues, it's just a large mess. Dusti^*poke* 19:34, 3 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. Secret ^account 20:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reclaim Love[edit]

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

I think this is too promotional to rewrite. But if anyone is willing to, I'll withdraw the AfD DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For something that has supposedly been going on since 2003, there is very little out there about it. Even if this was re-written from scratch, there's nothing out there that mentions this event/movement that's actually reliable. It should be noted that the article does include some sources that look like they'd be reliable... until you realize that the book and Guardian isn't really talking about the event but the concept of love itself. This is yet another AfC creation that really baffles me as to why it ever made it to the mainspace in the first place. I'm trying not to sound harsh, but there's absolutely nothing in that article that looked to be ready for the mainspace. I've cleaned out the worst of the article and reduced it to a stub, but that only backs up the claims of non-notability. I'm actually debating reverting my edits so it can be speedied as sheer unadulterated promotion and get it out of the way. There's no notability here. I noted that the person who created the article in the first place also has a userpage about the founder. Now this doesn't mean that the person that created the article is the founder, but this article was clearly written as a soapbox and promotional page for the event and apart from some early edits, their sole purpose here seems to be to promote the gathering and its founder. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The person (Venus CuMara) also has a page in the mainspace. I've tagged both as speedy for lack of notability and promotion, but if they aren't deleted that way then I'll nominate those for AfD. The big thing here is that these try to establish notability but are so overly puffed up with promotional peacocking that it makes their accomplishments out to be more than it actually is. Searches for the event and it's founder bring up nothing in reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 18 June 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 · · 04:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is written like an advertisement, only four sources and none from really notable news networks. APerson241 (talk!) 19:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability. SL93 (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. Fails WP:GNG and shouldn't be kept. Ducknish (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Defense League[edit]

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

Only mentions are in primary sources such as tumblr, discussion forums, YouTube pronouncements, etc. No neutral/objective evidence that this group has any political impact. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 18 June 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 · · 04:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my findings were similar to the original posters. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Russian name of the organization is Лига Защиты России [8] (Vkontakte) and it seems to be not notable [9]. I've removed the only external link, claiming to be the official website of the organization, as it is (in my opinion) an attack site/blog. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 04:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't spot anything counting towards GNG in my quick run-through, not even enough for basic verification. I believe in the lowest of low bars for political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections regardless of ideology, however, so the closing administrator should feel free to toss this opinion aside if anything surfaces below. Carrite (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY and the only source is a notification that yes, this organization has a president. APerson241 (talk!) 19:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spidercide (comics). Result is delete but the title then becomes a valid redirect to Spidercide (comics) :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spidercide[edit]

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

Unreferenced orphan that has never been seriously edited. Spidey104 00:22, 11 June 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 June 11. Snotbot t • c » 00:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can't find any reliable sources. That said, given what I can find in non-reliable sources I strongly suspect there were magazine reviews of the game at one point. I'd lean toward keeping this on the less-than-popular "sources likely exist" argument, but can't provide a bolded !vote due to the lack of reliable sources. Hobit (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Hobit's comment about being unable to find reliable sources supports the need to delete this article. Spidey104 03:33, 18 June 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 · · 04:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't even try to assert notability aside from having once appeared in a Radio Shack catalog, and even that is unreferenced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a pesticide designed to kill spiders would be an arachnicide, which might be a legitimate topic. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arachnicide currently redirects to arachnid. If it is ever developed into a full article of its own spidercide could be made into a redirect to that article. For now I think it should just be deleted. Spidey104 00:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spidercide (comics) - lack of notability per above. Ansh666 02:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Werme[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:RS. I have seen several poorly sourced articles of late on the AfD forum about non-notable sports broadcasters. Has there been any determination about what to do with them? Ad Orientem (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to add more sources to the article but I keep having edit conflicts. I am really going through a rough time on Wikipedia. I think I need a break pretty soon. Ashbeckjonathan 02:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

See my reply to your comment on my talk page. This is fixable. Just create a list for sports broadcasters. The notability for that topic should not be hard to establish and then all you need to do to add any of these people to the list is establish that they exist and meet the criteria for inclusion. This relives you of establishing individual notability for each person which I think would be almost impossible. Most of the articles I have seen were no more than a few sentences anyways. That can often fit into a list. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have been working on improving the article including getting more references and expand the article by adding more information about Werme. This may do the trick in order to improve this article. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 03:28, 20 June 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 · · 04:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Seinfeld (season 7). Secret ^account 18:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Shower Head[edit]

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

Would be better suited with a brief description in the broader Seinfeld episode guide article. Does not, in my opinion, need it's own. EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 04:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 02:04, 18 June 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 · · 03:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Seinfeld (season 7). No noteworthy information is included in the article in its current state. If anyone can find enough evidence of lasting notability of that particular episode to qualify keeping, then by all means bring it back. Otherwise, not today. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 19:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reason why this article should be redirected to Seinfeld (season 7). Therefore, perhaps, delete. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 02:57, 2 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) 20:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja (software)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability per WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCT, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested without comment by article's creator. Captain Conundrum (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 02:03, 18 June 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, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had a go at finding sources and didn't come up with anything reliable. The project doesn't seem to have attracted any attention from the tech press. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete major lack of reliable sources Dusti^*poke* 19:36, 3 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gregor Stronach[edit]

