Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 June	5 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. Obvious snow keep is obvious. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1996 shooting of Tupac Shakur[edit]

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

A complete duplication of what already exists in Tupac Shakur#Death and Tupac Shakur#Aftermath. His biographical article covers his death sufficiently and it is very unlikely anything substantial about the shooting will come up to merit a separate article The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to Murder of Tupac Shakur per WP:NAME. Seems to be enough information to warrant a separate article to me (although a few more sources would be nice). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Rather shocked this was never a standalone article until this recent creation. Tupac's death was hugely notable, that is beyond debate. Work obviously needs to be done to bring material from the main bio to this article, but there's no real reason to delete this at all. Tarc (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rename is not NPOV, but this article should be kept and expanded. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is non-neutral about Murder of Tupac Shakur? Is there any doubt that this was murder? Even if there was then Death of Tupac Shakur would be a much better title than the current one, which certainly shouldn't include the year, and this incident is defined by Tupac Shakur's death rather than his shooting. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I share Tarc's surprise that we didn't have an article before now. As a middle-aged middle-class white Englishman who knows very little about the hip hop scene I recognise this as an obviously notable topic, which could overwhelm Tupac Shakur's article if covered comprehensively there. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:09, 9 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. SarahStierch (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crescent English School[edit]

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

I have not been able to find any significant coverage of this Indian middle school in any secondary sources, and it therefore appears not the meet our general notability standards as well as those specific to organizations. I searched the Times of India and all the newspapers linked through this site and found only two passing mentions in The Hindu (1, 2). There are further passing mentions in a few Google News Archive results but nothing to sustain the content or confer notability. Of course, my searches were necessarily limited by my monolingual failings, so a person with research skills in Indian languages would be welcome. The article had what appeared to be a linkfarm dump in the reference section, which you can view in the history, none of which appeared to be reliable independent secondary sources.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is a private school that has only opened earlier this year. The normal presumtion of notability for non-elementary schools is unlikely to apply until the school has become established. As such, this is acting as a handy advertising platform for a private enterprise. Sionk (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - new school with high ambitions and an enrollment of eighty. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the text below was posted to the talk page of this debate.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir,

I do not understand why do you want to delete my article. i have also read other article as reference before writing this "Bivha international school', Bihar. it has also given reference as blogspot . so i also gave. Now nothing is wrong with content of article, it is only providing information but not making any sales pitch. i understood from the tutorial which i have reading. i have already been adopted by a genius gentleman, he will teach me all basics. please do not be cruel towards me or my article. If you really want to help me, please help me improve my article. I know some of my competitor are behind me, who has initiated this move.

Thanks, Mogis Ahmed

Right, as Mogis's adopter, could you by any chance delay it or something (if that's not protocol I understand). I am afraid that he might lose interest in the lessons after seeing this article deleted, but I understand the notability concerns (as a reviewer of AfC myself, where many articles are declined for non-notability). I hope you can help, jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the new author is here solely to promote his school, maybe he is here for entirely the wrong reasons in the first place? Sionk (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ, unfortunately. Here, you can see before getting involved in all of this Cresent English School stuff, he was a good contributor on India-related articles. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, he was never a good contributor on any India(bihar)-related articles. Please re-check his contributions. (See diff) he has only single purpose on wiki and i.e. to promote his school Shivamsetu (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, then I back down. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mogis, with all due respect, it really is utter nonsense to blame one of your competitors for this discussion. Do you realize how many crore of schools there are on this big crowded planet? Not all schools are notable enough to have articles about them in an encyclopedia of global scope. Facebook pages and the like do not establish anything: I know ferrets and kittens who have Facebook pages. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete its just promotional rubbish. no established notabilities or significant coverage of this article and created by a SPA account of Mogisahmed (talk · contribs) Shivamsetu (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I also think that the material is simply promotional. If there is an element of notability, the material should be introduced promptly with accompaning independent reference(s). --Stormbay (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry - just NN -- $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 13:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sir,

i understand that by reference , you mean that mention in local newspaper site. i will come back with a article with supporting reference from local newspaper. you can go ahead and delete my profile. i do not want to beg . but i will come back and have my article on wiki for sure. i am not a loser. i will read all your tutorials and few sample article before writing my own . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogisahmed (talk • contribs) 05:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that that comment is not a demonstration of the standard of English taught at this school. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userify it, does not meet Notability yet just because it exists. Per our weird coverage on degree granting and educational institutions. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 11 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. SarahStierch (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Meyer (author)[edit]

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

This does not appear to be a notable author/scholar/whatever. The press he started is his own presses and does not seem to have generate any kind of interest in reliable sources. His books are published by Temple Lodge, a "spiritual" press, and likewise have not generated any reliable coverage as far as I could tell. Nothing else I see in the article gives me reason to believe this person passes the GNG or any other notability guidelines. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like WP:ARTSPAM. Can't find anything showing notability either for Meyer or for Perseus Verlag. Someone who knows the German and Hungarian wikis might want to take a look at the articles there, which seem basically the same as here. --Randykitty (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- only real claim to notability is the Dokumentation eines wegweisenden Zusammenwirkens book, but he's clearly a minor author on that and even that book only has 21 libraries owning it in Worldcat (19 in original print, 2 in Perseus reprint). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the WP:ARTSPAM assessment. I did not find any credible notability references.--Stormbay (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with above - not notable. Uberaccount (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet N or GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of the in-depth coverage in independent sources required by WP:GNG and lack of evidence of scholarly impact needed for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Brendon is here 08:44, 11 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. ^King Jakob _C2 15:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Silcock Family[edit]

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

Completing nomination for the IP user 72.201.218.164 (talk · contribs). On the talk page, the user left the following: "This family is not notable, other than adopting many children and being on Nanny 911. Their website is gone, so updated information is not available anyways. I think that this page should be deleted." I have no opinion as of this time. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Likely to pass GNG from unrelated coverage in People[1], USA Today[2], Telegraph[3], ABC News[4] and host of others. Notability is not temporary, and digging through recent documents shows a divorce and some other coverage in minor spots, the Nanny coverage was another case of notability which together help meet GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:37, 8 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. As noted by the discussion, cleanup is recommended. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Today[edit]

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

This is a article about a Bangladeshi lifestyle magazine which is very short in size and information and there are no references or reliable sources. Leela Bratee 19:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Leela Bratee 19:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good deal of secondary source results when adding parameter, Bangladesh, to searches at (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). — Cirt (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NMEDIA; fresh sources added; it is around 10 years old; and several well-known people have been associated with the magazine. Crtew (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs improvement - borderline promotional at present.Deb (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per discussion above. --Zayeem ^(talk) 10:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've seen this used as a referencing source and while the coverage on itself needs to be improved, I'm sure industry-related sources exist to back it up. Even The Telegraph (Calcutta) needs a lot of improvement as most of our India-related articles do, but deletion is not clean up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:54, 8 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 · · 06:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chattagram mancha[edit]

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

Leela Bratee 19:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3) and fails WP:N and WP:V. --Leela Bratee (talk • contributions • email) 20:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Woodroar (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the major dailies of Chittagong. The government portal of Chittagong District ranks it 3rd.--Zayeem ^(talk) 08:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Renamed Daily Bir Chattagram Mancha per WP:Title. Added fresh sources to address, WP:V ,or verification issues. Crtew (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With new references added and points about rank in Chittagong and attacks on its journalists, the current Asia newspaper stub satisfies minimal WP:N and basic WP:V. The page List of newspapers in Bangladesh includes Chittagong in its description as it is an urban center and the newspaper fits there. The page is not an orphan. Crtew (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is fine, with good references. Why delete? Clearly passes WP:N Fai zan 17:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good referencing and good amount of potential of additional other secondary source coverage here. — Cirt (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because improvements meet GNG and V. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:55, 8 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. SarahStierch (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amod (newspaper)[edit]

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

Leela Bratee 19:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Um...where's the deletion rationale? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Woodroar (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NMEDIA, newspaper was established in 1955, has a significant history. --Zayeem ^(talk) 07:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Zayeem. Fai zan 17:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent references.Deb (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fresh sources added and meets standards of WP:NMEDIA. The newspaper is notable for its long run and special recognition by UNESCO. Crtew (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has a claim of notability, that can be backed up by secondary sources as a successful paper. While the main website is down, the website was terrible to begin with as seen on Archive.org 2007ish. Here is the old about for primary document referencing.[5] Internet presence is lacking, but the majority of sources are offline for sure. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:02, 8 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. SarahStierch (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helana Brigman[edit]

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

A biog of a cookery blogger. All references are blogs and none are robust or are adequate to establish any notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not establish notability. Anyone can be a blogger. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article does not establish notability per WP:AUTHOR. Much of the information is standard for a blogger. For transparency, I did step I of the deletion nomination process and Velella helped me to complete it. I just created an account today. User226 (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass N, blogging is blogging and only a rare blogger will pass muster. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:06, 8 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 keep. Per WP:SK#3, the nominator is a banned sockpuppet and therefore not supposed to edit and make this nomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Person[edit]

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

Outside of Person's personal website and some blogs about the 2012 Libertarian Party Convention, Mr. Person doesn't appear to merit an article of his own. A discussion is necessary, but for what it's worth, I vote to delete this article, or at least redirect it to the 2012 Libertarian National Convention.Mis2erP119 (talk)— Mis2erP119 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

SNOW keep - POINTy nomination by possible sock; there's nothing in the article that would warrant deletion. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 05:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:06, 4 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 4. Snotbot t • c » 18:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per hmssolent. Contrary to the nom.'s assertion, the subject easily passes WP:GNG with reliably sourced significant coverage (such as this) well beyond his personal website and blogs (which are not used as sources).--JayJasper (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets notability standards. Nominator is likely the same individual that tried to nominate this page last week with the user name of "Carlfuckingperson".--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - per hmssolent. Thank you, Wikipedia, for adding the little note that there are very few edits outside a singular topic! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:54, 4 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 merge to Munk School of Global Affairs. SarahStierch (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for South Asian Studies[edit]

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

A university center within a single academic program within a single school of the University of Toronto. Does not itself offer a degree, or even a major. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any information here that would improve the Munk School of Global Affairs article? --Stormbay (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Munk School of Global Affairs. Essentially much of the content could be inserted about its operation and research focus could be included, the "notable lectures" part I'd drop. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:10, 8 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't pray for us tour[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCONCERT TOUR Uberaccount (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. I honestly don't see enough there to bother with a merge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCONCERT. Gong show 02:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom; appears to fail WP:NCONCERT. Zappa O Mati 04:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet stand alone requirements. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:20, 8 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 withdrawn, self-closed, kept -- Y not? 15:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christabel (2002 film) and James Fotopoulos[edit]

