Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 June	6 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 delete. SarahStierch (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GoogleTube[edit]

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

Neologism, made up word without general acceptance in any language. WP:MADEUP applies. reddogsix (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with reddogsix. Delete, but then redirect to YouTube. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a random word made up by a random person. Not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clecol99 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to YouTube per P. Rex. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was made to promote several lowly viewed YouTube videos. The FaceBook page for this word that the creator, User:Diablo666Daemon666, states has been gaining members fast, has only three likes. It's safe to assume this is very non-notable. Beerest355 Talk 21:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, BUT EDIT THE PAGE. The page must be made to be non-opinionated. The creator of the word created the Wikipedia page...but that doesnt give you the right to delete it! I feel that the information Diablo666Daemon666 gave was entirely accurate, but needs to be made to LOOK like fact rather than opinion. I propose an edit of the transcript.

The word IS popular. Other users of the site ARE using the word. A Wikipedia page will EVENTUALLY be created, as will a page on UrbanDictionary.

As for the Facebook Page... Well, this page would help its popularity, and that page will help THIS page's popularity. Its a mutual benefit for each to back up the other.

- Mr I. Rate (Ricardo Oliviera, fan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.60.153 (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The preceding unsigned comment from IP 87.115.60.153 looks very much like contributions from User:Diablo666Daemon666 at Talk:GoogleTube and elsewhere. Note the use of capital letters and the faux signature as "Mr. I. Rate". Diablo666Daemon666 is the creator of GoogleTube, and is perfectly correct to comment in this AfD. I presume that faux signature and editing without logging in are not intended to deceive anyone. Cnilep (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, not verifiable by reliable sources, and obvious conflict of interest. --Drm310 (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. I don't see any real value in redirecting, but I won't say I'm against doing so. --BDD (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect, non-notable neologism per WP:NEO, with no coverage that I can see in WP:Reliable sources. There's a rather interesting Firefox add-on with this name, but it doesn't seem to be notable enough yet either per WP:GNG. Captain Conundrum (talk) 08:35, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trigonometry solved problems[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTHOWTO, WP is not a place for worked examples, while articles on Trigonometry and List of trigonometric identities already exist. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Dea db eef 05:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this abomination immediately, and prescribe an intense course of LaTeX to the author. I am not willing to rescue “mathematical” texts written by people not willing to learn how mathematical formulae has to be formatted. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - compeltely unclear what this article is supposed to accomplish. Wikipedia is not a place to publish your homework. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We aren't a repository for homework solutions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D. Taku (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this were transformed into a well written article, a list of hundreds of solutions of trivial exercises is not what Wikipedia is for. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:03, 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. No prejudice against redirect — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

L&T Institute of Technology[edit]

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

If I am interpreting this correctly, the entire college serves 120 students (40 seats per course). The article has zero sources, so I felt it would be worth seeing if we should keep it. CorporateM (Talk) 23:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - under the same logic as WP:NHS. Uberaccount (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the article it provides "..application oriented technical education. It is primarily meant for the benefit of the wards of the employees of Larsen & Toubro and its subsidiary companies." It sounds like a technical training school operated by a manufacturing company rather than what we generally think of as a college, so no "inherent notability for high schools" (which it clearly isn't) or colleges applies. Not every institute which calls itself a college really is one. Adequate references to establish notability have not been thus far identified. Edison (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Edison. I don't believe NHS applies here, as it is a technical school with a very narrow focus. That said, would a redirect to the parent corporation be in order? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:11, 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. --BDD (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xnergy[edit]

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

Only sources are broken links and does not appear to be notable. CorporateM (Talk) 22:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All I could dig up for sources was press releases and the occasional fringe news report. Dea db eef 06:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some trivial coverage by reliable sources, but not enough to meet WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 02:11, 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 Theory_of_computation#History. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of theory of computation[edit]

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

Unreferenced opinion piece. Better to delete than to have this unfounded article making personal assertions. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Theory of computation #History; no other actions needed. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The topic History of theory of computation is certainly notable, but the current article is an unsourced personal essay; it is best to start over, per WP:TNT. Until a better new article is created, the topic is a reasonable search term and a redirect would be useful to users. Theory of computation #History is a logical target, but the section is unfortunately a few unsourced sentences at this point. History of computer science is a broader topic, but the article has a good bit on the pioneers of the theory of computation and is better sourced. Either target is acceptable, but I'd prefer a redirect to History of computer science. --Mark viking (talk) 10:46, 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 redirect to Abkhazia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic of Abkhazia[edit]

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

Apparent WP:POVFORK of Abkhazia. The Republic of Abkhazia redirect has been protected since 2008 to prevent this. The last version before the redirect is this, which was a lot longer but has essentially the same basic information. The author seems to have created the article in response to the proposed deletion of a template. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Abkhazia. Yeah, it's a POV fork, but it's also a likely search term. Plus, the protection of the other redirect, as opposed to deletion, tends to show that this is useful. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Edit: I also support redirecting Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is a plausible redirect of course, which I attempted to turn it into. However the protection is quite old, the author could not really explain his rationale and I felt this merited a discussion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Appears to be a broken redirect as of my clicking. We should just fix the redirect then. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, and redirect Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia too. These articles are redundant to Abkhazia (epically it's lead, "International status" and "Government and administration" sections). Weather Abkhazia is an independent country (the "Republic of Abkhazia") or a part of Georgia (the "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia") is disputed, but the main article covers both the dispute, and covers both the ROA and the AROA. The AROA history section is at best redundant to the main article's History section, and is at worst a POV fork.

I agree with the creator that Abkhazia's infobox is a neutrality problem in it's current state, but the solution is to fix the infobox, not to create this article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Adding Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia to nomination. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both articles, per Kosovo and China split system, that was the best posible solution for neutrality and encyclopedic expension of those topics. Two conflicting political entities should not be in one article. And all political matter should be removed from main article, Abkhazia. --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- China is not in a split system any longer. CMD (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to Abkhazia as forks. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The Republic of Abkhazia to Abkhazia, per the Republic of Abkhazia redirect. Redirect Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia to Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, as this will likely be much more related to any use of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia wikilink. CMD (talk) 21:16, 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 KEEP. Procedural close, withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Mortis[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NENAN but has also operated under the name The Ottoman Empire. Perhaps merging the discography of both band into one nav box can save this one. The Banner talk 20:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request speedy close; should have been the template, not the article. Sorry. The Banner talk 20:24, 5 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) 20:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AutoCMS[edit]

