Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 June	10 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. L Faraone 01:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Town Pants[edit]

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

No assertion of notability; no third-party sources whatsoever; does not meet WP:MUSIC. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the nominator, there is no notability established or demonstrated for this band. PK T(alk) 01:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, exclusively self-published sources; fails WP:BAND. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One day they may become notable but they do not seem so now. Even one of their self-published sources do not work. —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 17:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
Delete non-notable, per WP:BAND. However, I disagree with the above: I'd say if the band still isn't notable after 17 years(!) it almost certainly isn't gonna be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, this is a band that garnered a lot of media coverage in the early 2000s — but not all of that coverage would necessarily still show up in a Google search in 2013, because print content wasn't yet consistently published to the web and even some of the stuff that was has since gone offline. So referencing it properly would probably entail a trip to the reference library to dig into print archives. However, as things currently stand there are no sources being cited besides the band's own website, and the band hasn't garnered anything like the same volume of coverage more recently — so there are no sources that can be found easily to Heymann it up within the immediate deadline. So, in other words, they're a band that probably are notable enough for inclusion in principle, but whose article in its current form doesn't actually demonstrate the fact at all. I'd like to argue "keep", but the lack of Googlable sources means I can't mount a substantial or credible or properly sourced argument at this time; all I can argue right now is that I believe that valid sources are out there somewhere. So I have to go with the delete side here, albeit without prejudice against a future repost if somebody's willing to invest some time and energy into digging out archival print sources. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 14 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. L Faraone 01:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death test[edit]

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

This is an essentially unreferenced (the only ELs are examples) stub on a type of internet quiz that fails WP:GNG due to a lack of coverage in reliable sources. --BDD (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party sources to establish this as a notable concept worthy of it's own article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panpog1 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to be any serious discussion of this sort of test in any reliable secondary sources. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 17:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG,as no reliable sources or sufficient coverage Finnegas (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

8 to the Bar[edit]

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

Non-notable college a capella. Fails WP:BAND: Only self-published albums. No record deal. Only minor awards. Occasionally sings at baseball games. GrapedApe (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be only passing mentions of the group in RSs. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:04, 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. L Faraone 01:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Khan (journalist)[edit]

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

Non notable journalist. One lucky interview (of someone who might be a relative or friend based on comments on the original interview site) gets published, and one interview of the subject at a fantasy sport site. Nothing there yet. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Khan is a well known tennis player and sports journalist from Pakistan. He took the interview of Aqeel Khan, who is Pakistan's No. 1 Tennis Player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeeshanRehman1 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC) — ZeeshanRehman1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

wait wait wait who said farid khan is not notable? ask here in pakistan he is the most talented and aspiring journalist in pakistan very young and improving day by day he's a tennis player as well don't delete his page — Preceding unsigned comment added by YasirKhan1 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC) — YasirKhan1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: There seem to be two articles about the same subject: Farid 'Bronze Medalist' Khan and Farid Khan (journalist). - David Biddulph (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no evidence this person is a notable journalist as I see no signficant coverage about him. It seems that he is just starting out on a career of journalism. Good luck, but this is way too soon for an article. As a tennis player, I cannot find him on the ATP rankings so he falls well short of being a notable athlete. - Whpq (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A number of editors (or perhaps one editor using a number of accounts) are repeatedly deleting the AFD tag from the article before the AFD discussion is complete. I don't know whether they think that this will prevent deletion if the AFD concludes that this is the appropriate action. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is useless. He is very famous man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.189.127.154 (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Notability" when used on wikipedia has a specific meaning and is really a short hand for whether a topci should be included on Wikipedia. This is normally demonstrated through significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources writing about the subject. Simply stating that he is famous, or well known without offering proof will not result in the article being kept. -- Whpq (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one interview does not notability make. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

he is very notables. many interviews taken and may awards won. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.189.77.131 (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 02:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Active Worlds[edit]

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

Most, if not all of the references utilized in the article are actually what you could call reliable. Most are derisive passing mentions, links to the product website, articles from another wiki (mind you, after research I found out developers maintain it, so it's a grey area.), and a dead link to presumably a Wells Fargo blog post. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prune. (conflict of interest warning) The AW community fell apart a while ago. The article needs to be shortened to concise, verifiable statements in preparation for the death of the software or a possible revitalization of the community. Some more technical information about how content delivery works would be great. [1] Also, whoever has been writing the last few years of history is bad at writing and some of it is fabricated. ζompuλacker (tlk) 03:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Continued. And before someone makes a comparison between Wikipedia and a polished glass sphere, I mean that someone familiar with the subject matter should do it. Carefully. ζompuλacker (tlk) 04:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would not recommend rewriting or modifying the article in a way that would "prepare" it for eventual community death or revitalization, as per WP:SPECULATION. There is no absolute certainty or evidence that either will happen. Although, there could be notes or a mention of the declining community, but it should ideally be documented by a reliable source before doing so. --Roy Curtis (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it can be noted if you like using forum posts as sources. I'm with Roy on not rewriting the article to prepare for the unlikely "revitalization" of any community. I'm still going for deletion, though. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (conflict of interest warning). There is absolutely no reason why an article like this, given its longevity (both as an article and as the software itself), should be removed based merely on references. Replace the references with better sourced content, or remove the aforementioned areas altogether. I'm not sure why you're being so quick to nominate virtual world articles for deletion instead of opting to improve them. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 15:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Longevity is not a reason to keep an article. Plus, I've looked and compared the most recent edit before nominating this article to the last edit before the first nomination. In between it, most of the "improvement" I've seen is basically equivalent to cutting off cancer cells without the radiation and chem treatment afterwards. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Continued. Now, that doesn't mean improvement won't ever happen, but it's going to have to take A LOT of it before I withdraw this nomination. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with keeping it in its current incarnation and continuing to improve it with reliable sources? Since you and Roy have cleaned up most of the unreliable and unsourced content, I don't see why the article should be deleted. Not to mention that if the article can be improved through regular editing, it should be, instead of opting for deletion. This article can definitely be improved upon, and so deletion should not be considered. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 20:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you still have the issue of notability to address. According to DEL-CONTENT, if somebody has failed to throughly find new sources to verify the content, then it is grounds for deletion. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you, or anyone really, even tried to find new sources? As for notability, I don't think that should even be questioned, but I'll tell you what: I'll spend time tomorrow looking through sources to add and spend time rewriting the article, and then we can see if it fits your specific requirements. Would that be alright with you, sir? I am curious though why you have such a sudden interest in nominating virtual world articles for deletion: [2] [3] instead of opting to improve them. Deletion isn't always the answer, you know. I'm starting to wonder if you have some sort of agenda, since you seem unwilling to improve the article and would rather have it deleted as quickly as possible. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 00:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. My father was employed in the technical support field by AWI, and he got laid off. In addition, the whole "community" is almost as dead as a corpse. Obviously, you've suspected right about an agenda, and it's best that I just withdraw right now. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ActiveWorlds is an active 3-D virtual world with a long history. As such, it deserves a place in the Wikipedia as a supporting article to Virtual world. Although still a bit of a Wiki edit noob, I would be willing to edit the current article and provide better information and references for the information being presented versus being deleted from the repository. Bboemanns —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user has little or no edits outside of this discussion — Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- This user already admitted he was an editor noob but edits only pages on which he has significant knowledge and experience — bboemanns (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Hameed Farhan[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that he will captain the Iraqi team at the Youth World Cup. Events are never grounds for notability until the actually occur per WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes youth football as a source notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG.Simione001 (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject has not achieved sufficient notability, at this time, to warrant an article. Stormbay (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is the Iraqi Premier League not a professional league? Has he been fielded? --MicroX (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no, the Iraqi Premier League is not on the list of fully pro league and since he hasn't represented his country at senior level, the subject fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Iraq IS a fully professional League sponsored by Zain just Like Saudi Arabia[4], But because of security reasons we don't play in the AFC Champions League. STRONGLY KEEP. Mussav (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having a sponsor does not necessarily mean a league is fully pro. Just as an example, the English fifth division is sponsored by Blue Square yet it isn't an FPL. Which means this article does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq is a fully Professional league and If you type on Google "Iraq Professional League on Arabic" you'll have one million and one hundred plus articles[5]. Now that I've given you proves that Iraq is Fully professional League, now tell me why Iraq IS NOT a professional football league? Thank you. Mussav (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GHITS is not a valid argument. I could perform the same procedure on almost any of the confirmed non-fully-pro leagues and get several million hits. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you sources, but yet you didnt answer my question. Btw Iraq League is on the pro list!!. Mussav (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:17, 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. L Faraone 01:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lhouraii Onawah Li[edit]