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

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

NN filmmaker and his NN film. The NN production company Fantasma Inc has already been deleted by yours truly under WP:PROD. Total lack of WP:RS. -- Y not? 17:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both Clearly case of WP:ARTSPAM. Fails Notability as per WP:GNG, WP:FILMMAKER and WP:ANYBIO. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really not so "clear" if issues when can be and are addressed through regular editing: As a avante garde artist/filmmaker, James Fotopoulos meets both WP:GNG andWP:CREATIVE. Article on him is undergoing expansion improvement.[6]

Even if not as "notable" as some big-budget studio-touted blockbuster, the film Christabel meets the requisites set by WP:NF. Its article is also undergoing improvement.[7] Just keeping you apprised. The project is improved through being proactive. Deletion is the last resort. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to reconsider. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BOTH: James Fotopoulos meets WP:BIO. The coverage of he and his works meets WP:GNG and thus WP:FILMMAKER. And while his multiple awards may not meet WP:ANYBIO, so what? The filmmaker already meets the primary notability guideline. His film Christabel has received the requisite coverage (even if most is negative) to meet WP:NF. IE: Austin Chronicle Film Threat Chicaho Tribune and others (some behind paywalls). I can appreciate someone thinking an addressable issue as artspam, but what sort of search was made to uncover available sources even if not used in these articles? Yes, these articles needs work.... but deletion of improvable topics rarely improves the project. What makes a better Wikipedia is actually addressing addressable issues. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The findsources assigned by the AFD template for this 2001 film does not give decent results. What is required is to include searches with name, proper release year, and filmmaker name. Examples would be

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

Also, the article needs to be moved to a proper disambig Christabel (film) to over-write a redirect and, as it is verifiable as his, the ~~"deleted-by-nominator's-prod"~~ Fantasma Inc might yet merit a properly sourced article, or at the least a redirect of that name to its founder James Fotopoulos. A redirect to its arguably notable founder serves the project far better than an outright deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can add more search parameters if anyone wishes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't my prod, I just processed it after seven days. That's how I came upon the articles I have nominated for deletion here. -- Y not? 13:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I have struck that portion above. I still feel we can better serve the project by fixing that which is fixable than by deleting. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why I started this AfD, instead of quietly prodding these things -- so you could come along and try to save them from deletion. You really are an incredible inclusionist... -- Y not? 19:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As an "IMPROVINIST", I will see what can be done pro-actively. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Since the nomination and since the sole delete vote above, both articles have been undergoing improvement to serve the project,[8] [9] Neither is the same as when first brought AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both per improvements showing experimental filmmaker James Fotopoulos meeting WP:BIO through WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE, and film Christabel (2002 film) meeting WP:NF through WP:GNG. We really do not expect avante garde filmmakers and avate garde films to have the same level of notability of filmmakers or production by big budget studios. We look for available coverage, not required to be in an article and then decide, These are both keeps. See WP:NRVE Igottheconch (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Were the nominator to try sourcing the article himself before nomming, he would have realised there IS notability, though not on the same level as, say, Titanic and James Cameron. Notability is not about sources present in the article, but about the sources out there waiting to be discovered. Thumbs up to Michael for rescuing these two articles! :) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 05:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I hate dual noms, I think that they should be kept or at bare minimum merge to the bio page if the film has to go, but the critical reception discovered is likely to meet GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources on both articles meet GNG. 86.153.72.187 (talk) 08:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: No doubt the closer will recognize and consider that neither article is the same as when first nominated, and that all votes after improvement are (so far) supportive of a keep of the improved versions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:44, 10 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jindal Vijayanagar Steel[edit]

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

PROD contested by User:Royroydeb because "like ongc it is a football club". However, ONGC was the official club name while JVS is not for this article. This is just the name of the company that owns the team, the team name has not been released yet for this club and thus an article should not exist till that is released. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Background: After re-reading what I wrote in my AfD I have decided to add a bit of background information on why this page is nominated for deletion. In India the football federation accepted a bid from this company in Bangalore called JSW Steele to create their own team in the I-League. RoyRoydeb then created this page thinking that this was the name of the team. However that is not true. The team has not been unvielded yet. No team colors, no players, no stadium. Nothing. Until something is announced, like a name, then this page should be created. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:ArsenalFan700, they have signed Pradyum Reddy as their assistant coach and looking to appoint a foreign coach Deb (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that is one signing but there is still little to nothing. A football club, specially at tier one requires many things on and off the field and at this moment we don't even have a team name of logo. The name I-League's website is using is just "JSW Sports Pvt. Ltd" but that is just the the sports branches name. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom and WP:TOOSOON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad Orientem (talk • contribs) 19:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, violates WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 11:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GS. Doesn't appear to be anything concrete known about this future club at the moment to justify an article. Can recreate without prejudice when there is. Fenix down (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet N or GNG, and is too soon for an article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - when reliable sources states that there will be a football club with this name, we can recreate the article, but until then we shouldn't have this article on Wikipedia. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:23, 11 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CADD Centre Training Services[edit]

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

This is essentially a press release about a trade school, and the references are basically press releases as well. . DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is clear WP:ARTSPAM and fails notability as per WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. A Google turned up many pages. Almost every link on the first few pages was promotional. All sources and external links are promotional. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Major claims, but little backing, and the "trained" is off by a factor of 10 according to the website.[10] A mere 800,000 claimed. Though this sets off alarm bells.[11] Carrer? And Lorum Ipsum next to photos? Likely hoax? Would any educational institution willingly have so many typos and issues in their website? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:28, 8 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephenville Mall[edit]

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

Not a notable mall. Aaaccc (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Secondary source coverage is not significant. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet N or GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:29, 8 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Witch Alone[edit]

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

No assertion of notability--there are a lot of books. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unambiguous WP:ARTSPAM. Fails notability as per WP:GNG and WP:BK. And while we are on the subject, the author's wiki page also seems suspect. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the last two nominations were crossed with Ruth Warburton's series. Though it is not held at a national library and doesn't meet NBOOK as a result. The book itself is of small interest, but I don't see reviews in reliable sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:38, 8 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship of Clark Kent and Lois Lane[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this article for deletion two years ago on the grounds that it was someone's essay/historiography/WP:JUSTPLOT on the relationship between Superman and Lois Lane. There does not appear to be precedent for an article of this type (I know about WP:OSE, thanks), nor do the sources support it. Yes, Clark Kent and Lois Lane are independently notable. But their relationship is not (WP:NOTINHERITED). The Article Rescue Squadron descended on the previous AFD, claiming numerous sources supporting the independent notability of the relationship itself but none appeared. In the past two years, the only additions to the article have been fair use images (and not a single edit from an ARS member, hmmm). Tagged for additional refs since 2009, it is unlikely that the notability of this topic will change in the near future. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or very selectively merge into Superman. Extended plot synopsis. Previous AFD was problematic: lots of the usual suspects had big promises that it could be improved but, two years later, it's obvious that that hasn't happened and indeed wasn't even attempted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have just added three good sources to the article and there's plenty more out there. As and when we do more, we need to get Superman into the title because this relationship is well-known in the sources as a love triangle. What's interesting when you browse the sources, is how often the three characters are used as examples for discussion of epistomology. Anyway, it's our fairly clear policy that articles may be imperfect; that there is no deadline for fixing unimportant topics of this sort; and that AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep - if their relationship is covered in detail by sources, we can have an article. Also, please actually read WP:NOTINHERITED WP:BEFORE you start quoting it because it doesn't say what you think it says. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; If the nominator had spent a few minutes following WP:Before instead of whining about a constructive wiki project, they ought to have found the relationship is covered in detail by reliable sources, including numerous books. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind above. The three "sources" added by Colonel Warden (which I have some doubt that he's actually seen) are not tied to any specific text in the article, so their relevance to what is said in it is unclear at best. This remains essentially OR and plot summary despite the "rescue" attempt, and no one appears to be willing to undertake a meaningful rescue, even after the first AfD. No prejudice to the creation of an article (hopefully somewhat shorter) that is actually based on reliable sources. A better title might be found, as well. Deor (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my rationale at the last AFD. The relationship is notable and is a major portion of the franchise itself, even if difficult to source. Even with the amount of work needed, the topic meets GNG, and there is no deadline. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 22:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lois Lane is without a doubt an important character, but her importance comes as a character in the superman universe. As such, almost all of her existence from which ehr notability is derived is related to her relationship and interactions with superman. All of this is covered well in her article. What remains to be covered here is simply plot elements, with nothing deeper, violating NOTPLOT as discussed above.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:34, 4 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) 16:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Flawed or not, I think this individual page has been picked up as an example of Wikipedia's use. The details of the relationship are covered in Forbes to Huffpost.[12][13] While very confusing at points, the primary sources and secondary sources that exist just have to be brought in, even flawed this article helps readers looking for the material. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Attempt has been made to improve this article and not just adding fair use images. All Wikipedia articles are work in progress, slow or lack of progress on the article should not be a reason for deletion WP:NOEFFORT. The relationship of Clark/Superman and Lois Lane are notable, like the characters, the relationship of these two people has also become part of the popular culture, and is referenced in the media and commented and talk about by the general public. This article look specifically at the relationship of Clark/Superman and Lois Lane, a important part of the superman mythology, and how it has change and evolved in the past 75 year. Wikipedia is both a serious encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture, the content of the this article is of interest to general Wikipedia users. This article still needs improvement and it need to be shortened, merge perhaps but not total deletion. Townboxbell 03:52, 10 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Amory Underhill[edit]

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

I do not see anything here which would amount to notability, nor is anything shown in the Washington Post article. He's on the List of Great Floridans, presumably for his services as a lobbyist for the citrus industry there. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (shout) @ 21:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google News brings up enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, though most of it's paywalled. As Assistant Attorney General he might also meet the first point of WP:POLITICIAN. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 06:12, 31 May 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) 16:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This might help. Dru of Id (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets N, just needs more work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:51, 12 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Duc[edit]