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

Was a speedy but IMO falls just outside the criteria and merits further discussion here The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article does not establish notability (WP:NSOFT)--additionally, all links given are repositories wherein anyone can upload/submits programs...I was unable to find significant coverage in third-party sources. Theopolisme (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find nothing out there that would suggest this is particularly notable. It's a worthy project like much of Open Source, but nothing more. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One man's idea of how to do CMS. Not a bad idea, but no indications that anyone has sat up and taken notice. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced software article with no indication of notability; created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 12:41, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This is not an ambiguous topic; this is merely a list of installments in different media of works within a single franchise, the franchise as a whole being thoroughly discussed at Resident Evil. There is nothing on this page that is not already listed and linked there. Why have a disambiguation page that is completely redundant to material properly listed in an existing article? bd2412 T 19:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The title is ambiguous (there are two video games, a film, and a soundtrack with the title). Not all redundancy is bad redundancy. This page is also the target of the {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} Resident Evil (video game), which should be maintained. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That redirect - which only addresses two title matches, and could be dealt with by a hatnote - also has dozens of incoming links, and is likely to keep drawing them. I hope that if you intend to maintain the redirect, you will fix all of those incoming links. bd2412 T 11:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea on what you might base that hope. Improvements to Wikipedia do not carry the burdens you're assuming. Incoming links to that redirect should be fixed regardless of where it lands. If it lands at a disambiguation page (which it should), there are mechanisms to identify and highlight that problem. If it lands at Resident Evil, it will be harder to identify the links that should be improved. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it lands at Resident Evil, there is no need to improve any links because the reader will have found the subject of the link - a media franchise that happens to derive from a video game (and include a later version of the same game). There is no ambiguity there at all, any more than Coca-Cola is ambiguous because someone might be drinking a New Coke or a Coke Classic. Having a link to a disambiguation page is misleading, because it suggests that the terms are unrelated. We have plenty of terms that are genuinely ambiguous, with multiple wholly unrelated meanings, without needing to invent ambiguity for media franchise names. bd2412 T 13:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no ambiguity at the title "Resident Evil", then there are no articles at titles of the qualified form "Resident Evil (qualifier)". There are articles at titles of the qualified form "Resident Evil (qualifier)". Therefore, there's ambiguity at "Resident Evil". QED. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is merely an artifact of how we use qualifiers for media titles. We have articles on Early life of Marilyn Monroe and Death of Marilyn Monroe. If our convention was to title those Marilyn Monroe (early life) and Marilyn Monroe (death), we would know right away that, irrespective of qualifiers, these were not really ambiguous topics because they are all covered in the main article, Marilyn Monroe. With Resident Evil (disambiguation), we have only titles that are covered in Resident Evil. Resident Evil (video game) could just as usefully redirect to Resident Evil, or to a section in Resident Evil listing the video games (the only reason there is no such section now is because the article itself presumes the reader is thinking of the video games and lists everything else as "Additional media"). To have a redirect to a disambiguation page when a redirect to the franchise article itself is an option is like putting a stop sign on a freeway. bd2412 T 13:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's an artifact of how we title topics that would have the same title, yes. We call that "disambiguation". It is not "merely" an artifact. A hypothetical way we could have screwed up the naming convention for topics (such as Marilyn Monroe's early life and Mailyn Monroe's death) that shouldn't have the same title is irrelevant to the way we disambiguate topics for an ambiguous title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's still like putting a stop sign on a freeway. Disambiguation pages are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. How is the reader served by this duplication? Is it any better to redirect Resident Evil (video game) to a disambiguation page than to Resident Evil#History, which discusses all of the Resident Evil video games? bd2412 T 15:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not like putting a stop sign on a freeway. The "freeway traffic" here will be unimpeded by a hatnote linking a disambiguation page. It's like putting a green navigational sign for side destinations on a freeway. The reader seeking the 2002 video game (for example) is served by a predictable hatnote leading to a predictable disambiguation page, rather than having to parse the article for the link. Yes, Resident Evil (video game) should go to the dab for video games that might be referred to as just "Resident Evil", while List of Resident Evil video games (or the less well named Resident Evil list of games) would be better targeted to Resident Evil#History. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that a person looking up Resident Evil (video game) is as likely to be interested in the whole body of Resident Evil video game franchise as in any one particular video game, and would therefore be best served by being taken to the article that sums up that body of work. I would further point out that to the extent that we are talking about video games named "Resident Evil", there are only two, which would typically make for a WP:TWODABS situation resolvable with a redirect to one and a hatnote to the other. Why should a person who types in "Resident Evil (video game)" be taken to a page where he or she is told, you may mean the film or the soundtrack? bd2412 T 16:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the disambiguation page disambiguates more than two topics sharing an ambiguous title, and there is no reason to delete it. The rest of your questions miss that point. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The link load to this page comes from the "(video game)" redirect, but all of the meanings on the disambiguation page are covered by the Resident Evil page - in fact, both the 1996 video game and the film are in a hatnote on that page. I find it highly doubtful that anyone would be looking for the soundtrack to the film under the unqualified title of the franchise, so I still see no reason to have a disambiguation page separate from the article that already covers all of those topics. bd2412 T 17:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A particular link load is not required for a disambiguation page. When a disambiguation page is needed: there are two or more non-primary topics for an ambiguous title. Does this title meet that? Y. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By "link load" I mean the incoming links that need to be fixed. bd2412 T 20:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are actual different topics (admittedly related) but all bearing teh name "Resident Evil" so this disambig page serves the purpose to distinguish between them. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't Resident Evil already distinguish between all of the topics bearing this name? bd2412 T 16:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That article is about the franchise, this navigation aid allows readers to find the other articles easily. Alternatives for navigation helps our readers. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - What about the hatnote on the article? bd2412 T 17:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - What of it? I would just point to the disambig page, but that's an editorial decision. And the disambig page contains more links than the hatnote. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, let's compare them. Resident Evil has three links in a hatnote, including a link to the disambiguation page. The disambiguation page links to Resident Evil (which, of course, would be unnecessary on the Resident Evil page); two video games (both discussed in Resident Evil, with one linked in the hatnote); the film (also linked in the hatnote); the film series (also discussed at Resident Evil, and which really should not be referred to as "Resident Evil" in the singular), and the film soundtrack. As I mentioned to JHunterJ above, no one is going to look for the soundtrack under the name, "Resident Evil"; but even if they did it is already discussed at Resident Evil. If we got rid of the disambiguation page and replaced it in the hatnote with a link to the 2002 video game, then the hatnote alone would contain everything that a reader could reasonably be looking for on a disambiguation page. bd2412 T 18:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I've read the huge long discussion above, and I disagree with deleting the disambiguation page. It very clearly meets the criteria for what a disambiguation page is used for, and I don't see removing it as an improvement. -- Whpq (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I could be wrong. bd2412 T 20:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep several valid entries. Boleyn (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Proper disambiguation page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 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 speedy delete. Mkdw ^talk 19:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Alday Rasmussen[edit]

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

Obvious promotion Scientific Alan 2 ^{(Click here to talk)}^{(What have I done?)}^(Me) 19:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't even get it...terrible spelling/grammar...if the person that created this page actually wanted to make a real article they should've put this in their sandbox first and gone from there. Mfribbs (talk) 19:31, 5 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. --BDD (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ali Bakhsh Shah Naqvi[edit]

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

A WP:PROD notice was previously placed on this article by another editor with the rationale "Is not individually notable - unsourced" The notice was removed without comment by the article creator (who identified elsewhere that the subject was his/her grandfather). The article remains lacking in any evidence that the subject of this article met any notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia so I am bringing it to AfD. AllyD (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced family tree and some honourary positions held are not a good claim for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find sources to establish WP:BIO.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:28, 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 Move. I've moved the offending page to User:Beetsyres34/alternative 1, which I assume was its original intended location. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beetsyres34/alternative 1[edit]

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

Spam, this should be on a sandbox, not here Scientific Alan 2 ^{(Click here to talk)}^{(What have I done?)}^(Me) 19:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i have the right to make drafts and sub user pages Beetsyres34 (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes you do. You do it here: User:Beetsyres34/sandbox Scientific Alan 2 ^{(Click here to talk)}^{(What have I done?)}^(Me) 19:16, 5 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) 20:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vexatious Vixens[edit]

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

WP:NOTESSAY Optimale ^Gu 18:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not finding any evidence this is a widely used term in Canadian politics. And as a Canadian myself, I've never heard of it. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nominator states, this is an essay. The term is a neologism that has no apparent usage outside of this book, which, not surprisingly, is the only source given. Wikipedia is not the place to establish currency for a term. It needs to be notable before being written about in Wikipedia. freshacconci talktalk 01:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Freshacconci. If this were going to be any kind of article, it would be better placed somewhere like Sexism in Canadian politics or something like that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Single-source neologism, POV essay, non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single-source definition of a term which has no currency outside of that one source. I can sort of loosely see what the creator thought they were getting at, but they missed — Women in Canadian politics already covers the issue of sexist portrayals of women in politics far more objectively, and with far more variety of sources (including the very same book that this one references, albeit in a more genuinely encyclopedic fashion.) Bearcat (talk) 05:18, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pravasi Bharatiya Community Service Award[edit]

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

Unreferenced for over 2 years, and no sources to be found aside from the granting organization's own website. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage about this award. I can find some mentions of it being presented. This article mentions it. This would appear to be the same one although not mentioned by name. I did come across the "Pravasi Bharatiya Samman Award" award a lot in searching, but it appears to be a different award as it is conferred by the government and not the GOPIO. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have come to understand that many organizations in India (and perhaps elsewhere, but India seems to be relatively rife with this) hand out (or in many cases, sell) awards simply for the purpose of bolstering one's resume. The similarity of this award's name to the more notable government-granted award leads me to question the motives of the award-granting organization, and hence to question the notability of the award itself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - See Pravasi Bharatiya Divas which indicates that it translates to non-resident Indian day. I suspect that the name is similar because both are awarded to non-resident Indians. We do have an article on Pravasi Bharatiya Samman award. -- Whpq (talk) 18:34, 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. --BDD (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeevan cheythath sheriyo thetto[edit]

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

- Vivvt (Talk) 17:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I know nothing about the subject, but I don't see how a US$ 180 film can be notable for anything but its low budget - which it does not seem to be. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The cost of a film does not affect notability, but a lack of coverage in reliable sources does... and this one lacks any coverage, much less any verifiability, in reliable sources and thus fails WP:NF. Interestingly, it is sourced to an official blogspot and something called Pack6 News (which is itself sourced to the Wikipedia article). If and or when this ever receives coverage, a return might be considered... but at best this one is TOO SOON. Its author might be best advised to carefully study WP:NF, WP:V and WP:RS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no evidence of notability in the form of coverage in independent reliable sources, or significant festival awards. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 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. --BDD (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Public Affairs[edit]