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

does not meet WP:BIO nor WP:CREATIVE. 1 gnews hit [10], trove reveals sources from ABC Australia and The Chaser but they would be considered primary sources since they were his employer. LibStar (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 02:02, 18 June 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, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Assertions of fame without evidence to back it up do not carry all that much weight. If someone wants to recreate an article where the notability has been established, the result of this AFD should not stand in the way. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly At-tahreek[edit]

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

Not notable journal purely promotional not pass with WP:N - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 12:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 02:01, 18 June 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 · · 03:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find a specific guideline for research journals, so upon returning this journal to WP:GNG it seems to fail. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enrich this article. Its a famous monthly religious magazine in Bangladesh. Though not enough info yet has been added to this article, but if someone can contribute to enrich it, it will be resourceful and beneficial article to the readers. Thanks (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nawfa2000 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 30 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red Sandstone Varied Productions[edit]

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

Non-notable arts company lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. reddogsix (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: This article does have a few sources that "may" establish notability. It still needs a lot of work and it's creator has been someone directly connected to it, but it has now been cleaned up some by another... Technical 13 (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 02:00, 18 June 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 · · 03:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pholosong Hospital[edit]

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

The article only says where the hospital is located and what areas it serves. I couldn't find any significant coverage on top of that. SL93 (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 00:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tsakane. The standard GNews search shows plenty of passing mentions in reliable sources - enough to make it a reasonable search term amd to justify a mention in the article on its locality, even if none of them justify a standalone article on the topic. PWilkinson (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I managed to find a few things from the Government itself (like this and this) and though they are not particularly independent (being government sources about a government hospital) they provide plenty of primary source facts that could be added to the article to expand it a bit. On independent coverage of the hospital itself, there are bits and pieces like this and lots of passing mentions to various people associated with various news stories being taken there after accidents and incidents. At the end of the day, this looks to be a fairly big hospital that has been around for a while that takes in 20,000+ admissions and 115,000+ A+E patients a year and is responsible for around 5000 births annually. Seems like a significant medical facility to me. As a comparison, Sydney's Royal North Shore Hospital has around the same number of admissions, Houston's Ben Taub General Hospital sees slightly fewer emergency patients and New England's largest hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, delivers around 3,500 babies annually. Stalwart111 07:46, 18 June 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 · · 03:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a major, notable, hospital per Stalwart's stalwart research. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the thorough examination done by Stalwart111. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Gomez (artist)[edit]

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

insufficient referenes for notability for this photographer DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:59, 18 June 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 · · 03:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - except for very brief mentions in tabloids, I can't verify anything notable that he's done. It's not clear if the art teacher in Oxnard (who may be notable) and this guy is the same person. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 1 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) 19:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Chapman[edit]

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

No third party reliable sources whatsoever. Only claims to fame are membership in the The Town Pants (itself up for deletion for similar reasons) and The Real McKenzies, which also lacks third-party sources (though unlike The Town Pants, The Real McKenzies have a proper AllMusic page, which counts for something). That said, having been an original member of a somewhat notable band is not enough to justify a solo article for this subject. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With the deletion of the town pants there is no reason left why chapman maybe should have a stand alone page. No independent notability. Normally a redirect to his other band would be right here but there is no mention in that article of him and there is no verification so delete. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:08, 19 June 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 · · 03:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, and duffbeerforme (talk) has said it well.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:28, 1 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) 19:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soundmaster T[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 02:06, 25 June 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 June 25. Snotbot t • c » 02:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find a single review or any other coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 07:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 13:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 13:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as G11 by INeverCry. (non-admin closure). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DFR Asia[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Lots and lots of links, but not a single one to anything that would show notability. 0 Gnews hits. Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the reference list for things "that would show notability." If you don't know anything about the digital media and entertainment industry or the venture capital space, or if you haven't even carefully read the ariticle, please do not talk. The Wikipedia community is primarily built on respect for each other's work and point of view. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DariaDequan (talk • contribs) 01:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I met Rick Myers (DFR's COO) and Gonz Ferrero (their CFO) at a startup event in Singapore. Both are truly exceptional entrepreneurs and businessmen. Rick is ex-Apple and Cisco and Gonz is ex-Citi. Their CEO John Possman is also a BIG NAME in entertainment. The team is super strong and they are doing amazing things. To say a company that has launched and invested in some 12 companies is lacking notability really just shows that either you know nothing about the industry or you are simply highly disrespectful to other people's work...— Preceding unsigned comment added by RayaDePrince (talk • contribs)