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

Lacks in-depth coverage in WP:Reliable sources. Has appeared on TV a few times, but not yet notable enough per WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER. Prod contested by article's creator. Captain Conundrum (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page about a Youtube-only award run by subject, article created by same editor, two-page WP:Walled garden, similarly making no assertion of notability per WP:GNG, with no significant coverage from WP:Reliable sources:

I'm the user who created the page, I'm sorry that I don't understand how to work Wikipedia yet so I do need help with certain things when creating pages. I want to learn web-design which is what brought me to create Wikipedia articles.

As for Lhouraii Li, she is very well known in Romania and the UK as well as on the internet. If Lhouraii Li is not eligible for a Wiki page, then why do people like Aziz Shavershian have one? She has a large following in the UK as well as other countries. I found out about her from a magazine article a couple of years ago. You would have to have other users contribute those though - I've added almost everything that I know about her and can source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katylin0987 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks for contributing. The article Aziz Shavershian asserts his notability per WP:BIO with significant coverage from WP:Reliable sources. Can you remember in which magazine you read the article about her? Any language is fine, so long as it's a reliable source. Thanks, Captain Conundrum (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The article seems to have been created and edited by mainly by two recent accounts, one of which removed the AFD tag (which I have restored). The subject seems to be a serial TV contestant/participant, but without achieving much of sugnificance. She looks throughly NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 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, Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as per WP:GNG which requires in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. May also be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:20, 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 Speedy Delete. Danger ^{High voltage!} 19:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pimp post[edit]

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

This page should be deleted because Pimp posts are not notable and may even be a hoax or a name coined by one person. I would have speedied it under A7, but I was reluctant to (even though it was web content). Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 18:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a G12 of this link. A7 would also apply in this situation. Valenciano (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 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 Keep Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

APA Award for Distinguished Professional Contributions to Applied Research[edit]

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

Notability of this award is not clear. References provided in the article are either primary or questioning the recipients of the award. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Also a lot of red links for the recipients of the award itself. RadioFan (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of the major awards of a major academic society, and the level of sourcing that can be found (while not great) looks to me very typical for this type of award. See for instance this newspaper story about one of the recipients, this obituary of an academic in which his award is the first thing mentioned in a section about his international recognition, this mention of the award in a biography of one of its recipients, and this mention of the award as evidence of the broad acceptance of a psychological theory. None of these gives particularly in-depth coverage of the award itself (although they could be used in the article as sources for the facts that the people mentioned in them won the award) but I think they attest to its significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the nominator is right, the article has a bunch of red links. Taking a quick look, though, it would seem there is a good number of them who might be notable and deserving or articles. American Psychologist called Manfred J. Meier (a red link in the subject article), "one of the most influential figures in the establishment of clinical neuropsychology as a specialty field." I just don't know that we have a lot of editors writing about notable clinical psychologists. Bruce E. Wampold (also a red link) acts as an in-house expert on psychotherapy for the American Psychological Association (those who give out the subject award) but has also written a bunch of well-cited books. Should also probably be a blue link. On the award itself, there is some coverage like this, but a lot of it is in American Psychologist (of course), the official journal of the APA. I suppose that's problematic in terms of independence. I think if the article was a big list of blue links, this probably wouldn't have been nominated. My suggestion is that many of them should be. Stalwart111 00:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As just explained, the red links are an indication of our failure in coverage, not the lack of importance of the award. They;ll be a good guide in what articles are needed. Obviously, anyone can give a award to other people who have already been given multiple important awards without that award being itself notable , and professional societies do give minor awards as well as major ones, and notable people do get minor awards in early parts of their career, but David E gives just the right demonstration of the importance of this particular award in a person's career, DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article like others Onsager Medal, is essentially a detailed WP:FORK of the American Psychological Association. Details of the award and the list of awardees could be included in the APA article, but would bias the APA article in an awkward way. Furthermore, this award, as a lifetime award (some other awards are "only" early career, in which case the recipients are on their way to notability but haven't got their yet - and of course, some don't make it, but this is a lifetime award). As a lifetime award, this confers WP:PROF#2, to its recipients, and so the redlinks shouldn't be red. As it is, the article is a short description - essentially a WP:LEAD, with instead of the main content is a list of recipients. It thus is a hybrid between a list and an article, with a tendency towards the former. It meets the criteria at WP:NLIST. This is how to stub biographies quickly - start with a list. There are plenty of other such articles on Wikipedia. I thank user:RadioFan for nominating it though, as these things need to be discussed periodically. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Important award by significant body. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 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. L Faraone 01:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Jabbar Shwkan[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the AFC cup, an assertion not supported by reliable sources that does not confer notability as it would have been for a non-fully-pro club. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Part of Erbil SC run in the continental competition 2012 AFC Cup (won with the team the runners-up), Then part of Al-Quwa Al-Jawiya in the regular inter continental competition 2012–13 UAFA Club Cup. Part of Iraq achevment in the Asian Youth cup And he is a starter of Iraq youth National football team in the 2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup this June. Mussav (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the nomination, none of this can grant notability without being supported by reliable sources. Furthermore, he did not actually play in the AFC Cup, meaning Ebril's participation does not confer notability, the UAFA Club Cup is not fully pro and does not attract enough coverage to grant notability either, and youth appearances are explicitly excluded as a sources of notability by WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Iraq IS a fully professional League sponsored by Zain just Like Saudi Arabia[6], But because of security reasons we don't play in the AFC Champions League. STRONGLY KEEP. Mussav (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having a sponsor does not necessarily mean a league is fully pro. Just as an example, the English fifth division is sponsored by Blue Square yet it isn't an FPL. Which means this article does not confer notability. Also, please only !vote once. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Please don't scratch my opinion. Thank you. Secondly Iraq is a fully Professional league and If you type on Google "Iraq Professional League on Arabic" you'll have one million and one hundred plus articles[7]. Now that I've given you proves that Iraq is Fully professional League, now tell me why Iraq IS NOT a professional football league? Thank you again. Mussav (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you already !voted keep in your first comment, you are not permitted to do so again. WP:GHITS is not a valid argument. I could perform the same procedure on almost any of the confirmed non-fully-pro leagues and get several million hits. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No matter what WP:NFOOTBALL may or may not say or whether the league may or may not be fully professional, we need better sourcing than this for a WP:BLP. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wow, really? a delete? not an improvement? If you need sources I'll give you sources just ask. Mussav (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.Simione001 (talk) 08:52, 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 merge to Iranian languages#Comparison table. (non-admin closure) czar · · 03:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Persian and Kurmanji Kurdish comparison[edit]