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

10-person PR firm does not appear to meet WP:CORP. All the sources are press release reposts, broken links, primary sources, etc. that do not pass WP:V. CorporateM (Talk) 22:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gas) @ 23:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 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, J04n(talk page) 16:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a mix of some material about the firm and a lot of biographical material about its founder and associates and their other activities. But no evidence that the firm itself meets the notability requirements. AllyD (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find anything that would fulfill WP:CORP.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP; only passing mentions found at Google News Archive. Most of the article is about the people rather than the company, but they do not appear to be notable either. --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 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. The consensus isn't resounding—we're in borderline no consensus territory here. Either way, there's no consensus to delete. --BDD (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judan Ali[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)

Concerns about notability were original raised at WT:FOOTBALL and I am bringing this here for wider discussion. This article may look well-written/impressive/notable but on closer inspection the subject does not appear to meet any relevant notability guidelines, namely WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. It reads like a CV and I have doubts about the veracity of some of the claims, especially as the article creator seems to be trying to promote Mr. Ali on Wikipedia in defiance of our guidelines. Giant Snowman 16:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as probably not notable. Most of the sources are dubious as they seem like nothing more than blogs. – Pee Jay 16:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (babble) @ 16:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gas) @ 16:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (confer) @ 16:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as obviously notable. "This article may look well-written/impressive/notable but on closer inspection the subject does not appear to meet any relevant notability guidelines, namely WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. It reads like a CV and I have doubts about the veracity of some of the claims, especially as the article creator seems to be trying to promote Mr. Ali on Wikipedia in defiance of our guidelines. GiantSnowman 16:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)" - comment was relevant 3 days before extreme editing by GiantSnowman. Page as it stands is almost correct with factual inaccuracies surrounding Blackburn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sxu02msg (talk • contribs)

I've barely edited the article since AFD, only to revert your blanking of material. Why is Mr. Ali "obviously" notable? Giant Snowman 18:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
complete delete was a mistake - thought i was on test page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sxu02msg (talk • contribs) 12:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this article is deleted, I have no doubt that it will be taken as yet another example of the institutional racism that Mr Ali claims to be an expert on. I still think it should be deleted though. – Pee Jay 10:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Peculiar comment Peejay. Why bring racism up? I would think Wikipedia prides itself in being one of the most neutral platforms around and that the founders would be most disappointed with anyone manipulating or trying to control an article as a means to attack or supress an individual. I have read no such expert claims, just someone reporting on their experiences within the industry many years ago. If someone as 'notable' as Chantelle Houghton is on wikipedia, then of course an individual such as Mr. Ali with an actual career and who has a unique position to raise awareness on contentious issues should be documented, for it's in the public interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sxu02msg (talk • contribs) 11:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PeeJay mentioned racism becuase it was brought up in the article, and your comparison with Chantelle Houghton is a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Giant Snowman 12:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, more peculiar activity here as you seem to be able to respond on Peejays behalf - how do you know that's why he brought it up. Or perhaps the same person is running 2 accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sxu02msg (talk • contribs) 15:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, because PeeJay and I have worked together at Wikipedia for a good number of years and we think along similar lines. If you believe we are the same editor, please use WP:SPI - but seeing as your accusations are entirely unfounded, I strong suggest you do not repeat them. Please also sign your comments using ~~~~ Giant Snowman 15:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No intelligent reader would read above as founded or unfounded. It can be innocently deduced. And you sound threatening, why would I need to repeat anything? I don't think a direct accusation can sart with 'perhaps', I guess it is up to you if you want to speak on each others behalfs, they are your accounts. But newcomers to editing shouldn't feel any less of a right to be part of this community just because you say you have been editing for years or feel that they have less standing as most don't have 'colleagues' present to back them up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sxu02msg (talk • contribs) 18:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your posts are becoming increasingly hard to decipher, please be clearer in future - and please sign your comments with ~~~~, as previously requested. Giant Snowman 18:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I think he just about passes WP:GNG based on the sources in the article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - On reading this it is impossible to tell via reliable sources just why Ali is notable in Wiki terms. Lots of smoke and mirrors but no substance. Was he a player at a notable level? No, he trialled for many clubs and played with Ray Parlour etc but never played pro football. Is he a coach at anything other than youth level? Not that I can see referenced. Even the reference given in the lead shows only a list of articles from a Chinese website. I have no doubt he has been in and around football for many years. He seems to be known by the owners of Blackburn Rovers and has had his photo taken with people within football. Yes he has had a career in football but at a very low level for inclusion on Wiki. In a nutshell he does not pass WP:FOOTYN nor WP:GNG.--Egghead06 (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

n.b. Editor has switched to keep; see penultimate vote. --BDD (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The only ground that I could see for keeping the article would be his association with the Taiewan national team, and I doubt that is enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the sources qualify for this to stay on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan7886 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~— Jordan7886 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~

Keep these sources are credible and have to stay on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenmaxine12 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC) — Queenmaxine12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Looks like a legion of SPAs are arriving......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, hence why I have opened a SPI. Giant Snowman 12:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This sources are proven and therefore I believe this has to stay on wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carryanne (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Carryanne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep okay this sources mean this article for wiki should be kept positive and stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denmark79 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Denmark79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep these sources are legitimate and should stay on wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meggsie248 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC) — Meggsie248 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - no indication this individual meets notability guidelines, namely the ones cited by the nominator, due to not having had a football career where he has played or managed a top team. C 679 07:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL because he hasn't managed a fully pro club or a senior national team. – Michael (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - lovely, no clue why I have logged on since 29th May and have further aggressive acts towards me from Giant Snowman!!, I am learning and now get this 'signing posts' thing. Sxu02msg (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see that this article does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL, but it does meet WP:GNG. It is an individual who is first British Asian breaking into the professional area and merits documenting. Sxu02msg (talk) 12:11, 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, J04n(talk page) 16:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: I closed this discussion as 'no consensus' with the following comments: " There is no argument that the subject does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL but there is a difference of opinion regarding him meeting WP:GNG. Unfortunately no one is saying why the avaible sources do or don't meet WP:GNG making it impossible to determine which argument is stronger. The number of keep !votes did not contribute to my decision." An editor asked if I could re-open allowing folks to better explain their opinion on the matter. J04n(talk page) 16:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That "editor" is the nominator (diff). Unscintillating (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I saw the topic's name in the title of one of the references and figured that would be a good place to start. The source is a daily newspaper published in London. For the purpose of evaluating wp:notability, I'm not interested in the hypothetical future job, but the article is in-depth and focused on the topic.

Ian Herbert (27 December 2012). "From Bollywood to Ewood: Judan Ali in challenging new role". The Independent. Retrieved 2013-06-05. "Ali had a role in the casting for the 2007 feature Dhan Dhana Dhan Goal – a rags-to-riches story set in west London's Asian football-playing community which was, in part, inspired by his own struggle for a breakthrough in the game...

Seeing that a film was made about the topic (even if "in part") and observing the presence of 14 additional references in the article, closes the case for me without proceeding to look for sources on Google and Google news. The concerns of the nomination that the article is promotional I'm not seeing, but there are "Promotional?" inline tags available. The concern about veracity of claims can be addressed with Template:fact tags. The second sentence of the article is a sentence fragment, and there are other quality issues here. The assertion in the nomination about what the article creator "seems" to be doing is an ad hominem and should not be a part of this discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a strong source, but one is not enough for me. If you find a second source of similar quality I will happily change my mind. Giant Snowman 17:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without evidence to the contrary, we assume as per WP:AGF that topics are notable. The second point you haven't addressed is that the film itself is a second source. As per the nutshell of WP:N, the "world at large" has given attention to the topic. Since films, like books, are enduring, the film also represents attention "over a period of time". Is your minimum standard for WP:GNG higher than having one's life story covered in part in a film? Unscintillating (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the film is a second source it is odd that neither the Wiki article on this film nor the IMDB.com entry for this film mention Mr Ali. IMDB has no entries for him at all.Egghead06 (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity..." "What links here" includes Dhan Dhana Dhan Goal. A newspaper that our article calls, "the world's most popular news site" provides the following:

Laure James (28 December 2012). "VIDEO: Impending Blackburn coach Ali had a leading role in Bollywood comedy... (not sure that will help at Ewood Park)". dailymail.co.uk. Retrieved 2013-06-05. ...his leading role in shaping the Bollywood comedy Dhan Dhana Dhan Goal, which features a lead character based on him, inspired by his own struggle to break through into the game.