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

Non notable artist Lester Foster (talk | talk) 19:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching through Google, and clicking through this list of reviews and interviews; it seems the artist has received attention in several New Age-centric blogs/zines. However, I'm not really convinced that there are multiple reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. I admit I'm not too familiar with the vast majority of these sites so I will be happy to reconsider. Gong show 22:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (cackle) @ 22:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (deliver) @ 22:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless actual good sources can be found. (The one source in the article presently shows "Page not found".) We can't have BLPs with this level of sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Article certainly needs work, but a Hollywood Music in Media Awards nomination is not to be sniffed at and coverage in a fair number of music sites looks good enough under WP:BAND to me. Bondegezou (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aired on national radio, two albums, and won international awards. Notable enough for an article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if Duc has been on rotation on ABC Jazz, then she'd meet criteia #11 of WP:MUSIC quite handily. However, the reference used to support this doesn't actually say that, it just links to a short bio on the ABC Jazz website. Therefore, I don't think we can take it as granted that she's received significant airplay there. In terms of the references, apart from the usual promotional stuff I'm not seeing much significant third-party coverage, a search of AU/NZ newspapers and Factiva also drew a blank. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:42, 1 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) 15:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies criteria #9 of WP:MUSIC. Have located a number of independent verifiable references relating to her awards, which I have included in the article - this should address some of the concerns raised by the editors above . Dan arndt (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:MUSBIO with the documented awards. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG and has awards to meet N. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:55, 12 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Massof[edit]

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

Fails People notable for only one event Technopat (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, this individual was associated with Kermit Gosnell and the appropriate amount of coverage per the sources for this individual is given there. Zad68 13:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete (or redirect to Kermit Gosnell); non-notable individual only mentioned in connection with a notable case. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete attack tone, NPOV violation. Binksternet (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PERP, possibly create redir to Gosnell after deletion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not NPOV, BLP attack and a possible violation of WP:CRIME. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:57, 12 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Community Relations Service[edit]

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

Proxied request made by Ms. Klimp of the United States Department of Justice. VRTS ticket # 2013052110009571. L Faraone 13:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (confer) @ 15:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gossip) @ 15:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't get to OTRS from where I am today,. so what were their objections? A few years ago, this was a much more promotional article, written by them, which was subsequently reduced to the present stub. I think it would be reasonable to try to expand it again, properly. Whatever reasons there may be for deleting a borderline notable BLP at the subject's request , this does not apply to government organizations. It's sounds more like, realizing they can't get the article they want, they'd rather have nothing. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:09, 28 May 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 · · 14:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a couple of newspaper and a couple of book refs. No rationale for deleting an article on a publicly funded body. AllyD (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cannot see the OTRS ticket; is there a reason for deletion given? I do not understand the nomination. Is there something factually incorrect or worse with the article that warrants attention if not deletion? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, I should perhaps provide a bit more context in future OTRS-proxied nominations. Based solely on the information provided in the ticket, I have no opinion. Often biographical subjects simply don't want to have an article about them; I suppose governmental organisations can "feel" similarly, especially when their profile is otherwise low. L Faraone 12:48, 12 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 merge to Carl Malcolm. SarahStierch (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fattie Bum-Bum[edit]

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

Too small, and never looks like it will be a decent article. One Of Seven Billion (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (barney) @ 08:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the artist, Carl Malcolm, since that article already has more information about the single than this one. Google Books shows that there's a little bit more information out there but it doesn't look like the article will ever be more than a paragraph. Since the artist in question only had three or four hits, there's no real need for an article for each. Dricherby (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By coincidence I was looking at Fat Bottomed Girls just yesterday. Small is beautiful, IMO, though. There's more to say about the topic and that includes details of cover versions which would not sit well in the article about a particular artist. Warden (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:NSONGS which clearly states, Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:38, 29 May 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 · · 14:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Carl Malcolm, as per above. Bondegezou (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per above; redirect is essentially the same thing as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:02, 12 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. clear consensus after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion Hub[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-admin closure of debate as no consensus. Re-nominating pursuant to WP:NPASR. Company has only passing mentions and no WP:SIGCOV. The remainder is press releases. Creator has contended that a few of the references are from WP:RS (which I have also debated). Even if these were WP:RS, the coverage is little and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Company advertising and promotion does not belong on Wikipedia. For an article to be created, the topic must first pass WP:GNG which this one falls short of. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - after looking over the first nomination and the points here, nothing has changed. The article is still built around credible news sources from leading Singapore news outlets. 94.56.9.68 (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC) — 94.56.9.68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - I'm sorry you feel that using these sources is an acceptable way to SPAM Wikipedia with this content. As opposed to continuously explaining why each reference fails WP:RS and how none of them can add up to WP:GNG for this article, I just went through and tagged each one in the article. Each tag has an explanation of why it needs a more reliable 3rd party references (press release, reprint of press releases, press release from another company with minority stake in company, company's own website). The only references that should be kept are 12 and 13, although they are lists and would only go to support awards, not show notability of the company. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All three printed newspaper articles are credible references. They are three leading newspapers from Singapore. You seem to be merely repeating yourself for the past 4/5 weeks if you include the first AfD. I think other editors of the AfD need to take this into consideration. 94.56.9.68 (talk) 09:23, 4 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 · · 14:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM - Article creator is correct with their comment above. My conduct of trying to keep spam out of Wikipedia should be taken into account. In fact, I found another reference for Conversion Hub [14]. So how is Joel Fu and Conversion Hub related to Asia Food Recipe? Also, can you comment on the 1st deletion and 2nd deletion of the Asia Food Recipe article or the fact that it appears that the article was also full of sourced press releases? Either Mr. Fu has a history of spamming information into Wikipedia or Asia Food Recipe is a client of Conversion Hub who tried to spam the article on Wikipedia for them. Either way, this type of blatant promotion should not be allowed on Wikipedia. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Conversion Hub are a marketing company, I think we can all agree on that. It is clear that they have carried work out for Asia Food Recipe from the article you have uploaded. However there is no link on wikipedia, from IP addresses or users that have worked on both articles. To say that Mr. Fu is responsible for the Asia Food Recipe articles, simply has no substance as an argument. Adel4570 (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Adel4570 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - You could be correct about the same person not editing any of the three articles. Of course, you are referring to the usernames and IP addresses, not what a checkuser would find out. Regardless, I believe I will rely on WP:DUCK on this one and say based on how they are written with WP:PUFF that they are all related. Just my opinion. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of the current sources are from the company - either from the company's site or press releases - and I'm not convinced what is left is enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Happy to consider potential sources but the deadlinks don't inspire confidence. Stalwart111 15:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe the article is more than credible. I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but three articles as mentioned above by the IP user are all credible PRINTED media articles. The fact one of them has a deadlink doesn't matter. This in my opinion meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Secondly, the additional references are in accordance with WP:SELFSOURCE. I don't fell that any of the points made in these references make the subject sound like something its not. The key points that are covered are about the size of the organisation and who they work with. Both these points are covered in the 3 printed media references. Adel4570 (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Adel4570 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's not really how WP:SELFSOURCE works, especially given the article itself, in my view, fails points 1 and 5 of that guideline in that the sources in question are obviously self-serving press releases, created to promote the company, and the article itself is primarily based on those sources. How very convenient that the only sources not available to other users are the only sources that might confer notability. Yeah, not going to work. Stalwart111 00:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - one of the company's main clients had an equally poorly sourced article that I've just nominated for deletion here. Stalwart111 00:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - While still assuming good faith, there are IP !votes being made in addition to the creator of the article. Not implying a sock puppet, but would request that the discussion closer please take into consideration the IP voter on this deletion discussion and the two similar IP !votes on the previous deletion discussion. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At this time it does not seem to meet CORPDEPTH or have any hope of RSes existing to cover it in that detail. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Just an observation, but no one has mentioned the companies awards? Just think this should be pointed out for future visitors. Adel4570 (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - In regards to WP:CORPDEPTH - I quote If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. - The newspaper articles do this, there are 3 individual articles all of which are independent and aren't trivial or incidental. Because the articles are from printed media, this seems to be a problem to some. However we shouldn't be deleting an article because editors can't easily view the references. It is not impossible to view these references, they are from large media outlets in Singapore. Just because some editors can't click a link to establish notability shouldn't be a reason to delete it. Adel4570 (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly right - they don't need to be online. But they do need to exist. The burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate that the company is notable. You claim these sources exist; I, for one, don't believe you. The Straits Times, for example, has a lovely search function. Despite your claim that one of their articles substantiates the subject's notability beyond doubt, a search of their site - right here - produces zero results. Like I said above - your claim that the only sources that confer notability are also the only sources that happen not to be online (for an online marketing company) isn't going to fly. Who the hell publishes a substantial article about an online company but then doesn't publish it online where the biggest market for such news would be? Ha ha. No. Stalwart111 14:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's address the WP:CORPDEPTH issue. You quote, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." Great quote, but you need to interpret it for what that means, not what you "want" it to mean. I would agree that if you had "multiple independent sources" that they could be considered as a group to be a single reliable source and be counted towards WP:GNG. Here in lies the problem - THERE IS NOTHING INDEPENDENT here. Everything is press releases and reprints of press releases. Oh yeah, let's thrown in the company website as well because that's independent? The articles that you cite more than likely do not exist or are just additional reprinted press releases which is what it sounds like from the title of the articles. As such, your logic that it meets WP:CORPDEPTH is seriously flawed. Also, you have been rather quiet to comment on the SPAM that this company keeps putting up on Wikipedia (including this article, Asia Food Recipe, and SgCartMart). --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article on Conversion Hub, and want to discuss that. That is the reason I haven't joined in with your SPAM discussion. As for your other points I don't even think they are worthy of addressing.

Stalwart - You make some good points until the Haha at the end, which is incredibly childish. It surprises me that the articles aren't still online. Just to clarify, 2 of them were - the deadlink (not sure if it has been removed now), and the Zaobao article. The articles not being online for a marketing company isn't going to fly? These aren't press releases from the company, they are news articles. It is up to the papers how they display their news. They are a marketing company, would that news not be readable content for people who read newspapers? and should only be sent to internet users?? Of course not. As for proving existence of the newspaper articles, I believe this is a MASSIVE flaw in Wikipedia by the look of things. How am I supposed to prove it to you? Hand deliver a copy of that newspaper to each and every editor that questions its existence? Adel4570 (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um no, your argument is a joke and I laughed; I have a sense of humour. The only sources that might save your advertisement aren't available to the rest of us mere mortals and we simply have to take the word of a single-purpose promo-spammer that they exist, they are reliable, they are significant coverage and thus the subject is notable. You gotta see the humour in that! Stalwart111 21:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a "massive flaw in Wikipedia" as you state. The flaw is with individuals who need to use Wikipedia guidelines to contribute to this discussion so a consensus can be formed. Sorry, but there is a flaw with humans that we simply do not trust something that is "fishy," which is exactly what this article is. If the article is full of poorly sourced information with links to that poorly sourced information, and the only "reliable" source provided is to a non-link source, then it smells fishy. Taking into account the previous intermingled SPAM from SgSmartCar and Asia Food Recipe, this smells even fishier. Unfortunately for you, both myself and Stalwart (sorry for speaking for this editor) have by our comments above attempted to prove your case for your; however, we have been unable to do so. Logic tells me that if this company is truly notable, there would be more online than just press releases. Tons of press releases and no online reliable source? No one is asking you to provide a hand delivered copy of the source, but you need to look at this logically and stop repeating the same bad argument about a source that may or may not exist.