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

This is original research - see citation #1, which reads "My own research based on severe Kurdish and Persian resources (own language literature, dictionaries, web researches)". Obviously the creator has put a lot of work in here, but Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - this is very likely all true and done in good faith, but that doesn't mean it belongs. The author even says the words were chosen randomly. Delete, as nominator. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Iranian languages#Comparison table. Although underserving of its own article, seems like some useful information we could retain. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with merge to Iranian languages#Comparison table. Kabirat (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above Kabirat (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query So which is your actual opinion? 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Iranian languages#Comparison table. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:33, 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. L Faraone 01:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shark Fin Free Auckland[edit]

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

New Zealand based anti shark fin advocacy group. Does not seem to meet WP:CORP, with no in-depth coverage. Directory listing at best. Page sources are either passing mentions or are there just to promote cause. Funny ^Pika! 16:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Organisation is a little small and too low profile to justify a page - SimonLyall (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - might be worth a sentence in the Shark fin soup article, but not enough for a stand alone. NealeFamily (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a see also link to this page from Shark fin soup, which I have since removed. If it is a notable organisation, I'd wouldn't object to it being mentioned in the Shark finning#New Zealand article - which seems a bit more relevant than the soup article. Funny ^Pika! 05:29, 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. L Faraone 01:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of current coronation street writers[edit]

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

Author made in good faith; possible test page, not all the people listed are notable. smileguy91^talk 16:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless, unreferenced, unmaintainable list; fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Lists_of_people. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:37, 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 redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters. L Faraone 01:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gary the Snail[edit]

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

Fancruft. No out of universe notability. JJ98 (Talk) 15:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters. No significant coverage in reliable sources, but a plausible search term. Pburka (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 16:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 16:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 16:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters as suggested, not enough there to make a stand-alone article. Frietjes (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Ansh666 17:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC) ~~wait and see, wait and see Ansh666 01:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)~~ Since nothing has been added, Redirect per everyone else. Ansh666 06:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characaters. He may not meet Wikipedia's notible guidelines if anyone is considering to delete it. You have other SpongeBob characters such as Patrick, Sandy, Squidward, and Mr. Krabs. Ashbeckjonathan 17:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright fine, since all of SpongeBob characters are fancrufty and does not pass WP:GNG like Brock Samson of The Venture Bros. which I've nominated for deletion almost three years ago. JJ98 (Talk) 18:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got a little sidetracked, heh. Ansh666 22:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about the other articles? I think SpongeBob himself, Patrick, Squidward, and Sandy are notable enough, based on their articles (sigcov); the Mr. Krabs and Plankton are more in line with this one. All of them rely heavily on primary sources, bordering on WP:OR. Ansh666 19:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's not derail this discussion with a discussion of WP:OTHERSTUFF. If they're non-notable, nominate them separately. Pburka (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was actually thinking about a group nomination, since the three articles are extremely similar - plot summary with direct script sources, and a small section about TY Beanie Babies. The ones I listed as "notable enough" have other sections, such as concept or controversies. Ansh666 22:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it's a bad idea to add articles to a deletion discussion once opinions have been expressed. It makes it difficult to determine the outcome, as it changes the nature of the discussion part way through. Pburka (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Meh, you're probably right, though it's been done plenty of times before in my experience. Ansh666 22:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination's claim that the topic is not notable is false as the topic is discussed in detail in sources such as Learn to Draw The Best of Nickelodeon and the Journal of Popular Culture. The latter reports that Gary the Snail is the second most popular character for female college students and that's almost worth a DYK by itself. Patrick comes first, I see. I'm not sure who he is as all my knowledge of this show comes from AfD. I'd watch it but it's probably not as good as I imagine. Is Gary as witty as Brian the Snail, who had college students enthralled back in my day? Note further that WP:CRUFT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT are still not policy but WP:PRESERVE is. Warden (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Warden: add them in, then, and we'll take another look at it. Ansh666 23:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I shall go to bed instead. Please see the magic word. Warden (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abracadabra? Ansh666 23:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 23:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters... Mediran (t • c) 11:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is WP:NOTAVOTE. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poor/no reason for deletion. I think many people in this discussion should read WP:BEFORE. The content in the article is not what you judge, it's what content that is available. Doing a quick search, I'm convinced that there's enough out there. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's what the problem is here. I'd love to keep to the article, but it is not worthy since WP:NICK and WP:SBSP has been died out since Nickelodeon and SpongeBob SquarePants had been going downhill after the WP:RM, while Cartoon Network and Adventure Time has strongly increased. There had been unsupported attempt to remove any fancruft and any original research, but nobody cared and did not cleaned up. I love to see any good Gary the Snail article and the rest of the SpongeBob characters, but alas, nothing is happening. JJ98 (Talk) 01:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the fact that nobody really cares to improve the article isn't a reason to get rid of it. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide some examples of significant coverage in reliable sources? Pburka (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only Mediran (talk · contribs) knows about it. He/she knows about SpongeBob then I do. JJ98 (Talk) 22:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters per Pburka. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:44, 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 Redirect. Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Saxon[edit]

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

Subject appears to not be notable as an army officer, businessman or politician and the page appears to be little more than a promotional resumé/life story, with links provided to the businesses he supposedly runs in the lead. The article has no third-party sources and seems to have been mostly written by a series of SPAs with a presumed connection to the subject, such as Saxoncongress (talk · contribs), Samanthajose (talk · contribs) and GaDawg2011 (talk · contribs). He appears to have some limited coverage in news media around the time of a failed congressional bid in 2008, but nothing much else of any substance. N-HH talk/edits 15:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I doubt being in the military qualifies for an article. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 15:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:SOLDIER or WP:POLITICIAN. EricSerge (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination - this appears to be a promotional article Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure self-promotional cruft. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Viable search term; redirect to the election where he is already appropriately covered, United States House of Representatives elections in Georgia, 2008#District 10 until notability requirements are met or a similarly named individual supplants the redirect. Dru of Id (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems much the best solution to me all round. N-HH talk/edits 08:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Georgia, 2008#District 10. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Georgia, 2008#District 10. A redirect is a common outcome for losing candidates for the U.S. Congress. 98.255.206.166 (talk) 18:04, 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. L Faraone 01:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmood ul Hassan Kaukab Al-Tabrezi[edit]