This article is not promotional material for reasons listed below: (1) it describes the entity from an objective point of view, focusing on the rising business model, namely the venture studio model, which is deployed by numerous entities all around the world, most of which (to the best of the writer's knowledge) are also linked to in the article; (2) it properly cites outside sources; (3) Wikipedia has approved Betaworks, which is an article of the exact same nature about an entity using the exact same business model (also linked to in the article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DariaDequan (talk • contribs) 01:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have something here that is called assume good faith. It appears from the article's creator's comments above that she didn't see that chapter. What is it that you think shows notability in the article? The only one who said anything about promotional is you. The article's notability does not depend on the fame of the founders. It depends on reliable sources writing about it. I do not see any. You are personalizing something that is definitely not personal. Am I to assume that your rant that borders on a personal attack is a keep !vote? If so, you should probably reference why in your posting. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fame of the founders are not fame out of nowhere, they are famous because they have done and are still doing great work in the industry. Isn't that part of the definition of notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DariaDequan (talk • contribs) 02:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I highly encourage you to actually check the reference list: (1) Techcrunch has written about the business model. And fyi, Techcrunch is one of the most notable sources in the industry and Leena Rao is a well-known insider and writer; (2) Stefano Bernadi has blogged about the business model and mentioned DFR Asia. He was a VC and worked with 500 Startups, which is one of the most high-profile entities in the industry; (3) Nova Spivack, Shervin Pishevar, etc. have all spoken about the model and how they are involved. Do your research on these people and entities if you haven't. (4) Betaworks is on Wikipedia. There is a linked to them from this article. Same business model and article of the same nature. Did you not know? Mind point out the difference? I find it amazing people feel free to speak about things they know nothing about. It might be more helpful for you to point out what exactly you find "personal" or "promotional" instead of just saying there are not notable references when there are.

Delete. No third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to demonstrate that this company satisfies even the basic notability criteria required for Wikipedia articles. The article also appears to be unnecessarily padded out with details about business models used by other companies. --DAJF (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "padded with details business models used by other companies"? It appears that you haven't even read the article carefully or at all. The business model described is used by DFR Asia AND the other companies you mentioned. No third-party sourcing? Please know what you are talking about before talking, for the sake of respect.

Delete: company fails WP:CORP. No indication of notability, but WP:PA.-- Dewritech (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. This link farm is spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Define link farm, and by that I mean, please point out which link is irrelevant to the article. Please explain why you think it's spam, and by that I mean, please point out what content in the article is inappropriate. duffbeerforme — Preceding unsigned comment added by DariaDequan (talk • contribs) 08:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Non admin closure per Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion Martin451 (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual deaths[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous discussion ended in no-consensus. This article suffers from a pair of crippling problems:

It's never clear what is an unusual death and what isn't, and as such criteria for inclusion is subjective. Most of these are freak accidents, but not all.
This list will never be exhaustive, even if limited to people with Wikipedia entries.

Note that the deletion rationale is slightly different than in the previous AfD. I'd also note that "this gets a lot of hits (which was the rationale behind half of the votes in the previous AfD discussion) is in no way a valid argument for keeping an article. p b p 00:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you on crack? -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've renumbered this nomination (it's the sixth not third). And as PBP's generated list was looking rather untidy, Here is a chronological list with results: -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 01:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 01:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hillbilly should not have moved this, nor should he have deleted the generated list, which I might add was generated by a bot and not me p b p 01:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those seem to me to be the same arguments that have been brought up the previous six (six!) AFD discussions (if I'm counting correctly). How are they different?

The "it can never be exhaustive" argument is lame - lots of articles on wikipedia can never be exhaustive. The "inherently subjective" argument, on the other hand, is the one that leaves people teetering on the edge of yea or nay. Wander through the archives and you'll be a veritable Proustian collection of verbiage about it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there was an even-earlier AFD than the list, under the article's first name: [11]

The previous AFD was just closed three days ago as "no consensus" despite a very lengthy discussion with lots of participants. What on earth do you think you will accomplish by restarting it this soon? postdlf (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus. What else? p b p 01:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. There has to be some kind of moratorium on this. The previous AFD just ended. --SubSeven (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Anything can be renominated immediately if it closes in no-consensus. This is really no different than relisting a debate (which, IMO, should have been closed as delete the first time because half the votes were ILIKE/this gets hit a lot). If you don't like it, take it to ANI, but this issue has been brought there before, and at least once the decision to relist has been affirmed p b p 01:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So just keep hammering it until you get the result you want. Gotcha. --SubSeven (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about less criticizing the nomination and more offering of reasons as to why the legs of the nomination are valid or invalid. Oh, right, I forgot, the only reason it was NC the last few times was "I like it" and "It gets hit a lot" p b p 02:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Swindell[edit]

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

Vanity article that clearly fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ARTIST. The sources are either unreliable or barely mention subject of article. Google News search turned up nothing more. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanity article about non-notable local musician. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Spin Magazine, Austin 360 and Brooklyn Vegan articles do not mention subject. Artist publicity materials and an engagement notice in a local newspaper are not sufficient for notability. --Drasil (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the citations provide the necessary substantial independent coverage of the subject. You could possibly make a weak case for the notability of the band the subject played in, but none whatsoever for him, as far as I can see. -Ka renjc 09:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ARTIST. ukexpat (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 18:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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