The article actually falls into the definition of WP:LIPSTICK and WP:PUFF and as such the article does not stand much chance of survival unless the "reliable" references that you put in the article are somehow verified. This has NOTHING to do with a flaw in Wikipedia, but the flaw in how you created the article full of junk and then expect everyone to believe the sources that can only be verified by you. I believe at this point that the article has a case of Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability as there is really nothing that can be done to improve it or establish notability.--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:38, 12 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Theobalds[edit]

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

Cannot find any WP:RS to establish notability for this musician. There are plenty of listings such as AllMusic, etc., but there is nothing talking specifically about him. As opposed to deleting this article, would also recommend a possible redirect to Akercocke, a band that he was apparently a member of. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 22 May 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, J04n(talk page) 13:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per point #6 of WP:BAND, since he's been in three bands about whom we have articles (Salem Orchid, Akercocke and End of Level Boss). "Weak" because I don't like that bit of the guideline and I'm not entirely convinced that the first and last of those bands' articles would survive at AfD. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You are correct about #6 and I had that in mind prior to AfD. However, I did look at the other bands and although they have articles on Wikipedia, I would question the notability of them all. As such, I would say that #6 does not apply as the groups must be notable groups. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of references to End of Level Boss, which I think show notability. (I'd agree as far as Salem Orchid is concerned, but I suppose as long as Theobalds has an article it could be argued that Salem Orchids is notable per the other part of WP:BAND #6.) If you think End of Level Boss aren't notable I'd recommend taking that article to AfD; if it's deleted I'd probably be willing to change my !vote here. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:48, 3 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 · · 14:11, 4 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 admin JamesBWatson (non-admin close). Stalwart111 15:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2020 in film[edit]

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

Wikki is not a crystal ball Bihco (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Blatant hoax by serial hoaxer. Check his edit history. Captain Conundrum (talk) 14:00, 4 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Platform Racing[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Platform Racing" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

PROD contested and then restored, and subsequently deleted in error, now obviously undone. Having looked into this subject further I do not think it is notable, as it appears to be just one-of-hundreds/thousands/millions of flash games on the internet, nothing remarkable about it. Giant Snowman 12:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reasons above

Giant Snowman 12:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Woodroar (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't like to do "per nom", but GiantSnowman pretty much covers it. There are just thousands of these little web games out there, and a vast majority simply get no coverage to satisfy the GNG. These all fall in that category. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 4 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) czar · · 14:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. Rather WP:Run-of-the-mill. Ansh666 14:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per failing N and GNG; not even a popular flash game. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:06, 12 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. clear consensus both before and after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Levine (commentator)[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)

This individual is not at all significant enough to warrant having his own wikipedia page. First, over the 3 plus months that the page has existed, it has received an average of less than 10 views per day. Further, the article lacks adequate support from secondary and tertiary sources, which suggests that few such sources exist. Finally, this individual claims to have a significant media presence, however he has only written a handful of short articles and appeared once on CNN and an obscure English language television program in mainland China. If everyone with a media presence as insignificant as this individual were to create their own wikipedia page, wikipedia would very quickly become polluted with a plethora of pages about individuals that the general public does not care about.

Yes writing a few articles for various editorials and appearing twice on tv is not nearly significant enough to justify having a page on Wikipedia. It appears to me that Jon Levine wrote this page by himself, as its citations rely almost exclusively on the few articles that he has written. Unless significant information about the significance of this individual is missing, the page should absolutely be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.66.245.146 (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did a google search for further information about Mr. Levine, however I could not find anything. If he gains more of a public presence in the future he can recreate his wiki page, however as it stands now I don't believe he is notable enough to deserve his own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.61.241 (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC) — Wiki editor 008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Procedural speedy close~~ The nom is ~~basically~~ almost a personal attack on Levine, being phrased in very negative terms and a disdainful way. Yes, the article was created by a SPA, but that doesn't mean that this was Levine himself. In addition, even if he were, being an autobio is absolutely not a reason for deletion. Neither are the number of page views relevant in this discussion. In view of this I call for an immediate close, without prejudice if somebody else wants to take this to AFD immediately again (but this time using more policy-based arguments phrased in a more respectful way). Nevertheless, delete for lack of notability. --Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Being mentioned in an article or news report doesn't cut it, nor does writing an article. His failed bid for mayor in a 4,400 person village is more novelty than notable. Common name doesn't make the search easier. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not the greatest of nominations: nominator, please sign your name properly and just stick to the facts. How many hits a page gets is of no relevance, and much of your nomination reads like you got a bone to pick. Having said that, delete for lack of notability, per Niteshift for instance. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I do not know Jonathan and have no bone to pick. I am simply appalled when I find wikipedia pages that read like a personal aggrandizement. This individual is purported to be a "consultant" and "journalist" despite having written only a handful of minor articles over the span of a number of years. It is further claimed that Levine has been "one of the most prominent proponents of working in China and American expatriation". This claim is quite pretentious in light of the fact that it is not supported by any citations. As Niteshift and Drmies have noted, this article should be deleted due to its lack of reliable third party sources and the subject's lack of notability. Wiki editor 008 (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC) — Wiki editor 008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete resume that doesn't pass WP:GNG. Nominator needs a trout for the way he chose to word this and should climb off his soapbox, however. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 17:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given that the subject has gotten opinion pieces in prominent newspapers and magazines, I expected to find news about the subject in WP:RS. But, no. Fails WP:BIO in the end.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notwithstanding nom's somewhat intemperate wording this is a clear case of WP:ARTSPAM. Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC, WP:BLP and WP:RS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mr. Levine's prominence in the claimed fields has been verified by no less a source than CNN and his political experience should also not be discounted. I can think of more than a few wiki articles whose standards are far below this one. Furthermore, I do not think as a community we should give credence to what was obviously a personal attack on Mr. Levine. Screwtape666 (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Screwtape666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Writing a piece for CNN doesn't make you notable. Being the subject of significant coverage by CNN might. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*CNN's description of Mr. Levine's work and career is what I was basing it on. Furthermore Mr. Levine was the subject of a CNN story so that criteria is also satisfied Screwtape666 (talk)— Screwtape666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Their description is hardly significant coverage. The other piece....he isn't the subject. He is an example. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That description, coupled with Journal News political coverage, coupled with other descriptions on various other news sources in my estimation does add up to notability. Your description of CNN piece is a matter of perspective. Screwtape666 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Screwtape666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If your estimation is that you can add up mere mentions to equal notability, then I'd submit that you don't understand what significant coverage is or what the notability standard is. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that screwtape666's only previous contribution to wikipedia was in the creation and editing of the page for Ken Levine, the father of Jonathan Levine. The account has been inactive since 2010, only becoming reactive to join this debate. It is clear that screwtape666 has a personal bias in favor of Jonathan Levine; his commentary cannot be taken as objective. Further, I would like to reiterate that I do not know Mr. Levine. This is not a personal attack. My nomination of this page for deletion is nothing other than an attempt to remove a personal advertisement masquerading as a legitimate article. As noted by Ad Orientum, this article is simply WP:ARTSPAM. Levine fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC, WP:BLP and WP:RS. DeleteWiki editor 008 (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Wiki editor 008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I did make the Ken Levine page but I did not make this page and am only responding to what I see here. The fact that I am not a regular editor of wiki or that my account has become inactive is irrelevant to this discussion. Your accusation of bias is completely without merit or hard evidence and once again fuels my suspicious of a personal attach motive at the heart of this matter. You clearly cannot win this argument on the merits so you resort to speculation. Screwtape666 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)— Screwtape666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Personal battling

On the contrary your bias is undeniable. Your sole contribution to wikipedia is in the creation of the page for Jonathan's father. After a 3 year hiatus from any activity on wikipedia, you have returned to participate in this discussion. This is not a coincidence. All editors will understand this. The merits of the argument for the deletion of this page have been universally supported by all contributors to this discussion except for yourself. The merit of the argument for deletion is indisputable. Wiki editor 008 (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much like the original personal attack which started this discussion, I often make edits to Wikipedia without signing in. It is just easier and more convenient for lay-users. I have signed in for this discussion because of its unique gravity. Once again, rather than shouting bias, I defy you to find fault with any of my reasoning! I suspect this kind of editor peer pressure is why user RandyKitty changed his/her original position to now favors delete Screwtape666 (talk)— Screwtape666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
All editors of this page have found fault with this page and have suggested that it be deleted. This is an effort to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, not a personal attack. I have only stated that this individual is not significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia page and that what claims the article does make lack reliable secondary and tertiary sources, all points which other editors agree with. This does not constitute a personal attack. Wiki editor 008 (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Wiki editor 008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I find it appalling that an unsigned user with suspect motivations can initiate something like this and I believe that compromises the integrity of Wikipedia to a far greater degree than this article. By deleting this page, in all likelihood you will only be validating the vandalism and slander of one of Mr. Levine's disgruntled former students and you will turn your own website into a farce. Notability has been demonstrated so let the matter rest. Screwtape666 (talk)— Screwtape666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Wiki editor 008 claims no bias and yet it seems he joined wiki solely for the purpose of defaming Mr. Levine. His very first action was to try and remove this article and he was censured by wiki's own staff:

"Hello, Wiki editor 008, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Levine (commentator) does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media."