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

Created by a user who's only contributed to this article and unref'd for over six years. I can't find any sources to indicate notability Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quick Google search brings up no reliable sources. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment almost certainly the name of this author has been corrupted by a non-standard transliteration into English. If anyone can find the native-language version of the name and/or the corresponding page on http://viaf.org/ ping my talk page and it's likely that the page can be saved. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not have enough information for a proper stub, such as birth and death dates. No references at all. Dazedbythebell (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Had he been that famous or notable, more would have been written about him here and elsewhere, and even looking at the alternative spelling Tabrizi, I have found nothing. Does not meet WP:GNG--Zananiri (talk) 12:52, 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 Keep. Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hermesmann_v._Seyer[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Countered (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Has no sources, has biased language, doesn't appear to be a landmark case as it claims. Looking for better sources, or someone who is an expert on cases to decide whether this was a landmark case or not. If neither can be found then it should be deleted. Countered (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because the article has reliable sources of the sort required to meet the notability guidelines, the topic is presumed to warrant an article. I see no reason for not having this particular article, for example I can't find an appropriate merge target. Thincat (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at first glance, I see a good amount of sources and this is apparently a landmark case that would warrant such an article. If the article is put together in good faith (i.e. isn't a hoax and I just don't see that), we just need to edit the language some.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per improvements and excellent work by User:Thincat. Apparently a WP:BEFORE failure, and WP:HEY applies. Cavarrone 05:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Bondegezou (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources currently in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:49, 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 keep. L Faraone 01:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

22nd and Market building collapse[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOT, this is a news story, there is no lasting encyclopedic significance to this event. LGA _talk^edits 11:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With WP:CRYSTAL in mind, we cannot predict whether there will be any lasting encyclopedic significance. The question is not whether there will be significance in the future, but whether there is encyclopedic significance now. Let's go through the standard test under WP:Notability (events):

Lasting effects: No current indication of lasting effects.
Geographical scope: The story has received nation-wide coverage.
Depth of coverage: ???
Duration of coverage: Unpredictable.
Diversity of sources: Many different news agencies are covering the event.

I'd say that on the whole, the story does not seem like an obvious candidate for deletion, but not like an obvious keeper either. I would not rush to delete it; give it some more time to allow for better analysis of significance. Knight of Truth (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: How often do buildings collapse in the USA and kill many people? Especially due to human error and/or workplace accidents (as opposed to earthquakes and such)? Notable. Keep. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That an event is rare does not make it notable. Rare events happen all the time. However, significant lasting coverage of the event (which may originate from its rarity) can make it notable. Knight of Truth (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. We are essentially saying the same thing. In this case, the event was extremely rare; that rarity led to significant coverage by reliable sources; that coverage rendered notability. We are in agreement, and we are saying the same thing. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - as per usual, someone has nominated an article on a news story for deletion claiming it hasn't demonstrated lasting significance, before it's had the chance to do so. It's too soon to declare this event to be non-notable when it happened less than a week ago. My inclination would be that it will prove to be notable - as Joseph Spadaro observes, events like this are rare - but this AFD is way too premature to make that judgement. Robofish (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As above stated, it's still a new event. Also it's notable as a serious construction error that normally happen in the US. I don't see how rarity isn't notable. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - It seems like every time a non-terrorist accident (I suppose that's redundant; if terrorists did it, it wouldn't be an accident) happens, someone creates an article about it and someone else takes it to AfD to say that there's no lasting coverage. I believe that this will prove to be notable enough, but we can't really tell when the event happened four days ago. We may want to move it to the current redirect 2013 Philadelphia building collapse. God willing, another one won't happen at least this year, so there won't be any confusion. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This incident was just a crane driver having a bad day at the office, nothing notable or significant. The article breaches the guidelines WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:LASTING. (We don't put up an article and "hope" the issue may have lasting consequences, we create the article if and when lasting significance is demonstrated.) WWGB (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- - I don't know what channel your crystal ball is broadcasting, but it seems to be tuned to the Twilight Zone. The backhoe operator's actions may have been the proximate cause of the collapse, but a demolition plan resulting in a four-story concrete wall with no support except at a rear corner (where it did not fall) made it possible. I believe one of the news reports I heard included the allegation the contractor had to find a second structural engineer to sign off on the operation... On the other hand, it's not -that- rare. I remember a couple in a car parked on a sidestreet next to a supermarket being demolished on Geneva Ave in San Francisco (or maybe Daly City, it was across from the Cow Palace) who were killed when its wall fell on them. This was at night, after the demo crew had gone home, iirc. No crane involved. Andyvphil (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would oppose creating this article because lasting significance has not been demonstrated, but I wouldn't be so quick to delete what has come to be a halfway decent article. It would surely be inefficient to delete it now and perhaps revive it a week or two later. Can we perhaps agree to postpone the deletion discussion until we have a clearer picture of the event's impact?"Knight of Truth (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will take more than one week for this AfD to be discussed. I'm sure the closing admin will take "potential lasting significance" into consideration. WWGB (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient casualties to remain notable. I agree with RiverClan's suggested move; people will remember the city, not the street address. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Made national news. I got two alerts from CNN about it. Most everything CNN sends alerts for is notable. 2001:558:6027:7F:31D2:23E:C93F:F45E (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, just because it was mentioned on CNN does not mean anything. Lots of stories get heavy news coverage from cables news stations like CNN for a day or two and then you never hear the story or a follow-up again.Jay Jay^{What did I do?} 00:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable event that has gained national attention. Joseph A. Spadaro makes a good point it is rare for someting like this to happen in America. It would be more common for a collapse like this to take place in Iraq or Russia. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per RiverClan and Joseph A. Spadaro. The story made international headlines and it is still developing, so it is really too early to delete. Paris1127 (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although national attention is significant, the real importance is in the Philadelphia City Council budget and safety ordinances.
Delete as per WP:NOT. Open to undelete if this is still mentioned in an electoral cycle, which seems like an appropiate definition of 'lasting' for lasting impact. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was leaning delete, but there is so much coverage that this is clearly a keep--GrapedApe (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 00:44, 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 speedily deleted and redirected post-delete. Considering this article was originally created by a community-banned sockmaster (who had issues with copyvios and the like for exactly these kinds of articles), I don't think there's any real reason to keep the article history. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Head of a Tousled Young Woman[edit]

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

Only a single ref, without page numbers. Google searches show many social media uses and offers of prints but no in depth coverage. Notability is not inherited from the artist. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is this the same thing as Head of a Woman (Leonardo)? The pictures that come up seem almost identical, as are the locations of where they are. If so, then this would probably come up under that name. If so, then this should probably redirect there as an alternate name. In any case, it looks like it might be on permanent exhibit in a museum, which would contribute to notability, I think. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a re-naming of the artwork I named above. However, I don't see anything to suggest that this is actually an official alternative name for this painting. The book that is listed as a source [8] doesn't actually mention this specific title for the painting. I think this is an informal title for the painting that isn't official or commonly used in any way, so there's no reason for this to be a redirect to the official painting, which I'm finding sources for and passes notability guidelines. This might be speedyable as a "hoax" since there is no DaVinci artwork by this name, technically. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Head of a Woman (Leonardo) as an alternative name[9] (likely search term). This name is certainly often used (Google) and it does not need to be "official". In fact it is a better translation of the Italian, wikt:scapigliato#Italian, certainly not a "blatant hoax". The history should be kept in case any information could usefully be merged. Thincat (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article creator has blanked the article, essentially qualifying it for speedy deletion (WP:CSD#G7) and there is a clear consensus in the discussion here. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Theater (1940-45)[edit]