Unscintillating (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPSOURCES states "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." The Daily Mail is a tabloid and unless both verifiable and more noteworthy material is available it should be removed (along with all the other claims which rely on tabloids).--Egghead06 (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous post is a BLP violation, as talk-page [word redacted] contentious material requires references. I won't remove it myself, since I'm involved. Unscintillating (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is direct from WP:BLPSOURCES.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know if this is a RS? Giant Snowman 18:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be a very slick blog site. Articles appear to be user-submitted.[1] Hack (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Still does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL and does not pass WP:NACTOR. He has been around the fringes and has not yet done anything which makes him notable.--Egghead06 (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Probably enough to pass WP:GNG. I've added a few sources myself. The SPAs aren't helpful, mind. Walls of Jericho (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From espnfc.com:

Richard Jolly (28 December 2012). "Singh quashes rumours over Judan Ali". ESPN FC. Retrieved 2013-06-06. Judan Ali, whose attempts to earn a playing career formed the basis of the 2007 film Dhan Dhana Dhan Goal...

Unscintillating (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is already being used in the article. On his football career it contains - "But Rovers say it was a coincidence that Ali, a former Arsenal trainee who has led India's Under-15 team, led a community youth project in Dagenham and managed Accrington Stanley Bowles, was at the club's Brockhall training complex the day after Berg's departure. "He was a guest of the club and has been here for about a week or 10 days. His visit has been planned for months," said Rovers' global advisor Shebby Singh. "He seems to have got caught up in the crossfire." Didn't work for Blackburn but is a YOUTH coach.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As an inclusionist and I having sourced what I believe is a second reliable reference, I have changed my stance to 'Keep'. Think it passes WP:GNG though as to whether he is notable for his footballing career or being the basis for a film, I'm undecided.--Egghead06 (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You have strucken one of your delete-vote, but you still have an un-struck vote from 29 May :) Mentoz86 (talk) 09:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I believe this subject passes the WP:GNG, even though most of the sources are from the period after the sacking of Berg, they detail most of his career. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IL Lusciato[edit]

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

This musician does not meet WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 20:00, 29 May 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 May 29. Snotbot t • c » 20:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (articulate) @ 23:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chinwag) @ 23:14, 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, Theopolisme (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of citations, but none of them really add up to anything: fails WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 09:33, 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 merge to List of type designers. (non-admin closure) czar · · 18:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of freeware type designers[edit]

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

~~This is another "list" page. Whatever is notable to have a page should just be added to a category and this page should be deleted. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)~~ [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [2]. Unscintillating (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (warn) @ 23:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (converse) @ 23:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see the value of having this separate from List of type designers, especially as most of the freeware designers also made non-free fonts. Not sure if delete, redirect, or merge is best. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:28, 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, Theopolisme (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of type designers. Per WP:LISTN, list-based articles are a perfectly fine class of article and can provide useful annotations to the list entries that categories cannot. While List of freeware type designers is a fine topic in principle, Colapeninsula is correct--there are few or no type designers of any note that don't also produce fonts for sale as well. It would be best to merge this list into the more general List of type designers. Both lists have a lot of non-notable type designers that could be culled, but this is a matter of editing, not deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of type designers, per Mark viking's comment.Dialectric (talk) 12:44, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FlipKey[edit]

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

Nomination for deletion under A7, G11 NaturalScholar (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (warn) @ 23:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (lecture) @ 23:06, 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, Theopolisme (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find passing mentions of people advertising on Flipkey among other sites, and on TripAdviser taking a majority share in 2008, but nothing to establish WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:NWEB notability in its own right. It is already covered in sufficient depth on the TripAdvisor page. AllyD (talk) 18:03, 5 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Padhee[edit]

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

Not a notable person, Just a civil servant. The page is created using non-reliable references i.e. Facebook. Jussychoulex (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, WP:Bio, WP:GNG, WP:N. Capscap (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 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 redirect to Tottenham Hotspur F.C.#Support. Although I recognize calls to merege, there's nothing sourced to merge. Delete and redirect is clear policy-based consensus (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yid Army[edit]

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

Non-encyclopedic and unsourced (and where sources are given they do not support the text) MrStoofer (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is strongly Delete:

1. The article is factually wrong that "Yid Army" is the name of a group of hooligans. It is a name that Spurs supporters call themselves.

2. The source given for the claim that "The Yids is the name of a football hooligan firm associated with English football club Tottenham Hotspur" (here) says no such thing. It does refer to supporters of Tottenham Hotspur as "Yid Army" (not "Yids") and more importantly does not support the claim that the term refers to hooligans rather than supporters generally.

3. All the rest of the claims on the page are unsourced and unsupported (e.g. the claim of membership of 250+ or the claims about enthinicity).

I strongly suspect that this is page was simply self aggrandizement. MrStoofer (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MrStoofer (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MrStoofer. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Tottenham Hotspur F.C.#Support, no evidence of independent notability. Giant Snowman 15:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Giant Snowman. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per GiantSnowman. The use of the term "yid" or "yiddo" as a form of self-identification by Tottenham supporters is something that has attracted attention and debate in the media (e.g. [3]), but not to the extent where a separate article is required. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How can you merge poor content which clearly has no sourcing. I am against any merge as there is a clear lack of evidence to support that any Yid Army hooligan firm is active or has done any thing of significance. There is enough information in the #support section and doesn't need to be cluttered with useless content. Govvy (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term is commonly used by the club's supporters in reference to themselves, not a tiny collection of ~~men~~ boys. Walls of Jericho (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect - I don't think this content should be merged into the Tottenham Hotspur article, but if this name is something the supporters refer to themselves as, we should redirect to Tottenham Hotspur F.C.#Support as a a likely search term. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't think about the name as a search term, but that makes sense to redirect per Mentoz suggestion. Govvy (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Poorly written - but references are available here and here. --Egghead06 (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also agree that after deletion, the page should redirect to Tottenham Hotspur F.C.#Support as a likely search term MrStoofer (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tottenham Hotspur F.C.#Support, per Mentoz86, no new content needed, especially as nominator has changed position to this solution. --Bejnar (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Tottenham Hotspur F.C.#Support. --Egghead06 (talk) 01:01, 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 delete. SarahStierch (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Shure[edit]

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

Could not find secondary sources to support the notability of the subject under Wikipedia's standards. Capscap (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A statement opposing deletion by the subject/author of the article is available here on the talk page. Capscap (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Capscap (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks reliable sources, written as a self-promotional vehicle. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom. Blatant self-promotion. --Seduisant (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My gosh. See the talk page. This page should not be speedily deleted because this was built by a team in NY that is focused on my work. Not only does he have a COI, but he has a whole PR team working on this article? Notable or not, this kind of unapologetic blatant self-promotion warrants the article being deleted and salted to prevent re-creation. Let someone neutral propose it for creation at some other time. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTCV. Not to mention the "you guys totally deserve my bio" attitude. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:44, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Hogan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL at the moment. Has not played first team football in a fully professional league yet. JMHamo (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is an article about a young footballer who has not received any significant third-part coverage, failing WP:GNG. He has also not yet played in a fully-professional league so he also fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Recreate if/when these concerns are met. Giant Snowman 14:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG, not mention the fact that it is an unsourced BLP. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 16:14, 8 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, except transfer-news, so it also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:28, 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 delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Watmore[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL at the moment. JMHamo (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is an article about a young footballer who has not received any significant third-part coverage, failing WP:GNG. He has also not yet played in a fully-professional league so he also fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Recreate if/when these concerns are met. Giant Snowman 14:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 16:16, 8 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, except transfer-news, so it also fails WP:GNG. No prejudice against recreation once one of the criteria has been met. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:30, 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) 20:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Whitlock[edit]