Once again, I implore the editors to consider the motivation behind this slander and vote to Keep this article. Screwtape666 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Screwtape666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

For the record, I'm the one who tagged you as a SPA and I stand by it. I believe there is a strong possibility that you are connected to the subjects. Please don't act like only one person thinks that way. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Levine is a director who won an award at the 08 sundance film festival for a film that i liked very much. I looked this Jonathan Levine up on wiki but instead found the article for the Jonathan Levine that this debate is currently centered around. The top of the article had two notices about lack of credibility and sources. I read the article, agreed that it lacked credence and made a wiki account so I could nominate it for deletion. This Jonathan levine's article distracts from the page for the film director of the same name. Once again, I don't know this individual and am not attempting to slander him. Instead, like all others who have contributed to this forum, I am simply advocating that the page be deleted for lack of notability and appropriate support. Lastly, I find it appalling that screwtape666 would have the gall to question my intentions for contributing to this forum given that his only prior contribution on Wikipedia was the creation of a page for Levine's father. Wiki editor 008 (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Wiki editor 008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please cut it out you two, will you? Screwtape, I'm not on WP's "staff", nobody here is. Wiki editor, I find Screwtape's arguments not biased. Niteshift has a different reading of the sources (and I agree with that), but I know quite a few editors in good standing that might agree with Screwtape's reading. In addition, whether you have a bone to pick or Screwtape has a COI is really immaterial once you're at AFD: what counts here is policy-based arguments. Not opinions, not !votes. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello... I am new to this discussion and I know it is not the majority opinion, but I feel I agree with the Keep side. I think Mr. Levine is notable enough and many of the arguments against him seem very mean-spirited. --Kevin2390 (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Kevin2390 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as per RS, BIO, and what people besides the nominator said. Capscap (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I support Screwtape et al interpretations. Subject appears notable Cdcsj (talk • contribs) 16:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Cdcsj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: This discussion is starting to reek of WP:SOCKS. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- More likely, it is meatpuppetry. This authorizes the closer to consider all the dubious !votes as a single vote for the purpose of determining consensus, so how many show up is pretty much moot and a waste of their time. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. The lead does not clearly state why he would be notable nor do the sources back up any particular direction. It's a poorly written article and it is not properly sourced.Crtew (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will continue to revert. There are compelling point in the below. Niteshift tells me to discuss but he keeps removing my justifications. It is not for HIM to decide what it relevant and is not. By calling my arguments irrelevant he is attempting to improperly influence the decision.Screwtape666 (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)— Screwtape666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: I am amazed to see the clear assumption of bad faith for anyone supporting the keep position while the fact that this call for deletion was initiated by an unsigned user with clear personal motivation is completely ignored. The clear scorn for first time users that is evident in this thread saddens me and I believe is part of a larger deleterious trend that is harmful to Wikipedia. If your community mocks or shuns the opinions of newer or less frequent users, they will simply just stop using. Screwtape666 (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Screwtape666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What you apparently fail to catch is that it really doesn't matter if the nominator has a personal reason or not. It brought it to the attention of a lot of experienced editors who, to this point, all seem to agree that the dude simply isn't notable. I, for one, am not worried about these new, single purpose users and I suspect that I'm not alone.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I catch is the institutional bias of Wikipedia towards its less frequent users. It seems once the "experienced" clique has come to a judgement, any dissenting voices are branded as meatpuppets or sockpuppets. or whatever you want to call them. Resorting to petty insults and intimidation of these users only reinforces a growing concern among lay-wiki users that the platform has become a tool of established interests and has betrayed its original mission. Delete this article if you want, but don't let yourselves be deluded into thinking you have achieved a consensus to do so.Screwtape666 (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)— Screwtape666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You can pretend there is a bias, but again, it's because you miss the reality. The experienced users are the ones most familiar with the policies, guidelines and practices of Wikipedia. We're the ones who've taken part in lengthy discussions at RSN, BLP/N, ANI and other venues. And you can call it insulting all you want, first time editors that somehow find their way to an AfD as their first edit are questionable across the board. For it to happen once in an AfD is unusual. For it to happen more than once....well, we know that's faked.Consensus isn't unanimous and there is a pretty clear consensus so far to delete this. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As it says at the top of this page, consensus is "gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Not a single person here supported the nominator's attitude or attack. I've never encountered any of the other people who commented here and came across here by chance. There isn't some conspiracy here. Multiple editors have put forward unbiased, valid reasons as to why the article fails to meet the standards for inclusion in wikipedia and you have put forward your interpretation. And to me, it looks like it's not dissent that is causing those labels, but instead the fact that accounts that have made 0-1 edits in the past have all of a sudden wandered into the AfD discussion to make their second edits. That's just extremely unusual. But even assuming good faith, they haven't brought any new arguments or evidence to the table to help resolve this matter. Capscap (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You are quite correct. This fundamentally boils down to a debate about notability. Different wiki users have shown differing opinions over the same set of facts. I agree that a simple vote count is inappropriate and easily manipulated, but I would hardly call what I see here a consensus. If you reject the differing opinions of some of your users in favor of others simply because they don't live on this website it would set a terrible precedent as per my last post. Screwtape666 (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)— Screwtape666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It really doesn't matter if you agree that vote counting isn't the way to go. That is policy, not an agreement between us. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would also like to submit this article by Paul Pillar in which Mr. Pillar, who you can read in his wiki is an eminent IR scholar, responds to a piece by Mr. Levine as further evidence of notabilityScrewtape666 (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)— Screwtape666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Well, I see you don't know enough about Wikipedia to know the difference between collapsing an off topic portion of a conversation and deleting it, as you falsely claimed. Apparently you don't know what an edit summary is for either, since you keep reverting without giving a summary. You look more like a POV warrior every time you click the save page button. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment does not add anything further to this discussion and is unrelated. So I will not respondScrewtape666 (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)— Screwtape666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

News flash: You did respond sunshine. 03:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Niteshift36 (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Notable Information I have taken the liberty of adding some new notable third party sources to this article. I believe that they bolster the Keep position and evidence for notability. I suspect that with some internet digging wiki users could probably find more notable sources and I must reiterate again my belief that deleting this article seems unwarranted and hasty Screwtape666 (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)— Screwtape666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment While I appreciate your efforts, I have to say that I don't see anything yet that entices me to change my !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you really don't have to keep reiterating that you are against deletion. Everyone has figured it out by this point. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I know it is not relevant to the policy issues raised thus far, I do feel compelled to post the following recent status from the Facebook page of one Andrew Bower. On the subject of meatpuppetry which was raised earlier, I just thought I would share this all with you to put any doubts to bed about the original intentions of this discussion. This clear effort to recruit people to the delete position is a grave violation of community trust and frankly makes a mockery of this entire process. Screwtape666 (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bower June 5 via mobile Please let me know if you have a history of editing Wikipedia pages. I have met a person that has written his own wiki page... he intentionally misrepresents himself. The page has been put up for deletion and this has gotten quite a bit of support from the wiki community, but more voices of support from established wiki users would help. Please message me if you can help. Thanks for helping keep Wikipedia free of fake personal advertisements made to look like legitimate articles! Screwtape666 (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC) — Screwtape666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is getting absurd. Stay on the friggin topic. Take pointless crap like this to the talk page. If you can't find the talk page, I'll provide you with a link to it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not belong on the talk page. It is important for you all to see.... Frankly sir, I wonder if you were one of his recruits.Screwtape666 (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)— Screwtape666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This is hardly irrelevant crap and to me raises the real possibility that a number of the delete editors have been compromised. You can all read it for yourselves while it is still public.Screwtape666 (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)— Screwtape666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

https://www.facebook.com/andrew.bower.71?fref=ts Screwtape666 (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)— Screwtape666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No it does not belong on the talk page. It is important for you all to see.... Frankly sir, I wonder if you were one of his recruits.Screwtape666 (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)— Screwtape666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Everyone can see the talk page sport. Did you not know that or are you just too lazy to click on the tab? And you can wonder all you want, but if you voice that allegation again my friend, you'd better be prepared to provide proof at ANI, because your singular purpose account will find itself there. My edit history here is long and diverse. No person in their right mind would buy into your idiotic claim. Your singular purpose on Wikipedia is clear. I can show it. You, however, can't support your false allegation. Govern yourself accordingly. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation is unfounded, unwarranted, and a personal attack. ~~And I don't have a clue who Andrew Bower is, nor what that Facebook post has to do with the current debate.~~ If you want to discuss the workings of the AFD process, go to the Village Pump or to the talk page of the AFD guideline. As for the discussion here, please stay on topic. And if you have nothing substantial to say, I would advice you not to say anything. This incessant flogging of a dead horse damages your cause much more than it helps it, because it will make it very probable that a closing admin is going to ignore all your posts completely. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see now that this Andrew Bower claims to have been the person who brought this article to AFD. His canvassing on Facebook is not very effective, though, because it took me a while to figure out which AFD he actually was talking about. And I don't see any evidence of effective canvassing here (apart from some apparent sock-/meatpuppets that came here to !vote "keep"). As far as I can see, all "delete" !votes come from well-established and experienced editors who would never !vote either way just because someone asked them to. Niteshift came here because I brought this AFD to his attention (not to !vote either way, but because of possible BLP issues with the rather harshly-worded nom). --Randykitty (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Randy, I do appreciate your efforts and I trust that you are sincere. However, now that unequivocal proof of soliciting meatpuppetry has emerged for the delete position - not speculation, but proof - I just do not see how we can continue in good faith. Can you be sure none of the editors here have an affiliation with this Bower? Screwtape666 (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC) — Screwtape666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You made the allegation towards me. Back it up or withdraw it. Your faux concern about meatpuppetry is a bunch of smoke and mirrors and transparently desperate. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you reread. I didn't accuse you of anything, and frankly, I am quite finished with this discussion. I believe I have made my points clear Screwtape666 (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)— Screwtape666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Your poorly veiled accusation is clear. I should know better than to expect you to actually act in an honorable fashion. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is truly ridiculous. I am the individual who began this AFD discussion. My name is not Andrew Bower. Anybody can post whatever they want on Facebook. For all we know, this Andrew Bower could be screwtape666 attempting to create evidence that this debate is biased out of his favor. He has already ranted to no end about bias and on multiple occasions undid nightshift's attempts to place this ranting in a (still accessible) category about irrelevant discussion of bias. This Facebook post is meaningless, it's source is not verifiable and speculating about it does nothing to bring this debate to a closure. Please just look at the objective facts guys. This debate has really gotten out of hand. Wiki editor 008 (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)— Wiki editor 008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - I love how my attempts to verify the claims in this article are so overblown it is outright silly. Using a nationalinterest blog as a RS on criticism of the subject and a tiny mention in Bloomberg. Doesn't seem to meet N or GNG; and whose job function is neither notable or unique enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNG reasons and the klout of regular editors makes a difference sometimes. Oh the perils of canvasing the world :) SarahStierch (talk) 17:39, 12 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mapusoft Technologies[edit]

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

No reliable sources, and based on promotion of the "nest big thing". Wiki is not speculative source and seems to violate: WP:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING Tyros1972 Talk 11:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertising. I notice that this user previously posted Mapusoft which was speedied per G11 and A7 - this article should meet the same fate for the same reason. andy (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company plainly exists but there is no evidence of it meeting the WP:CORPDEPTH notability guidelines. AllyD (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per CORP; does not meet N or GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:14, 12 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael S. Kearns[edit]