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

Possible neologism and OR, not supported by any RSes. Only mention of "Australian Theater of Operations" "World War II" in Google Books is this, which uses it as part of the American-British-Dutch-Australian Command's title. South West Pacific theatre of World War II already covers the area around Oceania and Australia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Anotherclown (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources per GNG, and the only argument advanced by its creator is an WP:OTHERSTUFF one regarding the existence of the American Theater (1939–45) article, which is irrelevant. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article created against consensus [10] using a term not used in WP:RS. Events already covered in various articles including: South West Pacific theatre of World War II, Attacks on Australia during World War II, Air raids on Australia, 1942–43 and Axis naval activity in Australian waters. Anotherclown (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and per Anotherclown: there never was an "Australian Theater" of World War II, and it is not a term or concept which has been used by historians (who tend to note that there were not clear links between the various attacks on Australia during the war, with most attacks being offshoots of larger campaigns in the islands to Australia's north). The topics covered in the article would be much better covered in existing articles. Nick-D (talk)
Delete - as per reasons stated above. Zawed (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism coined by the article creator. Is not referred to in reliable sources or, indeed, in any sources at all. Has nothing to do with American Theater (1939–45), which refers to an actual wartime entity. Contents of the article are covered in other articles. Contains certain elements of real weirdness (Why 1940 and not 1939? Why American spelling?) Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If appropriate Merge any content not already there to the articles listed by Anotherclown. The nom and some commenters above seem unable to look beyond issues with the title. That may be wrong, but the subject is certainly notable. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, except we have all already stated that this is already covered in several articles. There would be nothing gained by merging. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per comments above by Nick-D, Crisco 1492, Peacemaker67, Hawkeye7, Anotherclown. Nickm57 (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Nickm57. The creator of this article should be encouraged to remember the civil way we're supposed to interact with each other on Wikipedia. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Anotherclown. There was, as Nick-D suggested on the MilHist talk page, an Australian Theatre headquarters (HQAST) in the 1990s -- I was contracting to Defence when they set it up -- but no such concept that I'm aware of during WWII. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:19, 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse R. Waugh[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)

Most of this article appears to be based on a self-published book by the author. There are no reliable independent sources in the article or that I can find using Google search to establish any notability. I am One of Many (talk) 07:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information:The article Jesse Waugh has been created before by the sockpuppet Nickkang.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That may be, however it has no bearing on the fact that reliable sources have been added to improve and substantiate the article. HSoberg (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Blocked as sock.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Well, no actually, there appear to be few if any reliable sources per WP:RS that I have found. I am currently going through the references offered and I'm not seeing any that are proper sources. I am One of Many's concern is justified. If a known sockpuppeteer created an early version of this article, that's something we should all know. This could be a recreation by another sockpuppet of that editor. All the keep !votes are single-purpose accounts and this edit is troubling. Care to explain why you removed another editor's comment, or were you attempting to !vote a second time as an IP and got caught by a bot when trying to fix it under your username? Either way, it's not acceptable.