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

Fails WP:N/CA. WP:NOTNEWS also applies. ...William 14:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am the original editor of the article. Brian Whitlock is notable The article has multiple reliable sources from reputable news organizations. Brian Whitlock was convicted and is to be sentenced on June 12th for animal cruelty. The cruelty inflicted on his dog was severe and caused the death of the animal. The general public became outraged causing several protests by animal rights groups. The animal cruelty incident and the protests received significant coverage in the media. This makes Brian Whitlock notable, the animal cruelty incident notable, the protests Whitlock caused notable and the media coverage notable. This article should not be deleted. IQ125 (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The case is notable because it got 130,000 people to sign a petition. And the politicians might see this and decide to pass harsher sentences, although just having that many people sign a petition over something makes it clearly a notable event. Dream Focus 14:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CRYSTALBALL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, AndyTheGrump is a classic case of participating in an AFD discussion without reading the article and reliable sources. IQ125 (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please confine comments to the subject of this discussion, rather than making disparaging remarks about individuals. WP:CRYSTALBALL is entirely relevant to statement about what politicians 'might' do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Focus on the "it got 130,000 people to sign a petition" part of my statement then. Dream Focus 15:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia content is not determined by petition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An event is notable if it causes 130,000 people to sign a petition. Dream Focus 15:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite actual policy in these discussions, rather than making it up as you go along. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

130,000 people isn't that many. Two percent of the BC population. That's even assuming it was a real physical petition circulated only among BC residents and not a bunch of anonymous Internet petition sites, whose numbers would be entirely gameable and therefore suspect. I googled "brian whitlock" petition and only found a bunch of online petitions. Is there a source that says this was a verifiable physical pen-and-paper petition? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The newspaper articles are primarily about the crime not about the person Brian Whitlock. Anyway People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead. and In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. WP:N Optimale ^Gu 15:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the event. It just needs to be renamed. Dream Focus 15:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E and WP:N/CA all apply. Not notable. Giant Snowman 15:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, per WP:BLP1E considerations, and per general notability questions. Sadly, acts of animal cruelty are not rare: but then neither are many other acts of violence. Wikipedia isn't here to put the world to rights, and such criminal acts are rarely notable enough to merit an article concerning the perpetrator. I can see no evidence that this event has any enduring notability, and without this, the article simply can't be justified. To be specific, Wikipedia policy regarding biographies of living persons states that "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article" and that "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources", and on those grounds, the article should be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Textbook WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia is not a place to shame people. We can never have an encyclopedic biography of this person, because we will never know more about them than "they were cruel to a dog and were convicted and imprisoned." At best, the *event* might be notable, not the person. But that would support a page on the event, not an alleged "biography" which isn't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:ONEEVENT p b p 16:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Delete !votes. This does not have major international coverage, and it won't be enduring coverage. A petition by itself won't make a subject notable, only if that petition has widespread coverage.Martin451 (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS or BLP-1E, your choice. Carrite (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS and BLP1E--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. As sad as acts of animal cruelty may be, they're not in and of themselves sufficient to make a person notable enough to be permanently included in an encyclopedia, except in extraordinary circumstances which I don't see being claimed here. Public shaming of criminals is not what we're here for. Bearcat (talk) 02:47, 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) 20:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Wynter[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL at the moment. Has not played first team football yet. JMHamo (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is an article about a young footballer who has not received any significant third-part coverage, failing WP:GNG. He has also not yet played in a fully-professional league so he also fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Recreate if/when these concerns are met. Giant Snowman 14:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has not played professionally. Fails football notability. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG, not mention the fact that it is an unsourced BLP. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL - hasn't played in a fully professional league and has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 16:18, 8 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, except transfer-news, so it also fails WP:GNG. No prejudice against recreation once one of the criteria has been met. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:32, 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) 20:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Dale Lucas[edit]

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

Fails N/CA. WP:NOTNEWS also applies.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC) ...William 14:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am the original editor of the article. Jordan Dale Lucas is notable. The article has multiple reliable sources from reputable news organizations. Jordan Dale Lucas received one of the harshest sentences for animal cruelty in Canadian history. In addition, the cruelty inflicted on animals are some of the worst in Canadian history. Lucas has been discussed in the media across Canada for his behavior. This makes Jordan Lucas notable and the animal cruelty incidents notable. This article should not be deleted. IQ125 (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any large protest or petition signing, any stronger laws passed, any lasting effect? Dream Focus 14:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E and WP:N/CA all apply. Not notable. Giant Snowman 15:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, per WP:BLP1E considerations, and per general notability questions. Sadly, acts of animal cruelty are not rare: but then neither are many other acts of violence. Wikipedia isn't here to put the world to rights, and criminal acts which lead to 17-month prison sentences are rarely notable enough to merit an article concerning the perpetrator. I can see no evidence that this event has any enduring notability, and without this, the article simply can't be justified. To be specific, Wikipedia policy regarding biographies of living persons states that "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article" and that "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources", and on those grounds, the article should be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Textbook WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia is not a place to shame people. We can never have an encyclopedic biography of this person, because we will never know more about them than "they were cruel to a dog and were convicted and imprisoned." At best, the *event* might be notable, not the person. But that would support a page on the event, not an alleged "biography" which isn't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman, AndyTheGrump and NorthBySouthBaranof. This person does not have international front page coverage, or enduring coverage.Martin451 (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Disgusting as the crime is, the article doesn't meet notability guidelines. Shadowjams (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails notability guidelines p b p 23:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. As sad as acts of animal cruelty may be, they're not in and of themselves sufficient to make a person notable enough to be permanently included in an encyclopedia, except in extraordinary circumstances which I don't see being claimed here. Public shaming of criminals is not what we're here for. Bearcat (talk) 02:53, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Fangak[edit]

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

This article is heavily related to the article Fangak County, I think one of these articles should either be deleted or merged with the other for this reason. Muskanty (talk) 23:42, 21 May 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 May 22. Snotbot t • c » 02:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep couldn't find much on this term, but the Sudanese government does appear to use it as an adminstrative division (or one agency does, anyway): "The PCC divided the state in four sections; Greater Akobo, Greater Bor, Greater Fangak and Greater Pibor." The Interior (Talk) 00:41, 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 · · 07:23, 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) 12:13, 5 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Boyd Myers[edit]

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

The refs consist of 1/her own web site and 2/an article about her in Forbes, for which she is one of their columnists. Forbes seems to have given her an award, also. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has articles about her in wired.co.uk and the Huffington Post, has contributed to and been an editor for PC Magazine, and is 23rd on Business Insider's list of the 30 Most Important Women Under 30 In Tech. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 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, czar · · 07:18, 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) 12:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The article may not look pretty right now, but it appears that she is notable, and so with a little cleaning up it should look right. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:13, 5 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 George Mason University. (non-admin closure) czar · · 18:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Mason University Press[edit]

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

Non-notable university publishing arm. There's not enough info to be worth an article. It's not even a stand-alone publisher, as its works are published through University of Virginia Press. No third party sources to establish notability, tagged as such since July 2011. GrapedApe (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete - Fails WP:ORG, so it shouldn't be its own article. However, it may be worth merging into George Mason University or maybe even University of Virginia Press, as GrapedApe kindly pointed out that they publish works from George Mason University Press. University of Virginia Press is definitely a stub, though, so a merge would require some research and expanding of that article. Rcvines (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - To what, though, I am still unsure. Either George Mason University or University of Virginia Press. I'm leaning towards George Mason University, as that is a B-class article and not the stub of University of Virginia Press. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:49, 5 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. Consensus (and WP:NSEASONS) to delete all (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Chester F.C. season[edit]

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

PROD removed without reason. Original concern was that this club has never played at a level that would confer notability on its players and therefore its season articles are not notable either. Nothing has changed about the club to change that in the last 24 hours. – Pee Jay 11:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