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

a candidate for political office does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. A well-written piece of self-aggrandizement but he would appear not to be notable in our space Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN indeed. More generally, I could not find enough to fulfill WP:BIO criteria. An interesting sounding life, but not notable.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per nom and TorC-2. Only important source in the ref is San Diego Magazine but he's not mentioned in the article (ref should be cut). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't see any reason why he should be notable. A perfect example of an article that aggrandises a really rather insignificant person. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Among all the wikipuffery it's hard to discern a claim of significance of any kind. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 9 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 Seekers (novel series). SarahStierch (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great Bear Lake (seekers)[edit]

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

Attempted to redirect this book to the author's website, but it was reverted. At this point, the book is sourced by Amazon, along with promotional/marketing sites. A search for reliable and independent sources came up with more of the same, along with several blogs and amateur reviews. Hoping others may come up with something reliable and independent. Thanks, Cindy(talk) 08:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Seekers (novel series). While I can see where this series (and the original Warriors series) is used in classrooms, there's no individual notability for this volume by way of reviews or other articles specifically focusing on this entry in the series. It would be a reasonable enough redirect to the series page, although I'd recommend fixing the capitalization in the title to "Seekers". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing this slightly. There was one review for the Horn Book Guide, but not much else. ([15]) The reviews quoted on this page were taken from Amazon and don't seem to be for this book specifically, but for the Seekers series as a whole. The link I have (Book Verdict) is a branch of the SLJ, HBG, and LJ, so if the SLJ had posted a review for this book, it would have been listed with the HBG review. This is kind of one of the reasons we don't use Amazon as a RS for reviews even when they're quoting other reviews. As for the other two, I don't think either is really what we'd consider a RS. Thriving Family is through Focus on the Family, but I'm unsure as far as how they'd go when it comes to reviews and such. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Separate First I accidentally made it as "(seekers)" and not "(Seekers)" but its not necessary to redirect. The first time it had no sources. This time it did. I think that this is way to fast to nominate for deletion. If you read my summary it says that im still adding to it. I found some reviews and more could be added. Goodreads has a page on here so it must be notable enough to review. And reviews are simply opinions anyways. But I think its weird to try to delete a new page upon creation. This book is out for a while and more could easily be found. But as I am the only one adding to the page, its not quite big yet. But either way more info can be found. I was simply starting the page and everyone can help. Again though I spent quite a bit on this page and it shouldnt be deleted. The series is notable. Every Warriors book has one (save for mangas and stuff) but still each book deserves a page. While most dont its just because they havent made one yet. So keep it how it is and let it grow. BlackDragon 15:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goodreads is not usable as a reliable source, partially because anyone can add books to it (or request that they be added) but mostly because everyone and anyone can review on it. When it comes to reviews and Wikipedia, the average person's review doesn't count as a reliable source. The only ones that we can use are the ones that are in places that are considered to be a reliable source, such as say, the New York Times. In other words, the place that the review is posted has to be in a trusted source that has known editorial oversight that can be verified. Goodreads, Amazon, book blogs, and similarly themed sites of this nature don't have that. Trade reviews such as Publishers Weekly and Kirkus are helpful, but they're so brief that it's unlikely that an article would be kept on those alone. In this case the only review out there that's really usable for this specific entry is one by the Horn Book Guide. As far as other books having entries, that doesn't mean that those books necessarily merit an entry. It might just be that those books haven't been nominated for deletion or been redirected yet. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) I can understand getting frustrated about a page getting deleted that you spent time on, but the entries still have to pass notability guidelines. You can always userfy the information if you want, although I think it's doubtful that this individual volume will ever pass notability guidelines. This is really the sort of thing that is better suited for fan wikis where they don't have to meet the strict guidelines we have here and can give more information. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Seekers (novel series) per Tokyogirl79. WP:GNG requires coverage to come from reliable sources, which exclude user-generated content such as online reader reviews.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:44, 7 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 admin Jimfbleak. (Non-admin close) Stalwart111 10:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian W. Zelley[edit]

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

Clearly promotional and lacking in notability. Amateur boxer, boxing coach, and ring announcer. Wholly unverifiable with sources reflecting organizational meeting minutes, an op-ed, and an organizational newsletter. A search for additional sources only came up with a lot of blogs and promotional stories published by the subject, about the subject. Cindy(talk) 07:41, 4 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) Dusti^*poke* 17:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francine Busby[edit]

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

He doesn't seem like she's notable. In fact, I believe that she is a perennial candidate at this point. Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (whisper) @ 09:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk to me) @ 09:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cardiff School District or California's 50th congressional district#Election results. Subject has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources over the course of multiple election events, however the vast majority of the coverage are related to the subject being a perennial candidate (until 2012); this is especially true due to the nature of the 50th (since redistricted to the 52nd) district being considered a swing district by both major parties in the United States. That being said the pertinent things we should look at is WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:LOCAL; the subject as a non-winning candidate of a House of Representatives seat would normally be redirected to the election which the individual ran in. As the subject of this AfD has ran multiple times for a single seat, redistricting to that seat's election results maybe an appropriate target. Another appropriate target would be to the only government council which the subject served on as the subject could be considered locally notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: She hasn't done anything notable in her lifetime. I will admit that these elections were highly competitive and the RSCC did spend a lot of money. However, not everyone can have a wikipedia page and she isn't notable enough for one.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC) (Note: this comment is from the nominator. --MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources seems to exist: [16][17][18][19]. Being a perennial candidate is irrelevant. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I normally don't favor articles on unsuccessful candidates, but she is higher profile in this county than many elected officeholders, and has gotten national press. As shown by the links found by Arms & Hearts, her campaigns received national attention, particularly the 2006 special election for the open seat left by Duke Cunningham; this link shows her being discussed by the national parties as some kind of harbinger of national trends. Here's another example, which is already cited in the article; not many unsuccessful candidates get written up by U.S. News & World Report! She fails WP:POLITICIAN, but she passes WP:N based on significant coverage by multiple national-level reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have added half-a-dozen additional references to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 30 May 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 · · 07:02, 4 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) 18:05, 12 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) 18:05, 12 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. SarahStierch (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Visser[edit]

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

Not notable. Not a pastry chef, but somebody with a seasonal pastry stand. Advertising. The Banner talk 19:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 21:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (confer) @ 22:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (speak) @ 22:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (barney) @ 22:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The man and his stand are notable per awards and coverage in reliable sources. That the food he serves is seasonal doesn't seem very relevant. Many foods are seasonal. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Visser did not win a competition, it was just a kind of random test with a bias to the region where the newspaper Algemeen Dagblad (the organiser) is sold. The Banner talk 23:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of news media sources covering this baker and his notable business. If you have a source casting doubt on the awards he's received from that paper I have no problem with that conten being noted in the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second time this month I've been accused of spamming for a business I have 0 connections to. Farewell Wikipedia! Targaryen^{speak or forever remain silent} 22:38, 29 May 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 · · 06:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided may barely reach GNG, but there's more out there, e.g., [20], [21], and so on. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:19, 6 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 merge to Lil Wyte. SarahStierch (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Filter[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable, unreleased musical recording. Fails WP:NALBUM. I originally redirected the article back to the artist article, but was reverted. A redirect may not be a good idea because of the generic nature of the album title. - Mr X 14:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist article as above. The artist exceeds notability guidelines but it doesn't appear that the album does. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An album by a notable artist. Album includes notable producers and guest appearances. The album isn't released yet that's why there aren't reviews yet. Delete-Wikipedia won't need this until reliable sources are available Radioactiveplayful (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Radioactive playful[reply]

Abgrenv (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2013

Unfortunately, the artist and producers can not confer notability on the subject of this article which is the album. Are you able to provide some evidence that the album itself is notable. In other words, that the media or scholars have taken note? - Mr X 20:31, 4 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 · · 06:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough yet. Koala15 (talk) 21:58, 6 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. SarahStierch (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saul Fathi[edit]

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

Author of 3 books,all three self-published, none with more than a few library holdings DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk to me) @ 08:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (natter) @ 08:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (lecture) @ 08:49, 28 May 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've tagged it as a speedy since it looks to be copyvio from his website, but just in case I wanted to voice my argument here. I admire his accomplishments, as I find them personally impressing, but unfortunately he just doesn't meet any of the very strict requirements for notability standards here on Wikipedia. There's no coverage for him or for his works. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. A reasonable search for additional sources finds nothing meeting WP:IRS. Duplication detector reveals blocks of text directly taken from website. Page and page history have the appearance of being created in order to direct readers to personal website or self published books. BusterD (talk) 15:16, 13 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. SarahStierch (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valmir Nafiu[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. PROD was contested on the grounds that he played in the Macedonian First League. WP:FPL confirms that the league is not fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chatter) @ 09:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gas) @ 09:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (cackle) @ 09:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:47, 29 May 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication this individual meets notability guidelines due to not having had a professional club career or represented his country at senior level. C 679 23:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTY. I can't find any in-depth coverage in reliable sources, so it also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:19, 11 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. SarahStierch (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Sahota[edit]

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

Subject clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO, no reliable 3rd party coverage could be found. Only mentioned at music downloading websites or album promotion websites. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 02:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (lecture) @ 08:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 23:16, 28 May 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Wp:MUSICBIO. Hekerui (talk) 22:24, 8 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. SarahStierch (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martita[edit]

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

I don't watch Spanish-language TV, but I'm not finding any references, and the only one this article has is a dead link. Hard to believe a coffee server merits an article to herself. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did find another English language reference to a 2002 South Florida Sun newspaper article abstract here, but the article itself is behind a paywall. However, I remain unconvinced of notability sufficient to justify an encyclopedia article. Martita is not mentioned, for example, in the El Gordo y la Flaca article. At best, a mention in that article would seem to be more appropriate than a separate article. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:39, 23 May 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, L Faraone 00:53, 28 May 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Per above This individual definitely does not merit her own article. Finnegas (talk) 20:38, 4 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 a G12 copyright violation by User:Jimfbleak. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Zwerenz[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG for creative professionals. SarahStierch (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Unambiguous copyright violation (G-12). Also lacks notability as per nom. Additionally user Queens English has deleted the original AfD notice from the page(??!!) -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible User Misconduct User Queens English has now removed the G-12 tag I just placed on the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G12; tagged as such. It doesn't help that the subject of the article created it in January 2012 and hasn't been on Wikipedia since. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The little extra information not in the Amazon profile from which most of the article is copied is also from a separate Amazon page. I searched High Beam and found nothing on this person. I search google and found a blog interview which discloses very little and quite a lot of promotional material for books and albums. I also found a few stories with his byline. In other words, I did not find much. I did not find enough to write an article independent of the amazon profile. Based on that profile, I suppose one could write that he is an author of seven books of poetry and is a musician with a CD or two. I don't find that to be enough to revise and keep the article. It does not seem to be enough to establish notability for a creative professional. I see one or more of his books are published by Xlibris which is a self-publishing company, which raises doubt at least about how widespread his work has become. Donner60 (talk) 07:14, 4 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. SarahStierch (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im Gespräch mit[edit]