freshacconci talktalk 13:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment I attempted to move that vote down as it had been placed at the top of the page, which I viewed to be in the wrong place. It was not any impropriety on my part as you have suggested. I'm not sure what vendetta you and I am One of Many have against the establishment of this valid page, but you are incorrect to state that it contains no reliable sources demonstrating notability--which is the primary criterion for the existence of any Wikipedia page. Furthermore, I see Freshacconci that you are interested in Wikipedia pages pertaining to art and artists--judging by the number of edits you have performed on such pages--so it seems contrary to me that you should be so adamantly opposed to creation of a page dedicated to a subject who is obviously (and demonstrably) a notable artist. It leads one to suspect that there might be vested interests or ulterior motives at play here.HSoberg (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Blocked as sock.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply If that is true, I apologize, however, that doesn't answer the question: why did you delete the comment? There are exactly 19 seconds that pass between the time the IP makes his first edit and you deleting his comment, which appears to happen because the bot autosigned your username. I have been on Wikipedia long enough to know that as soon as the accusations of "vested interests or ulterior motives" appear it is proven to be a deflection. As for notability, no, this has not been demonstrated and there are few if any reliable sources per WP:RS. When I have time, before the AfD is over, I will register my !vote with a detailed explanation as to why the sources listed are not reliable. You are free to add any sources that help establish notability, but I suggest you read WP:RS and WP:V carefully. freshacconci talktalk 14:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply You suggest I read them carefully? That is a veiled threat. Bullying_in_academia Is it your intent to gang up with I am One of Many to bully me into giving up my defense of the creation of this article? This while you freely admit that there may very well be reliable sources already in place. You nitpick while "I am One of Many" accuses every voter on this entry of sockpuppetry. You and I am One of Many are enforcing your deletionist agenda through gang tactics, without truly considering that the notability of the content and the referencing of the article are adequately sourced. HSoberg (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Blocked as sock.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wow. Again, that's a lot of deflection. How you managed to see a suggestion that you carefully read Wikipedia policies as a "veiled threat" is beyond me. As for ganging up, I have never encountered I am One of Many before this AfD discussion so it is unlikely that we're ganging up as we don't know each other. We are two editors expressing our opinions. You seem to be aware of a great deal of Wiki culture and guidelines so you're hardly a newbie. I feel the article is not sourced well, that most of the sources are not reliable and when I have the time I will explain my opinion on the matter in detail, so no, in fact I am considering this very carefully. In the end it will be up to the closing admin to make the decision. In any case, I am moving on for now. freshacconci talktalk 15:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        "~~when I have the time I will explain my opinion on the matter in detail..." Another veiled threat. What motivates you? HSoberg (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)~~Blocked as sock.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is also a sockpuppet investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cinesis.--I am One of Many (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notated artist.--Iamsrkfan (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Blocked as sock.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per WP:CREATIVE His work was exhibited at the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art. "(b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition"--WordsworthNYC 16:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC) — WordsworthNYC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked as sock.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This article now has an acceptable reference to a film festival listing showing nominated work by the artist. Please withdraw the nomination. --HSoberg 17:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)— HSoberg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked as sock.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AfD discussions take 7 days and are typically not withdrawn unless the nominator changes his mind. freshacconci talktalk 21:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Three reliable independent references have been added to address the concerns of the nominator. The first is a documentary produced by a third party pertaining to work done by the artist, the second is a film festival nomination, the third is an independent review. --HSoberg 21:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Blocked as sock.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A listing and video of the 2008 Pill Awards nominees for Best Experimental Short has been added as a fourth reliable source. --HSoberg 13:58, 10 June 2013
Keep Exhibited artist.Seems up and coming12.40.227.4 (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concern of the nominator that the article is based on a self-published book is not borne out by a text comparison, and multiple reliable sources have been referenced. Cinesis (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)— Cinesis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked as sockpuppeteer.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional information:This tedious debate is moot. As per Wikipedia guidelines - which we should be following here - if the Pill Awards are notable, then nominees of the Pill Awards are notable, and two solid sources have been added which prove Jesse R. Waugh was nominated for the 2008 Best Experimental Short Pill Award. Beyond this, a third reliable source has been added - a review featured on the Best Horror Movies website of Jesse Waugh's 2011 film "Death Of A Dummy." I challenge I am One of Many and Freshacconci to prove all three of these to be inadequate sources, for if even one of them is a reliable source then it should be deemed sufficient evidence of notability. HSoberg (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Blocked as sock.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This kangaroo court prejudges articles before it reads them. I can only remain hopeful that the final judge will be in favor of keeping this reliably sourced article. 12.38.132.137 (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and the sock puppetry is disturbing. Dusty|💬|You can help! 18:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject, well written, and reliably sourced. 63.92.225.169 (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand the controversy here. Jesse Waugh is definitely a notable artist based on the citations in the article. 96.56.192.118 (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC) — 96.56.192.118 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Voceditenore (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only thing disturbing about the alleged sock puppetry is the near-terroristic response it has elicited from certain vitriolic editors. I find their motives quite questionable. Notable. 65.88.88.70 (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found the following quoted post on an internet conspiracy forum, and while it is certainly over the top tinfoil-hat speculation, something about it rings true and reminded me of the ridiculous attack being lodged against the creation of this article by editors who attempt to monopolize information on Wikipedia by strong-arming, manipulating, attacking and bullying new editors: "Wikipedia is run by a monolithic cabal of intelligence agents in the UK, US, and Israel which acts as a block to control information presented to the public. While Wikipedia is notorious for its leftist bent, this is only part of a cover. In the Wikipedia guidelines for Notability (people), porn actors are given precedence over painters. Moral concerns aside, this is a faulty hierarchical assessment--unless you have a design in place for social subversion. During the traumatic, lengthy, soul-destroying AfD(Articles for Deletion) process, "Newbies" are tortured, lambasted, attacked, accused of "sock puppetry" and bullied into giving up their attempt to create a new Wikipedia page for a given subject. The deeply disturbing behaviour exhibited by long-time Wikipedia editors is usually explained away as that of middle-aged British and American male fuddy-duddies and failed scholars seeking revenge against society for their not being recognised as the literary luminaries or genius software programmers that they think they are. The truth, however, is much darker and perhaps even more painful: Wikipedia is run by intelligence agencies! MI5/6, CIA, and Mossad. Doubt it? Then ask yourself this question: Why wouldn't intelligence agencies have the most deeply vested interest in manipulating the world's primary source of intelligence: Wikipedia?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.70 (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you trying say that Jesse R. Waugh is more than a non-notable artist? Perhaps a secret agent?--I am One of Many (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked out all the "references" and did an extensive search on this person under a variety of search terms. Every single one of the references (apart from the Pill Awards videos) either fails to mention the subject or was written/uploaded by the subject himself. The Greggy and Berky film was never broadcast by the BBC and we can only take his word for it that it was even considered as a "pilot". He did not win a Pill Award, only nominated for a short, and even that is only half verified via videos claiming to be a collection of Pill Award nominees. The award no longer has its own website. Apart from that, nothing. This is simply not enough. An artist who is notable, has at the very least least reviews of his work in the specialist press and usually the mainstream press as well. "Emerging" is the key word here. Wikipedia is for the fully emerged, not the emerging. Voceditenore (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Voceditenore pretty much said what I wanted to say. I went though each source and found nothing that establishes notability. The key to notability requirements is that the source needs to fulfill WP:RS and WP:V beyond the trivial. There are no sources available that are not connected to the subject or only mention him in passing. This is a classic case of WP:TOOSOON, coupled with an over-aggressive subject and/or his friends. Case in point: the original article was just "Jesse Waugh". That was deleted as non-notable and was recreated as "Jesse R. Waugh", even though the artist apparently does not use his middle initial. Clearly this was an attempt to pass by unnoticed. Whoever is behind all the blocked sock accounts and the slew of IPs popping up today knows their way around Wiki and uses the appropriate language (although with a misunderstanding or willful misunderstanding of actual Wiki policy). Obviously there is some campaign out there to flood this AfD with keep votes, or it's the same person (given the language and reasoning is very similar to one another). Likewise, the conspiracy talk, accusations and attacks are a form of deflection, in order to make this discussion appear to be biased or hostile to supposed newbies. In any case, this clearly does not pass WP:ARTIST let alone WP:GNG. freshacconci talktalk 19:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. And reliably sourced as per Voceditenore. Freshacconci or "I am One of Many" have deleted two votes that I am aware of - one was mine which has been completely erased and a vote by someone else was erased just now. This is clearly unethical behavior. The record should reflect these points. I request that this be investigated by responsible editors. 98.113.167.4 (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Voceditenore !voted delete and her rationale indicates that the sources do not prove notability. The two editors that were deleted were done so for attacking another editor and for vandalism. As you know, of course. freshacconci talktalk 19:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been watching this unfold. I have also seen multiple Keep votes deleted - apparently by Freshacconci and I am One of Many. I am now keeping records of all of the Keep votes and will repost a list of deleted votes if any further are deleted. 65.88.88.75 (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anyone can see what was deleted by looking at the article history and I'd be more than happy to let anyone know about any comments I deleted. If the IPs that are flooding this page stop attacking other editors then their comments won't be deleted. And I remind everyone, per the notice at the top of this page, that this isn't a majority vote. Asking your friends to vote or adding keep !votes from different IP addresses to make it look like it's multiple editors will not help your case. This is a discussion based on policy and guidelines. Attacking other editors only weakens your argument. freshacconci talktalk 20:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Referenced and notable. 65.88.88.75 (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've notified this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The blatant flood of IP socks here and their personal attacks have now become extremely disruptive to this discussion. I also recommend that if the decision is "Delete", both Jesse Waugh and Jesse R. Waugh be salted. Voceditenore (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent references supporting notability found. None of the cites given show any of the four conditions of WP:ARTIST are met. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not precisely for the reasons given by other delete voters. In my eyes, the key to deletion is the complete absence of substantial coverage in reliable sources. This is far more important than faulting the self-published nature of the main source — as long as we remember that self-published sources don't contribute to notability, we shouldn't object to their existence. Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Voceditenore, Freshacconci, Nyttend. Gamaliel (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Only substantial source is self-published. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. None of the sources in the article appear to be reliable. I did my own search for sources but came up empty. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence subject meets WP:GNG. The majority of the sources in the article do not appear to be WP:RSes and those that are do not discuss the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable in any reasonable encyclopedic sense. Also, use of sockpuppet accounts in a deletion discussion is rarely a sign of a good-faith article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly per Andrew Lenahan and WP:SNOW. Many of the arguments for keeping this have been entirely devoid of policy-based rationale. The sources cited really don't reflect significant coverage of the subject and so claiming the article is "reliably sourced" simply isn't accurate. Stalwart111 04:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I support the salting of both articles titles. Stalwart111 04:35, 14 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. L Faraone 01:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photon Infotech[edit]