Comment - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chester F.C. players. Giant Snowman 11:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable seasons, no need for them. In the future we could consider a History of Chester F.C. article or similar but not now. Giant Snowman 11:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - WP:NSEASONS, though not the best set of guidelines does make clear season articles should really only be created for clubs in top professional leagues. Also there is no sourced prose in any of these in contravention of WP:NOTDIR. Fenix down (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Fails WP:GNG. The Conference National seems to be the cut-off point which, funnily enough, means a 2013–14 article will be acceptable because that is the league Chester will play in next season. I assume all of these will follow suit? Walls of Jericho (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Chester are an uprising team are in the 'cut-off' point next year. A.F.C. Wimbledon have their own seasons pages from their earlier years as well as F.C. United of Manchester who are two leagues below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.227.21 (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC) — 2.124.227.21 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Per WP:WAX, saying that other teams have this kind of article is not a valid argument. In fact, you've just pointed out another set of articles that should probably be deleted. Thanks. That is, unless anyone can provide a good reason why AFC Wimbledon and FC United of Manchester should have season articles... – PeeJay 02:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - AFC Wimbledon obviously now play in the Football League, so it is arguable that they should have articles on their pre-FL seasons to give a "complete picture", in the same way that we have things like 1883–84 Black Arabs F.C. season and 1883–84 Newton Heath LYR F.C. season....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a good point. What about FC United of Manchester though? I hope we're not making them a "special case". – Pee Jay 12:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - What about post-FL? Stockport County are about to go into the same league Chester have just come out of. But they are clearly still considered a big club, will they be notable enough for a seasons article? They've been having season articles for the last 5 years and i'd imagine someone will create on for the following season. Do we try and go for a 'complete picture' with any club that has played in the FL, no matter how far they've dropped?Narom (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've been editing/creating these pages and I'm still in progress of improving them so if the sources are the problems I'll be adding them soon. Please do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2008jordancfc (talk • contribs) 01:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No one above has said anything about the sources being inadequate. In fact, there is nothing wrong with the article itself, it's just that the subject is not notable. – Pee Jay 02:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "complete picture" argument is compelling enough that an arbitrary cut-off point is silly. It has been discussed many times before and no consensus has ever been reached that such a point exists or is indeed useful. Owain (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A complete picture of what, in Chester's case? The current Chester FC has never played at a notable level, so why are we making season articles for them? It makes sense in the case of Manchester United (Newton Heath LYR), and even in the case of Bristol Rovers (Black Arabs), but the three articles we have on Chester present the sum total of their history, which has never taken them above the fifth tier of English football, and that only happened last month. Maybe if Chester make it to the Football League, then there would a "complete picture" to fill in, but to assume that they will any time soon would be crystal-balling. – PeeJay 14:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - A complete picture of senior football in Chester. It is not a simple matter of saying "this particular incarnation of the senior team hasn't played at a high enough level". Arbitrary rules should not be applied directly without looking at, for want of a better phrase, the "bigger picture". Owain (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - But it is a matter of saying that. Chester City FC and Chester FC (2010) are not the same team and their histories are not contiguous. The history of football in a particular city is irrelevant. There is no bigger picture. I wouldn't say that we should make season articles for Manchester FC just because Manchester United and Manchester City had played in the Premier League because Manchester FC never played at a high enough level. That's just silly. – PeeJay 14:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - "The history of football in a particular city is irrelevant" in your opinion. Your Manchester straw-man argument is clearly irrelevant as we are talking about a single representative team here, not one of many. Owain (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually we're not just talking about one team because you made the discussion about more than one team. Chester has had several teams in its past (see here), and not one of them is particularly "representative" of the city, since they've all had players who come from all over the place. I hope you're not seriously suggesting that we create season articles for teams like Chester Nomads and Chester St Oswald's, because they certainly haven't played at a high enough level, and neither has Chester FC. – Pee Jay 15:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If these articles contained any substantial prose, I'd suggest a merge to History of Chester F.C., but at present they consist almost entirely of tables of statistics, and there is nothing to merge. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I believe club season articles should follow the same criteria as player articles - i.e. restricted to professional leagues only. Number 5 7 21:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all or redirect to Chester F.C. - not because I believe only teams in fully pro leagues should have a season-article, but because season-articles without a well-sourced prose shouldn't exist per WP:NSEASONS. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - amateur or semi-pro football is not notable, so a sub-article about it should default to the same. C 679 22:19, 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 delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keyondrei Gardner[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NBASKETBALL - only a college player. Appears to be very much a puff piece Gbawden (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've performed significant cleanup and taken a whack at the worst of the prose but this is the biography of a high school basketball star prospect now playing for a junior college in Midland, Texas. As such, the subject appears to fail to cross the notability threshold for basketball players. - Dravecky (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has yet to establish notability through GNG or established college notability guidelines (significant awards or records). The nominator does need to learn that many players are notable based on their college careers - this guy just doesn't happen to be one of them. Rikster2 (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing NCOLLATH, and from what I can discern, GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:15, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MuParser[edit]

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

Notability not established. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a useful parsing library that unfortunately has not gotten a lot of independent coverage. There is a technical report from U. Paderborn that has in-depth coverage of muparser and is independent of the creator, but it is the only in-depth independent source I could find. Unless more RSes are found, the topic falls below the threshold for general notability guidelines, per WP:GNG. This suggests deletion, with no prejudice to re-creation if more independent sources are found or become available. --Mark viking (talk) 16:59, 5 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. Merge discussion can occur on the talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luck (Jacob Yates and the Pearly Gate Lock Pickers album)[edit]

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

A non-notable album by a non-notable band. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NALBUMS and WP:Band. Secondary source coverage is trivial and fails WP:RS. Also nominated for deletion Jacob Yates and the Pearly Gate Lock Pickers as per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge the album article to the band article. Coverage in multiple reliable sources that is well beyond trivial. --Michig (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge per Michig. However, if the band obtains a history of issuing albums with similar independent coverage, separate articles will be warranted. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 22:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep without merge Strange nomination. Both articles satisfy WP:GNG and WP:MUS comfortably. Suggest that the nominator reviews WP:MUS. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:17, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator withdrew their nomination and no delete !votes are present (Non-administrator closure). Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. Francis of Assisi Church, Vienna[edit]

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

Article subject fails WP:GNG and has no sources cited. A quick online search found no English language secondary or tertiary sources meeting WP:RS Ad Orientem (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep/close - absolutely not the nominators fault but this is actually just a poorly translated article about one of the largest basilica-style churches in Vienna. It's also the central church for the diocese and would still be a historical building, built more than 100 years ago, if it wasn't and so likely passes our guidelines on that basis alone. The article wasn't clear at all and I had to do some digging but I've added an image to the article so you can see what I mean and there is an extensive commonscat for the church itself. Using one of the 4-5 alternate names there are many sources. The nominator might consider withdrawing this? Stalwart111 07:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I will happily withdraw AfD nom if actual notability is established. I am not sure that age translates into notability. Also we really need at least one source. I'm still not seeing notability but its fairly late here and my eyes are starting to cross. I will look at this again tomorrow. It sounds like we should be able to find something to save the article based on what you are saying. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, fair enough. I'll keep working on it. You have a sleep and we can revisit it tomorrow. Stalwart111 08:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some sources and some more information. I've also discovered the building itself is listed as a significant monument on Austria's Denkmalgeschütztes Objekt (4944, consensus generally being that monuments of national cultural significance are notable). I really now don't think there is any way such a building would not be considered notable. Stalwart111 09:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Stalwart111. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Stalwart. WP:ATD to the rescue! Ansh666 14:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw AdF Nom As per above. Article now meets WP:N. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:57, 5 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Hell Press[edit]

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

Article was nominated on 2 June 2013 (3 days ago), was speedy deleted and the previous AFD was procedurally closed. The original author has recreated the article suggesting there are better/more sources than the original. I disagreed, tagged it for G4 speedy deletion but that doesn't seem fair under the circumstances. Best to let a proper AFD run its course. For the record, I don't think the company in question meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Stalwart111 05:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article was previously deleted. It still serves for promotion/advertising and lacks any notability. It seems to just be created by a single person and has no real RS except for what he has provided. Tyros1972 Talk 06:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and SALT as advertising/spam, given that it was recently AFD'd and immediately re-created. For what it's worth it isn't notable either and doesn't even try to claim otherwise. 12 titles, according to the article, and not a single notable thing among them. Half of them are by one guy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully contest deletion. University of Hell Press is small and relatively new, but it is certainly real and notable. The press has established connections with Powell's Bookstore, a hugely notable entity. I have reviewed other Wiki entries in the small press category and I fail to see what differs in this one that warrants exclusion. The history is factual, the bibliography verified (12 titles by 7 authors). I am more than happy to amend any text found irrelevant or offensive; please identify. Thank you for your consideration! Editress13 (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This really isn't a case where editing the article will help. It doesn't come anywhere close to passing our notability guidelines for corporations and that doesn't look likely to change anytime soon. If by some bizarre miracle the article is kept (and we're talking probability levels right up there with Godzilla getting hit by lightning, winning the lottery, and flying to the moon all on the same day), then it would have to be done by someone without a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. To the content creator: you'll need to muster a few published sources about the press... Get something from the Oregonian and Willamette Week etc. about the press, and then things should be good to go. This has been through the deletion process twice now, so things will be closely watched. The rule of thumb is that three such sources are a pretty certain pass — WP defines "notability" as multiple, independently-published, substantial pieces of coverage about the subject in so-called "reliable sources." Sometimes two such pieces will fly. I'm not seeing anything that counts to GNG in the footnotes or in a cursory Google search, sadly. Don't feel bad, just see to it that when such sources appear they are mined appropriately for the third attempt at a WP piece. best regards, —Tim Davenport, Corvallis /// Carrite (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No SALT - As per discussion on the author's talk page User talk:Editress13. The page was only recreated because it was a "speedy delete" and did not get a chance to pass/fail AfD. I ask the admin if this fails (which it looks like it will) to please view our discussion and to consider this request as this is not a typical SPAMMER just someone new to wiki. The author will only recreate the article in the future if and when it passes wiki nobility. Tyros1972 Talk 13:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely not. Their only contribution to Wikipedia is this one, spammy article, which they re-created almost immediately after it was deleted as an advertisement. That's pretty much the definition of a Wikipedia spammer. Whether they did it with a heart full of malice or not isn't our place to speculate and would be pointless anyway. The article isn't coming back until someone without a conflict of interest can prove a case at DRV that the subject is significantly more notable & verifiable than it is currently. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, even if this is salted a person with a Conflict of Interest can recreate the piece if they declare their COI. The road back doesn't necessarily go through Deletion Review, it just needs one administrator to sign off on the piece (See; WP:SALT). What it is going to need are multiple, published, independent sources. If two or three of those appear down the road (as they might), it is a whole new ballgame. I do not advocate salting here, by the way, per Tyros1972 above. Carrite (talk) 20:56, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional vs Organic Church[edit]