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

A talk show hosted by Michel von Tell. The show also goes by Im Gespräch mit von Tell (translated as A conversation with von Tell) No reliable refs to be found. There are plenty of social media links, including YouTube. Von Tell's article also is up for AfD at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel von Tell‎. Bgwhite (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep hybercritic - i found videos on you tube with about a million viewsa - huge fan base - decumentary movies - imdb listing - amount of very popular guests and so on. wikipedia says :

Wikipedia:PORNBIO says " Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." another point witch is in the entertainer criteria" Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions". talked in his show to a lot of outstanding unique people about profific topics. like i sayed. for me rel is absolutly given. absolutly enogh for a small article.Jimkio12 (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, see WP:NPA - calling Bgwhite a "hypercritic" is a personal attack. In addition, YT cannot be used as a reliable source, and nor can IMDB or any of the social media links. Please read WP:RS to see which sources may be considered reliable. It cannot pass WP:PORNBIO with such claims alone, without any reliable sources to back them. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 06:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no reliable sources to establish notability. In addition to that the editing pattern, with User:Jimkio12 being the only contributor, makes me believe there's a COI involved, and that the article is used for self-promotion. Thomas.W (talk) 09:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more Jimkio12 spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the links I've found on Google are largely video repositories; and the Spiegel articles do not appear to be reliable enough - also per Thomas.W. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 00:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. I stumbled on this while NAPing another one of the author's articles in which I am leaning towards AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad Orientem (talk • contribs) 03:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I request that the closing admin disregard the references to WP:PORNBIO above. This article does not appear to have anything to do with pornography. For that matter, it's not even a biography. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:28, 11 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 keep. This article has repeatedly been under IP vandalism. I am One of Many (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soledad Mexia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Mexia is the fourth oldest living American, and has an article of her own despite a lack of reliable sources to document her notability. Not to mention that she is only known for her age, which has consistently led to the deletion fo other, similar articles on Wikipedia. If Mexia has an article of her own, then why not give [Mushatt Jones], the second oldest living American an article. Actually, she had one, but it was deleted specifically because of a lack of notability and sources. Why does Mexia merit an article of her own? I don't think she does: Delete. DogsHeadFalls (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ^King Jakob _C2 16:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Shawn Stiffler[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet notability as per WP:BIO, WP:WPBB/N and WP:NCOLLATH. References are all primary sources. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Subject is a Division I college coach. These are notable, and indpendent sources exist. Billcasey905 (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Division I Coach does not meet notability criteria. News coverage is clearly routine. See WP:NCOLLATH. Just because someone exists and has been mentioned in the press as part of routine coverage of a broader topic, in this case college sports, does not make them notable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The the section header, language of the three criteria, and edit history all indicate to me that WP:NCOLLATH is geared much more heavily towards players than coaches, so I'm hesitant to use it as anything more than a loose guideline for this discussion.

Keep per previous WikiProjects' consensus (WP:CFB, WP:CBBALL) that Division I head coaches for football, men's basketball and baseball (current or historical) are notable. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jrcla2's point. In general, I don't think sources are a great measure of notability for baseball coach articles (whether a journalist has decided to feature the coach shouldn't determine notability), especially when the coach in question has taken on his position so recently. (That said, he received a not insignificant amount of coverage with Keyes's death.) A compromise I'd be willing to explore is to use NCAA berths (and the media coverage that comes with them) as a mark of notability for mid-major and low-major coaches– single bids for present-day coaches and multiple bids for historic coaches. Kithira (talk) 03:52, 5 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) 18:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Head coach on a permanent basis of a Division I team in a major sport. By all rational standards that';s notability. (If he headremainedinterim coach, I would have said delete). DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 15 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. SarahStierch (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agnieszka Martyna[edit]

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

While I am keeping systematic bias about under coverage of fashion articles in mind, I am simply not seeing anything in the article that is an assertion of notability. I'd be happy to learn otherwise, particularly if we have any guidelines on model notability outside of WP:BIO? PS. My prod was removed by an anon. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability under WP:N. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone who reads Polish can confirm that there is noteworthy material in the news hits, which I doubt. I don't see any evidence personally. Mabalu (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No Google Books hits; first two pages of google hits are not reliable (facebook, gossip pages, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:17, 4 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. SarahStierch (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Parker (Back to the Future)[edit]

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

Does not meet notability requirements for a stand alone article. Yes she is beautiful, but that is not a reason to create an article. Martin451 (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the show list of characters. As it stands, unreferenced fancruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (not merge). The article is a verbatim copy from the list of characters article without anything new short of the article wrapping parts, thus we're not losing anything with a delete, and the title is not a reasonable search term. The character herself has little notability for a standalone article. --MASEM (t) 03:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The character does not have a major role in the trilogy (it could very easily work well without her) and the entry for her in List of Back to the Future characters is more than enough. -- Lyverbe (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Masem and Lyverbe. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete since it is just a cut/paste and Jennifer Parker already redirects to the entry in the list of BttF characters. So... SNOW? Jclemens (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previously stated arguments. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:57, 6 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. SarahStierch (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garret Kramer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article on notable performance coach and author; his book, Stillpower, is in only 28 libraries according to worldcat. The references are primarily PR, or his own writings, or articles just mentioning him among others. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retain the article. Can't really see any criterion for deleting this article. Can the proposer offer anything else to justify removal? The fact that the book did not sell well to libraries isn't enough to denigrate its author, particularly when it is stocked in some pretty good California libraries, like Los Angeles, San Diego, Pasadena. Anyway, Forbes magazine has written: "His revolutionary approach to performance has transformed the careers of professional athletes and coaches, Olympians, and collegiate players across a multitude of sports."[9] He's also "appeared on radio WFAN and WOR in New York, ESPN and television FOX and CTV."[9][10] Two criteria, from Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals, are "The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications" and "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." We have Forbes to testify to the latter. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 17:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we should deprecate Forbes for notability of BLPs. No reputable publication that does more than reprint PR would have used that sort of wording. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 19 May 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, L Faraone 02:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There are impressive sources cited, but little in-depth coverage: the Forbes reference accompanies an article he wrote and so is hardly unbiased, and sites like about.com are of dubious reliability, so the more I look at it the less he meets WP:GNG. Maybe the positive tone of the article is because he's a very good coach? I'm not sure. But I think we need more evidence. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, all. I just made another add to the article: Go to this link. If this guy is good enough to be interviewed and quoted by the Christian Science Monitor, maybe he will pass inspection here. (Sorry I can't find any transcripts of those radio interviews.) GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, about them libraries: His first book was in twenty-eight libraries, and his second book, published last year, is in forty-seven. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About that Forbes article. Yes, the quotation came from the introduction to an article that Kramer wrote, but, as everybody knows, the headlines and intros to magazine pieces are written by an editor and vetted by another editor. So there's your WP:NPOV right there. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There is some evidence of notability but all of the impressive list of citations when actually read don't seem to meet the "significant coverage" mentioned in WP:GNG. That aside there is not a shadow of doubt that this is a naked piece of advertising and promotion. If it is kept it needs to be gutted and rewritten WP:NPOV.-Ad Orientem (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

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

Relist rationale:Prefer not to relist a third time but unaddressed comments have just been made.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the comment just above, I am glad to know that the editor found "evidence of notability" in Forbes and the Christian Science Monitor. The editor did not mention the radio interviews. Anyway, solid keep. If the article has any faults, well, that is another matter which can and should be handled later. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:55, 7 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 Florida's 19th congressional district special election, 2010. Although more convinced to delete, the consensus appears to redirect (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Lynch (Florida politician)[edit]

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

He is not notable. Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Florida's 19th congressional district special election, 2010, his most recent race. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: He's no "politician." He's never been elected to public office.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Jerzeykydd (talk · contribs) is the nominator of this AfD. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources seems to exist: [22][23][24][25]. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:50, 4 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate or userfy - until he actually wins an election. If he never wins or even runs again, it's time to redirect to Florida's 19th congressional district special election, 2010. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Florida's 19th congressional district. It is the usual practice to redirect a losing candidate for the U.S. Congress to an election page or a page about the congressional district. Since a redirect can only go to one page and the candidate ran in multiple elections, a redirect to the 19th Congressional District makes the most sense. 98.255.206.166 (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like the consensus is to Redirect, as pn too Dusti^*poke* 17:56, 16 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 Withdrawn, non admin closure. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 05:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ermanno Scervino[edit]

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

Naked advertising as per WP:SPAM. Only one source which appears to be promotional in nature. Lacks notability as per WP:CORPDEPTH. Article was previously nominated AfD for being an unsourced biography. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/comment - Obnoxious advertising/promo, but does seem to pass notability standards with a good amount of magazine articles and press coverage. The press section on the official website, whilst including too many photos of models wearing Scervino clothes, does include scans from magazines of articles that do seem to be dedicated to the designer's work, but we need someone who can read Italian to verify that some of these are RS. For example, from Style Papers Italia Dec 2012: 1 2. From MF Fashion Italia, Feb 2013: 1. Italian Elle, March 2013: 1. Genevieve Magazine, Nigeria, February 2013 (in English): 1 2. The press coverage does demonstrate he is receiving substantial publicity. There is also a web press section here. Having articles in almost all the major high-profile fashion publications and their websites is pretty significant. Also, a Google News search pulls up 1,220 hits in various languages, BEFORE going into Google News Archive. That's a very high number of hits for a quite distinctive name, and strongly suggests notability, as many average designers don't have that level of hits. One article that caught my eye was this one which states: "Italian fashion designer and entrepreneur Ermanno Scervino is the only Italian to ever win a World Fashion Award. [...] Scervino was given the award by Italian ambassador in Russia Antonio Zanardi Landi for "his support and the contribution made to the development and promotion of Italian fashion in Russia." - That DOES sound noteworthy to me, even without the previous commentary. But the article desperately needs a rewrite!! Mabalu (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe If the author, or another editor undertakes a major rewrite I will withdraw my AfD. As it stands though there is no way it passes WP:SPAM. I will post a note on the author's talk page telling him/her that the article needs urgent work. But until I see it I stand by my AfD nom. A major problem for me is that this isn't the article's first trip to AfD land. This suggests that there is little interest in fixing the problems. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw AfD Ignore my previous. I am satisfied on two points. The article is unambiguous corporate SPAM but the subject is notable. If the author or another editor doesn't fix it within the next couple of days I will do so. Though that will likely involve massive redactions. I withdraw my AfD nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 4 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. SarahStierch (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Centre Place (Film)[edit]