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

Somewhat promotional article for company of very borderline notability. I think the refs are not substantial or independent enough to show notability by our usual standards, and the article is somewhat exaggerated in its claims of importance from the numbers of people who use sites to which it has some very indirect connection.Previous versions were speedied as A7,but they provided much less information; I think the best course will be a community decision here. DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It seems that their former company is clearly NOTEable, but it's not clear whether or not this company is. That said, I think it deserves some GF effort on the parts of editors to find more material, as I suspect that this will not be difficult to come by. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to come up with any significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Google News Archive finds mostly press releases and occasional mentions; the only in-depth thing I found was this interview with the founder/CEO at a Wall Street Journal-related site, and that by itself is not enough to meet WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Del.' This news about the delay (cancellation?) of their IPO is more suitable for inclusion than the corporate pre-history, but I need a little more to justify a keep vote. Kilopi (talk) 16:56, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homo Academicus[edit]

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

Not notable, not even an English release. Tyros1972 Talk 07:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is unfair to call this "not notable" simply because it is a Korean release. This is one of the most popular documentaries in South Korea, currently in syndication even beyond its first season's initial airings. It is aired nationally on primetime television, on the largest Korean network, as cited by Wikipedia. In addition, there are actually parts of it in English (subtitled, of course). This is an incredibly important documentary in bridging western and eastern ways of studying. See the critical discussion here. I didn't know Wikipedia should be limited to things in English. Isn't the goal of Wikipedia to act as a hub of information on an international scale for all people? Celeste1227 Talk 03:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment Hi Celeste1227. Yes this is English Wikipedia, so the language should be in English (not sure if Romanization to names is needed, but makes it easy for English readers). I am not sure of the standards as I am not an *expert* hence why I opened this AfD to discuss this. The issue is more "reliable sources" and notability then the language part as that can be fixed. Is this article on the Korean Wikipedia? Tyros1972 Talk 07:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is neither necessary for the subject of this (or any) article nor its references to be in English for an article in the English Wikipedia. The only matter here is whether it meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw AFD After reading WP:NOENG I believe the article is indeed notable from what I can see. I withdraw my AfD if someone can please close this. Tyros1972 Talk 11:54, 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. patent nonsense L Faraone 01:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old Chinese Markets[edit]

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

Contesting Speedy and opening an AfD. I think the article has merit but certainly needs work. Tyros1972 Talk 07:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably speedy. I can see no merit in the article. Aside from the unreferenced WP:POV section upfront about the supposed greed of the Chinese, the article consists of large chunks of text copied without attribution from other Wikipeda articles: Secret_passage#Appearance_and_construction, Egyptian_Museum#King_Tutankhamun, in breach of the licensing terms. And neither has anything to do with the purported subject of the article anyway; it just seems to be there as ballast. AllyD (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense/copied text/attack page. Ansh666 17:42, 9 June 2013
- Citing criteria A1 (no context)/G12 (copyright issues)/G10 (WP:Attack page). For A1, the article is actually only 3 sentences long: the first section and a sentence tacked on at the end of the last section; it's quite unclear what it's talking about (the table is perhaps "on-topic", but very unsourced. For G12, see AllyD's comment. For G10, well that should be obvious (and well, yes, I am of Chinese descent, so...) Ansh666 00:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alternatively, after deletion, redirect to China trade or Old China Trade, since I could see this as being a potential search term. Pity anyone who tries it right now, though. Ansh666 00:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
good call speedy delete Panpog1 (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - because WTF? Seriously, this has no coherent topic, much of the material seems to be irrelevant to the purported topic, and the references don't seem to have any reason to be in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 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. L Faraone 01:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WTrak[edit]

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

Not notable. Tyros1972 Talk 07:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent 3rd party evidence found of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 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 deletion G11. (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PASKIBRA SMA Negeri 1 Slawi[edit]

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

Not in English (needs translation) and has no RS. Unknown if it is notable. Tyros1972 Talk 07:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for 14 days, then delete if it hasn't been translated. New articles that aren't written in English are usually listed at Pages needing translation. When there has been no effort of translation after 14 days, such articles are prodded. The fact that the article is not in English is no reason to delete it. Unless the nominator can read Malay and can confirm that the content is non-notable, final assessment should be left to translators. Apparently there's no corresponding article at the Malay Wikipedia either so speedy deletion is also not warranted. De728631 (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am guessing that this is one branch of a wider organisation - but it is just that, a guess, based on machine translation. The article is now listed on WP:PNT and as per De728631, that is the best place for dealing with it now, rather than AfD. AllyD (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No ref's, not in english why waste resources and time? Capitalismojo (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because we don't speedily delete such articles. There's no such criterion for "No ref's, not in english". Either the subject is insignificant or it has already been covered elsewhere on the English WP, but for everything else there's always the option of improving the article. De728631 (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, Jimfbleak has now deleted the page as pure advertising. Case closed. De728631 (talk) 16:19, 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 delete. L Faraone 01:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fafnir the Dragon[edit]

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

Non-notable web-comic character; article does not assert notability, and even if the webcomic was notable, there is not reason the single character should have its own article(in my opinion). — Dæ dαlus^{+ Contribs} 04:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability claimed, no notability present. Could probably have been speedy-deleted as utterly non-notable web content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There isn't even an article on the webcomic. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:42, 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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicko Williams[edit]

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

He didn't really do anything. Ghostboy1997 (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Notable per WP:NFOOTY, he's played in a professional match, and a World Cup qualifier. This is a lazy nomination, and the nominator should withdraw it immediately. Captain Conundrum (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:NFOOTBALL, he is notable having played a FIFA match. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:37, 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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mirkot[edit]

I withdraw the deletion nomination. My Mistake.Ghostboy1997 (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

No valid references. Ghostboy1997 (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - this article about a village now has a reference. It took me minutes to find one, and you don't nominate an article for AFD because you couldn't find a reference. Please withdraw the nomination. Captain Conundrum (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Longstanding consensus accepts the notability of populated places such as villages, unless a hoax is involved. Wikipedia has some of the features of a gazetteer, per the Five pillars. Mikemoral has added a source - thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Errol Sawyer[edit]

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

Was deleted at AFD but recreated via AFC, then G4. Opinion in a DRV was split about endorsing the close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 June 1 with arguments about promotional language and concern over the validity of new sourcing being expressed.As the DRV was closed as relist. As the closer of the DRV, I am neutral. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 03:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 03:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another promotional re-creation by another SPA. Sawyer still doesn't verifiably meet WP:CREATIVE and the article's sourcing remains weak. The SPA argued for re-creation based on a book/collection and (for the first time) in-depth coverage, but the book had to be self-published and the coverage amounts to the book's foreword and two paragraphs on a critic's personal website, both of which one editor (apparently with some experience in these matters) in the DRV suggested were possibly pay-for-praise gigs. None of this proves notability to me. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 03:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can not see how the subject notable and the author has failed to address the issues with sources. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - from my perspective, the article would need a lot more by way of reliable sources to substantiate the notability of the subject. I've had a look online and couldn't find much that would help the cause. Using Facebook and blogs is a bad start, but a significant amount of the article is sourced to the subject's own self-published book and website. There's a few things by him, but not a lot about him. Not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST in my view. Stalwart111 09:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given the article's history and the behaviour of the article creator at the recent DRV, it's impossible to see this as anything other than an attempt at advertising/self-promotion from someone who clearly has a conflict of interest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep As I said previously, the presence of the work in the V&A meets the requirement for creative, along with the other sources, altho it is borderline. As I've said before, I have tried to help with this article , and I wish there were more to be found. DGG ( talk ) 06:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect for DGG's admirable attempts to help, I don't think those sources suffice as the basis for a BLP.—S Marshall T/C 07:55, 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. L Faraone 01:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Men in This Town[edit]