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

Was originally prodded by Vivvt, albeit without a rationale given, and later I endorsed the proposed deletion, adding that the article "is basically original research; besides, the topic is already covered in our articles about Lutheranism and Protestantism. Might as well be speedied as A10." Deprodded by author, so I'm taking this to AfD. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a completely unsourced original-research essay. Stalwart111 10:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR. Re-hash of Bible quotes. Proselitism (e.g. promoting their faith). -- Alexf^(talk) 12:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced essay, with no evidence that it will ever be a legitimate article topic. First Light (talk) 19:56, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-Jet Helicopter Services[edit]

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

I am conflicted on this article. It may meet WP:N, though the article seems to be basically an advertisement WP:ARTSPAM. Assuming the article is accurate, they might well provide a service that could be a basis for notability in secondary sources. The main problem is that the sources that are in English don't seem to meet WP:RS and I don't read what I believe is Dutch. So I am throwing this out to the AfD community for discussion. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no rule that sources must be in English. DGG ( talk ) 14:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - It's no different from a car/bus/train company article, but I do agree the sources should be English considering

this is an ENGLUSH wikipedia. - →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please can we bury the idea that the references need to be in English? They don't. But they do need to demonstrate WP:CORPDEPTH notability and not just that a firm exists. And that I think is more of a challenge for this (recreated) article. AllyD (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The use of sources in foreign languages is certainly not forbidden, as per WP:NONENG. That's not of my concern. I'd like to know the reasons why the editor that re-created this article did so and also why the subject is notable. It seems to me that both WP:NCORP and WP:NRVE (where verifibaility is required for the subject of an article to be notable) fail here: there are 35 hits for "hi-jet" at Flightglobal, yet neither of these seem to be related to the subject in question. The user who re-created this article should have taken these guidelines in mind, both for this particular article and for future articles s(he) intends to start. Furthermore, the s(he) has not the cleanest record regarding WP:COPYVIO issues, so I suggest to do a careful check of the content of the page to avoid such conflicts again. Finally, far more inline citations are required. For the time being, there are too much doubts, so I support deletion.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that some sources ([4], [5], [6], [7]) used in the article are from dubious origin.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Evidence brought forth by Jetstreamer is fairly condemning. Definitely fails WP:NCORP. Is full of WP:PEACOCK violations and close inspection shows that removing all peacock terms from the article would leave a non-notable stub. Not worth keeping. Rcvines (talk) 22:32, 5 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erase (film)[edit]

Erase (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication whatsoever of notability (self published on YouTube). This article was created and primarily edited by the film's creator. Rklawton (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of attained WP:NFILM notability. By the director/writer/star's own account in TheAussieWord interview, the film is available online and he is seeking to get it into film festivals. At best WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per being TOO SOON. Released last February, this short film has not yet attained the coverage to meet WP:NF. Maybe in a few months, but not now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:57, 5 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 Nine Muses (band). (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Park Min-ha[edit]

Park Min-ha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Person is not notable outside of her participation in Nine Muses (band). Drmies (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's possible that there are Korean sources meeting WP:GNG, but anyone searching will have a difficult job finding them among the zillions of hits for ko:박민하(2007 ~ )는 대한민국의 아역 배우이다 the 6 year old actor. ko.wp has no standalone article for the ninth member of Nine Muses, the interwiki is to a redlink on a hndab. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nine Muses (band). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Nine Muses (band). No notability has been achieved outside of that. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - have to concur with the others. On unrelated note, amused to note Nine Muses only has seven muses in its photo... Mabalu (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They also had eight, at some point. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 5 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summit Public Schools (Charter school operator)[edit]

Summit Public Schools (Charter school operator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

schools may be notable, but this org doesnt have anything about it. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See the coverage listed on the "Summit in the News" tab at http://www.summitps.org/ I have not seen the film Waiting for "Superman", but apparently there are references to the organization or its schools in it. http://www.avnetwork.com/entry/will-education-technology-finally-live-up-to-its-potential/755 offers some coverage of the organization towards the end of the article. I think that much of the coverage of the schools is implicitly coverage of the organization and its doctrines. I would argue that charter school operators are automatically notable on the same basis that high schools are: that is, that reliable sources about them must exist, even if they are hard to find. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The name Summit Public Schools can also refer to a school district in Summit, New Jersey. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A charter school operator of multiple public high schools would seem to me to be necessarily notable; since every high school is notable, a business that operates multiple schools is going to be fairly important. It will certainly be the subject of numerous public records and documents, hearings, and so forth, that would provide a lot of resources, and likely significant media coverage as well. --Lquilter (talk) 17:28, 5 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 Nine Muses (band). (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Hyuna[edit]

Moon Hyuna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No independent notability. She is in a project, Nine Muses (band), and what she has done outside of it is not clear, and it's certainly not verified. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Nine Muses (band). No notability outside of that. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nine Muses (band) as per Brambleberry. Mabalu (talk) 15:00, 5 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Riot[edit]

Ella Riot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be a non-notable band, failing WP:GNG and WP:BAND. All of the sources in the article are either local, or primary, and only one of the external links doesn't fall into that category - but it is also a relatively small circulation paper. The article itself is highly promotional, and there's no evidence of any charting for their albums, they only have one semi-notable band member, and they don't appear to have been signed to any major label. There are a few unreliable sources on Google, but that's about it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gab) @ 08:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (articulate) @ 08:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The band is mentioned on the All Music Guide:
http://www.allmusic.com/album/love-child-mw0002198166
http://www.allmusic.com/artist/my-dear-disco-mn0002079551 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.65.102.46 (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Their last album was also reviewed by the AMG.

AllMusic review pretty much everything, so it isn't really indicative of notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't, and yes, it is. 86.42.94.218 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, it's still one non-local source, so more are required for GNG being met. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A.V. Club [8], Toledo Blade (circulation 120,000–140,000) [9], AllMusic [10], PopMatters [11], supplemented by numerous good local sources. 86.42.94.218 (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toledo Blade is a local source, as to whether the others (ignoring AllMusic, which is reliable, but then they review most albums) are reliable, I'll leave that to others. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've packed a lot of vague, unclear & unsupported thinking into such a short comment there. The Blade is a reliable source with a large circulation: its article is clearly a valid indication of notability. Do you share that view or not? At AllMusic they either review or don't "based on factors such as current popularity, historical or artistic importance, and the needs of [their] data licensees" [12]. The idea that they cover "most" albums presumably came to you in a dream [13]; since you accept AllMusic as a source in any case, don't waste our time seeking to undermine it with unsupported impressions. Are you unequipped to evaluate (as i did) the reliability of the other sources, or just busy post-nomination? I encourage you to be more focussed and to seek evidence to support or inform your views. This kind of critical thinking is essential for any encyclopedist. 86.42.94.218 (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toledo is in Michigan. The band is from Michigan. It may be a "bigger" local paper, but it's still a local paper. My AllMusic comment is based on comments by other editors in the past, and my own experiences. Quoting what they say about their reviews process doesn't help anyone - I could write down any old waffle as my "process". And what the hell is with the rest of your comment? I have over 5000 edits, so I have some idea of guidelines. That said, you have picked out the list of music RS I was looking for, but was looking for in the wrong place, so thank you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to accept all the sources, so the concerns expressed in your nom are allayed.86.42.94.218 (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toledo hasn't been in Michigan since the Toledo War in 1835! Rmhermen (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused by the fact that there is a wikilink for Toledo in Michigan. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 06:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason why you're not withdrawing the nom? 86.42.90.239 (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons. One is your badgering, of which the above is an example. Two, I'm waiting for other editors to give their opinions, one way or another. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you feel badgered. I was genuinely unclear why an editor would accept notability and leave the nom open. If you want people to triple-check our work that's fine. I appreciate your continued engagement with the afd post-nom. 86.42.90.239 (talk) 12:44, 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, L Faraone 01:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The A.V. Club is without doubt a reliable source, and with the other coverage surfaced by the IP above I think this squeaks past WP:GNG. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, reading through the rather strange discussion above, this should really be speedily kept. The nominator essentially cedes that their concerns have been met ("you have picked out the list of music RS I was looking for"), and the IP supplied a pretty substantial amount of sourcing, all of which is clearly reliable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:39, 5 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sal Espino[edit]