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

I initially came across this via PROD and tried to save it, but unfortunately there just aren't many reliable sources out there for this film. The PROD was removed by the original editor without comment, which I suspect is someone editing on behalf of the film's distributor, Titan View. If anyone can find more RS to show that this film is notable I'm open for discussion, but this just doesn't seem to pass notability guidelines at this point in time and considering that it's been out for a year already, I doubt it ever will. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (barney) @ 08:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (cackle) @ 08:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for now per TOO SOON. While it appears this film had festival screenings in 2010,[26] it currently lacks the depth of coverage to meet WP:NF. Allow back only after requisite coverage comes forward (if ever). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the above comments I have provided independent verifable references - the film satisfies criteria 2 of WP:Film in that it was screened at several international film festivals. Dan arndt (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the issue is that not all international film festivals are really notable and just showing at film festivals isn't enough. You have to have coverage of this film being shown and it has to be in reliable sources. Of the sources you've added, here's a rundown:

Sources

[27] This is a primary link about the composer. It can't count towards notability and notability isn't inherited by notable persons having worked with the film.
[28] This is a Rovi guide. It's not really usable as a reliable source since it's primarily just a rundown of the film plot. I used to think it was usable, but have since realized it wasn't.
[29] Film Threat is usable, but I think this was one I added.
[30] This is just a listing from the center that showed the film. Airing somewhere isn't really notable in and of itself. Several films show in locations, some of which are quite notable, but simply airing somewhere isn't enough.
[31] This is a press release of the showing. It's not usable since it's just a brief mention in a primary source, but even so it still doesn't show notability because just being in circulation doesn't give notability.
[32] This looks to be a routine notification of a film being shown. Same reasons for non-notability extending apply here. Even if it was nominated for an award, getting nominated isn't enough to show notability. There's also the issue that most awards aren't notable enough to merit a keep on that basis alone and this looks to be your routine non-notable film festival. Most awards and film festivals aren't notable enough to keep a film on that basis alone. I really don't even think being at one of the most notable film festivals (Cannes, for example) is enough to keep an article.
[33] This is just a brief mention about it being nominated along with several other films- this isn't enough to give notability and would be considered a WP:TRIVIAL source at best.
[34] This is a very brief mention of the film along with several other films in relation to a film festival. The film isn't actually the focus of the news article and at most, this would be another trivial source.

Ultimately none of the sources are enough to keep the article. On a side note, I'm not sure where you are seeing in WP:NFILM where being in circulation in any format (film festival, wide release, etc) is enough to show notability. I don't mean to sound rude, but I don't see that in the notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:33, 11 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. SarahStierch (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Mexico relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:GNG. this was previously deleted and I don't see the re-creation much of an improvement. the two agreements between the countries are minor eg "touristic cooperation". the statement in the article regarding a large Cypriot community is not in the actual reference given. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and previous AfD. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 23:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what next? Kiribati-Oman relations? Fiji-Niger relations? These are just silly unless there is some notable bilateral agreement or significant trade relationship. Stalwart111 00:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IMHO bilateral relations are always intrinsically notable, and they can be almost always sourced reliably. Even the very fact that the relationship is factually trivial is an interesting information to the reader, while the absence of the article does not imply so: it just leaves the reader in the dark. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there is no intrinsic notability to bilateral relations. In fact several 100 bilateral articles have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know, thanks to your efforts too, unfortunately. I consider such deletions a damage to the encyclopedia. I know I'm in a minority here, but I stand by my position. Have a nice day erasing knowledge. --Cyclopia ^talk 09:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There might be some value in your ad-hom rebuttal if this were "knowledge". It's not. Like many similar articles which have been deleted (by community consensus, not individual fiat, by the way) it's a couple of random, unrelated and unimportant diplomatic niceties synthesised together to suggest some form of broad, meaningful relationship between two countries that simply doesn't exist. I believe these articles actually devalue other articles that cover genuinely notable bilateral relationships between neighbours, important trade partners and diplomatic or military combatants. Stalwart111 10:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We just disagree on what constitutes knowledge. For example that they are "unimportant" is at least as subjective as me thinking they're never "unimportant". As I said above, for me even stating "There is no relevant relationship between these countries, just these little trivia" is, in my humble opinion, a piece of critical knowledge: after reading that I can say "Oh well, now I know that A and B have no meaningful relationships". But a missing article is just a hole, it doesn't tell me anything: if I don't find an article, as a reader, I am not led to think "Well, they have no meaningful relationship", I just wonder what could be there. Maybe they have some important relationship but nobody bothered to write the article? I know that there is consensus for many of these deletions -in fact I stated I am in a minority and I know it well. But I still think people should think twice before !voting to delete these articles, because (at least in my opinion) the rationale given is only superficially meaningful -that's why I argue. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So if there are 193 Member states of the United Nations, you think we should have an article for the relations between country a and each of the other 192 countries? Then country b and each of the remaining 191, and so on? That's a lot of articles just to fill in holes for people who, "wonder what could be there". You seem to be suggesting we should be creating articles just to let readers know there was nothing worth creating an article for. What next? Species interaction articles? Rabbit-Fish interactions? I reckon I could synth together a lovely article about adjoining habitats or piranahs that eat rabbits occasionally. We could get more specific - Flamingo-Squirrel interactions. I wonder... Maybe they have some important relationship but nobody bothered to write the article? See what I mean? Stalwart111 14:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you mean it as a reductio ad absurdum but yes, I exactly and completely seriously think we should allow, in theory, the whole 193*193=37249 possible relationship articles, provided there is some source to get content from. The species interactions you use as whimsical analogy may even have a point: after all, ecological network are not trivial and there may well be real interactions between apparently unrelated species like flamingoes and squirrels. If sources would be found, why not. But anyway they're different beasts: while not all species act to have relations with other species, most nations have some sort of official, sourced kind of contact with most others, and people who happen to live in nation A, for example, may very well be interested about their relationship with nation B. I understand you dismiss this kind of concern, but I like to think it is more important to care about the potential needs of our readers than about what editors feel subjectively interesting. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well it's obviously going to be a few less than 37,000 assuming we can redirect Oman-Kiribati relations to Kiribati-Oman relations, but yeah, absurdum indeed. Obviously I don't agree, but you are entitled to hold your view, no matter how absurd the potential results. But you should understand others don't see their work here as "erasing knowledge" and ad-homs suggesting as much aren't very civil. Stalwart111 23:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That this is erasing knowledge it is a fact (isn't this a deletion discussion for a sourced article?) that this is erasing worthwile knowledge or unworthy knowledge is the matter where opinions diverge. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:42, 5 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, L Faraone 00:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, per User: Stalwart111, per all the above, per previous AfD. Indeed many polities have mutual embassies, but the existence of these does not indicate or confer notability.Curb Chain (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not sure if it is more pointless to create vapid X-Y Relations articles like this or to chase them down trying to annihilate them like Captain Ahab trying to whack albino cetaceans. Maybe it's a tie. That said, this particular one fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom and User:Stalwart111 non notable relationship between the two countries Finnegas (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Carrite took the words right out of my mouth. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:28, 4 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 move to Music in Anime and redirect to Music of Japan#Theme music. Although I don't know how moving the page's history to Music in Anime and then redirecting it shortly thereafter would be any better than simply redirecting this page to Music of Japan#Theme music and creating a new redirect for Music in Anime, I will follow the consensus below. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music in Japanese animation[edit]

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

I don't feel that, at least in it's current state, this subject is important enough to have it's own article. Most of the article is taken straight from the Theme Music section of the Music of Japan article. Peeky Chew (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 27 May 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, L Faraone 00:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename the page to "Music in Anime" and Redirect to Music of Japan#Theme music I know a-lot proposed here but readers are more likely to type in the term "Anime" rather than "Animation" as that is what the section and current article are covering. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding Rename the page to "Music in Anime" and redirect until such a time that someone can provide more actual content. Music in Anime is easily a topic that could be a good article, but someone would need to write it out more thoroughly. Kopf1988 (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "Music in Anime and redirect to Music of Japan#Theme music per above. I believe that this is an important topic, as the opening and ending themes of an anime are an integral part of it, but until there's enough content to work with, a redirect would not hurt. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:21, 9 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. SarahStierch (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missy USA[edit]

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

All Google news hits seem to be passing mentions in stories about one recent event in which this site played a part (spreading the story). Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 21 May 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, J04n(talk page) 12:54, 27 May 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, L Faraone 00:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The site's only apparent claim to notability is having been peripherally involved in the 'scandal' related to Yoon Chang-jung. I can't see anything that could possibly put it past WP:CORP or WP:WEB, although Korean sources might conceivably exist. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:54, 4 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bunndle[edit]

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

Appears to be corp advertising WP:SPAM and lacks notability WP:CORPDEPTH. References are promotional primary sources and the company's own website. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beyond basic 'hey we were funded by someone' coverage in tech rags dedicated to that niche, there is nothing there that could possibly meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources. Subject of the AfD does not appear to be notable as defined by WP:GNG or WP:ORG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find sources to satisfy WP:CORP. Not noteworthy at this point.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 10:43, 4 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. Notability demonstrated. Added a ref to the World champinship. Also, moving the article to proper spelling. Tone 10:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kristjan Gregoric[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCYC, furthermore is not in English. PROD was contested, so I'm bringing it here. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 21:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chinwag) @ 22:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk to me) @ 22:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (confer) @ 22:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is written in Romanian. Even if the subject is notable, it would need a total rewrite. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it would be in Slovenian, not Romanian? Anyway it's in English now. All the same Kristjan Gregorič the cyclist doesn't pick up many hits. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (to you and the subject's "team"). I've withdrawn my !vote. I did a quick Google search, and it appears that the subject has competed in a world championship, so that would make him presumed notable by WP:NCYC. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 15:44, 31 May 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, L Faraone 00:27, 4 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.