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

Song has not been released as a single and is not an exceptionally prominent song from the album. It is mentioned that the song was a worldwide hit in the article but that is not sourced. Already, Shakira articles are not faring well and more unnecessary articles will not help. WonderBoy1998 (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no critical reviews, no charts, it seems to fail notability for songs. WikiRedactor (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet N, merge what can and combine for better coverage and scope of the existing articles. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sure. There's may be no reviews on the song itself, but there has to be at least some critical responses in reviews of the album. Also, there's no way that the song could have it's own article if only chart information of the song was found. According to WP:NSONG, the song is notable if it "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work." Sure the album reviews will do, and the background and recording sections, and the composition info already here, will do. EditorE (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept, then the topic She Wolf Shakira Album would be composed of She Wolf (song), Did it Again (song), Give It Up To Me and Gypsy, all of which are singles, and then suddenly there's Men In This Town, which is just a non-single track. Readers may question the fact that why weren't all the other non singles included there, and just a song which is not even notable and didn't even chart anywhere? The article is unnecessary and is of no need. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because the song was going to be a single, and there's a lot of info here why it wasn't. Other non-singles would not have this info, so I don't find it unnecessary this article be here. EditorE (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If not delete, then I suggest a merge. The article can easily be merged into She Wolf (Shakira Album) and all the speculation that the song was to be released as a single can be included there.. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article could use some more work, but the content already on the article satisfies WP:NSONG to me. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSONG. This could be covered in the album's article. — Diva Knockouts 00:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sure that's untrue. In fact, look at the article More than This (One Direction song), and notice that the song had no reviews, but still have critical reception in reviews of the album the song was in. Sure the same can be done here. Also, a lot of background info and composition info is pretty good for the article to be on it's own. EditorE (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"More Than This" charted in international countries, "Men In This Town" hasn't. It doesn't have any independent reviews. I see only one reference that is about this song only from Billboard. The rest are about Shakira or the album, thus all this information can be covered in the album's article. — Diva Knockouts 18:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with what has been said on the deletionist front. At face value, this article looks legit and well sourced, indeed it looks professional to say the least. But the reality is that no other songs from the album get the same attention, except the other four singles obviously. It would appear that this article has been written to reflect ones infatuation for this particular song, however Wikipedia should have a balanced projection and not give undue importance to select songs. Agendapedia (talk) 15:36, 14 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 seems to be that the Urban X Award for Biggest Ass in Porn is not sufficient for demonstrating notability. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee D'Ass[edit]

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

Non-notable porn actress. References are mostly primary in nature or PR items. Someone needs to chime in concerning the importance of the Urban X award. Vanity page. reddogsix (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This actress has been deleted from Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherokee D'Ass and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherokee D' Ass (2nd nomination). The Urban X Award win since the last deletion may prevent a G4 speedy, but it doesn't establish notability per WP:PORNBIO • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no specific criteria given in WP:PORNBIO for what is a well-known and significant industry award, however the Urban X Award (which the subject has won a category in) has received significant press coverage in AVN and XBIZ. Tanbircdq (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the well-established consensus, demonstrated in multiple AFD discussions, that Urban X/Urban Spice awards do not contribute to notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's exactly zero evidence that I'm aware of to demonstrate that all "Urban X/Urban Spice awards do not contribute to notability" via PORNBIO. As for the specific award in question here ("Biggest Ass in Porn" or its cousin "BBW With The Biggest Ass In Porn"), it would seem to me that this award would not be considered a "significant industry award". Had this performer here received more than one award ("has been nominated for such an award several times") like the AVN "Unsung Starlet of the Year" (and I'm not saying that she hasn't, since I haven't looked extensively), then she would certainly pass PORNBIO. One also might be able to make an argument that this performer "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" via her apparent appearances on both U.S. radio and Australian TV. Guy1890 (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the award ceremony is notable enough to pass WP:GNG then surely it meets Wikipedia's standard of fame and significance. Also there's no benchmark for an award category being more notable than any another. 178.17.66.1 (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I can't see why winning the award wouldn't contribute notability when the Urban X Awards/Urban Spice Awards is notable enough to have an article. There are no standout solo categories either so I would say they're all equally significant here. YousufMiah (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The idea that any award sufficiently notable to have its own article passes the "well-known"/"significant" in ANYBIO and biographical SNGs has been soundly rejected by the community, and was removed by consensus from PORNBIO quite some time ago, and that decision was confirmed in many AFDs and at DRV, in discussions as recent as last month. I have no idea why it's returned to infect the discussion of this article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three noms, one win. Sufficient coverage, meets GNG in this case. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't consider the XRCO scene and Urban X best ass award nominations to be significant enough to pass PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:15, 8 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Salt per User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz & User:Morbidthoughts - Urban X &Urban Spice aren't notable awards. - →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No, the Urban X award for biggest ass in porn is not sufficient for automatic inclusion. Not the worst of the always vapid porn bios that I've ever seen, but a GNG failure nonetheless. Carrite (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per Guy1890's comments, the appearances on American radio and Australian TV meets the third criteria on PORNBIO of multiple appearances in notable mainstream media. 86.153.72.187 (talk) 08:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks non-trivial reliable source coverage to pass GNG. Also fails PORNBIO criterion #1 with a minor award win and scene-related nominations. Comes up short in PORNBIO criterion #3. Appeared ≠ featured. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suppose it's debatable whether the award win contributes notability or not but the fact remains that her appearances in mainstream media fits the required definition so I'd still say the article should be kept. YousufMiah (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You are mistaken, the appearances are just that, she appeared and was not featured. They are primary not secondary sources. reddogsix (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's a matter of opinion and semantics. YousufMiah (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hardly, the definition of primary and secondary is very specific within Wikipedia. You comment about semantics is just an attempt to create a Straw Man. reddogsix (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wasn't talking about the sources, although they aren't all primary. Appearing and featuring are interchangeable synonyms and it's subjective to say that she didn't feature; appearing and featuring could be one of the same. It's a matter of opinion much like calling the article a vanity page without justification. Also, this source which was removed, does support the Rove appearance. YousufMiah (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Both forms of mainstream media that the subject has featured/appeared on are notable. The two different types of media appearances are unrelated, in different countries, with a considerable time gap in between each. AVN and TV Tonight sources on the article are both independent and are not primary. There is clearly a difference of opinion on this; however from a holistic point of view the criterion is satisfied. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the secondary sources, including the TV Tonight ref, claimed as supporting the "Rove" appearance even mentioned the subject's name, and the AVN ref is just a presskit piece claiming that a trivial appearance was scheduled; there's no RS-substantiation that it occurred. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:29, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Balle Mobile Home Park, Alabama[edit]

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

Non-notable trailer park. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 00:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 00:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 00:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Villages, yes. Trailer parks, no. Carrite (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Altairisfar (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trailer parks generally aren't the type of settlements that a gazetteer would cover (they're more like real estate developments), and this one appears to be a neighborhood of Allgood anyway. Since it clearly fails the GNG, there's no reason to treat this one differently. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 08:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject fails to cross even the very low bar set for geographical locations. - Dravecky (talk) 16:04, 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.