Sal Espino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a notable local politician. Lacks significant coverage to justify his own article. WP:POLITICIAN Crispulop (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or Redirect to Fort Worth, Texas; subject of this AfD has received multiple passing mentions in non-primary reliable sources, and it can be argued that those mentions may add up to significant coverage of the subject, especially the coverage of the subject during the election/re-election periods. That being said the subject is not considered automatically notable per WP:POLITICIAN, and what coverage that I have seen is lean and outside of the election coverage the brief mentions maybe considered routine given the individuals elected position as a city councilmember of a major American city. Therefore, I am leaning towards deletion; or a redirect to the article of the city. If the subject receives significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources, the article can always be recreated.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:52, 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, J04n(talk page) 13:28, 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, L Faraone 01:13, 5 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. per sources offered during this discussion and consesnsus that topic meets inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Berardinelli[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/James Berardinelli

Articles for deletion/James Berardinelli (2nd nomination)

James Berardinelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completing nomination for Rpundurs, whose rationale was posted at the article's talk page and is included verbatim below. On the merits, I make no recommendation. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you UltraExact; a more thorough explanation of my position: At the time of the previous deletion discussion, Berardinelli was just barely hovering on the edge of notability. He was a self-published amateur to whom actual notables had made the occasional reference, and there was a possibility that in the years that were to come he would improve his CV and become a legitimate notable on his own merit. However, since then, there have been no meaningful changes to his article - no new sources of information concerning him from third parties, no participation in significant events, etc. What we have now is a guy who could have become unquestionably notable, but is in fact still just as small-time as he was last time this page came up for deletion. Since Wikipedia is not an Internet Yellow Pages for little fish bloggers, I recommend Beradinelli get the boot. Rpundurs (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sources. 3 of the 4 sources given are his own site, the last one looks reliable at a glance but isn't primarily about him, providing maybe a medium-sized paragraph worth of reliable info at best. That's not enough to support an article, especially not a BLP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage among news, books, and scholarly sources. — Cirt (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"good deal of secondary source coverage?" With Warden's addition of the Wired article, there are now exactly two secondary sources, neither of which are actually *about* Beradinelli - both of them are mainly about how nobodies like Berardinelli can now put their opinions online. Rpundurs (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rpundurs summarizes the history of this article correctly up above. The subject appears nonnotable as coverage on him isn't significant enough to evidence notability. Them From Space 19:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:WIRED. See Jason Silverman (28 Feb 2004), "Invasion of the Web Film Critics", Wired. Warden (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Wired rule is cute, but the Wired article is not specifically about Berardinelli or his activities - rather, it is about how Berardinelli and other web critics get no respect. Just being referred to in a Wired article shouldn't, I hope, be the criterion for notability. Would WP:CREATIVE apply here? Rpundurs (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Wired article is not the only one which discusses such web critics. The other cases all seem to give James Berardinelli as a prominent or primary example. So, even if there's not enough for a separate article, we could use such material in a section of another article such as Film criticism#Online film reviews, which could use some help. So, the worst case is obviously merger not deletion. See WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Warden (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Using these two references in Film criticism would be a good way to avoid wasting perfectly good references. Rpundurs (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. gets specialized coverage in his field but needs more widespread mainstream coverage to be notable. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, However, look for additional sources to further solidify the article. If possible, some that do not originate from Berardinelli's own site, such as the Wired article Warden retrieved. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for his credibility, I would make the argument that his recognition by more noticable members of his area at any time, his longevity on the Internet, a site resulting in full recognition by organizations such as Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, and the Online Film Critics Society would make him a notable figure. The current Wikipedia page is poorly written and only draws from his own sources, as I mentioned before, which can make him look less important.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:25, 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, L Faraone 01:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Roger Ebert, the world’s most prominent film critic, spoke very highly of Berardinelli, referred to him as “the best of the web-based critics” [14], wrote a foreword for his book [15], and constantly promoted him whenever possible. We have plenty of articles for far less notable critics, including James Rolfe, Doug Walker, and Noah Antwiler. If Rolfe, Walker, and Antwiler get their own pages, then Berardinelli is also worthy of 1. Clearly, this is a stub, and requires significant expansion, but that’s no reason to delete. 184.5.179.183 (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I alerted Wikipedia:WikiProject Film to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC (as I do not think WP:AUTHOR applies here). I think that The Kansas City Star and Wired are good "base" pieces to reflect his background, and I am seeing enough quoting of Berardinelli in various film recaps that it seems appropriate to have a Wikipedia article on him. It would be detrimental to delete it. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I am seeing enough quoting of Berardinelli in various film recaps..." Film recaps where? If they are third-party hosted, add them as references to the article. If they're on Wiki, remember notability does not come from Wikipedia. Rpundurs (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rpundurs, what I mean by quoting of Berardinelli is that his reviews are cited in works like Veiled Desires: Intimate Portrayals of Nuns in Postwar Anglo-American Film (2013). I believe that these frequent attributions warrant a Wikipedia article so people can look him up. I dug deeper, though, and found a couple of more profile-type references: 1.) Rickey, Carrie (July 30, 2000). "They're film geeks, because 'freak' is just too weak". The Philadelphia Inquirer. (which covers both Berardinelli and Ralph Hirshorn) and 2.) Cooper, Clint (November 23, 2004). "Reelviews.net film critic speaks at McCallie School". Chattanooga Times Free Press.. To go back to the frequent attributions, these are results of Berardinelli being referenced in numerous books in 2012 alone. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same WP:BASIC reasons Erik just listed and because Rpundurs seems to be allowing his/her own feelings about this "non-notable joker" affect his/her objectivity. I've edited numerous articles to include Berardinelli's reviews, not because I'm an advocate using "Wiki as an advert for his site", but because he is a Rotten Tomatoes designated Top Critic with an expansive (and literate) range of reviews that are often helpful when covering obscure titles.Jg2904 (talk) 23:09, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Petrovic[edit]

Dan Petrovic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is about a blogger who appears to fail WP:N as well as WP:BIO as he hasn't received significant coverage in multiple reliable, third-party sources. The references listed are either trivial or first-party. I can't find any other coverage via the internet to evidence notability. Them From Space 17:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, yet another guy who blogs about SEO, with no significant coverage online from WP:RS. Captain Conundrum (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Petrovic is not a small name in search industry is like Barry Schwartz (technologist). He is also a well known in research of facts about search engines. Give me sometime..let me update the refernces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujjawalsunny (talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 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, L Faraone 01:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete could not find anything but small mentions. Does not meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep there are plenty of references to Petrovic from reliable sources - you can find them in the references. Search Engine Land, Search Engine Journal and SEOmoz are all top search engine optimisation blogs, and there are quite a few mentions on other authoritative sites. 130.180.253.158 (talk) 08:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC) — 130.180.253.158 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

please provide sources that meet WP:RS. LibStar (talk) 08:12, 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 delete. Article is not fundamentally different to the article that was deleted in September. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 06:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Todd[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Omar Todd

Articles for deletion/Omar Todd (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Omar Todd (3rd nomination)

Omar Todd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This was first a speedy, then I thought it might be best to AfD it with further community input. May fail WP:GNG. SarahStierch (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Gah..just noticed it was already nominated once before, too. Doh! SarahStierch (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 5 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.
~~[comments removed from a closed discussion, see edit history. Please use talk page for new discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]~~