Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 March	25 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gervacio Santos[edit]

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

NN film editor GrapedApe (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep ? - He won several FAMAS awards. FAMAS is one of the most prestigious awards in the Philippines. I'm not sure if winning it as a film editor is as prestigious as winning it as an actor, but for me, winning several awards should be enough. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant career, editor on fifty-three (53) film titles, in addition to at least one (1) win and three (3) nominations as recognition for his noteworthy work from various cinema related awards, the FAMAS Awards. — Cirt (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Santos is significant having several FAMAS winnings. Mediran (t • c) 01:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Notorious B.I.G.#Legacy. J04n(talk page) 14:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

House of Wallace[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL. It doesn't exist yet, and all sources together are neither reliable nor in-depth enough about it to justify an article before it comes to be. The article's unencyclopedic tone ("an upcoming action/adventure TV animated series that will air in the near future") is unlikely to be fixable before the series even airs. The planning and pre-release publicity is not in itself notable. JFHJr (㊟) 23:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with proposer, fails WP:CRYSTAL, "will air in the near future", seriously how more vague can you get (suggest "some time soon" as an addition). Pure speculation, the refs don't look up to much either. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The subject being covered meets the general criteria set forth in WP:GNG. Silver Buizel (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly, and what about WP:CRYSTAL and Wikipedia:NFF, for info from two of the references you use Ossian Studios are still very much at the development stages with the work and House of Wallace has yet to find a home...Ossian Media says they're in discussion with "a few serious networks."
- Just so we're clear WP:NFF (linked above) clearly states "In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced" (my bolding). Which, from what I've quoted above, does not appear to be the case, this is just a project thats' being knocked around for the moment. See WP:TOOSOON. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even though this was reported on by the Associated Press, with no network signed on, this is hardly a sure thing. As per WP:CRYSTAL, "speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Notorious B.I.G.#Legacy where this proposed show is already mentioned. If the show is actually produced, the redirect can be turned back into an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:01, 31 March 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 Nominator withdrawn. Needs to be salted but should also be a redirect. Shadowjams (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Power[edit]

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

No notability and it's a magnet for vandalism Shadowjams (talk) 22:54, 24 March 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. J04n(talk page) 18:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Rom[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. Scene award, by established consensus, would not contribute to notability even if the award were notable. No reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO with just one scene-related award. Fails GNG with no significant coverage about him, just a couple of trivial mentions, the most significant of which appears to be the sentence: "...His favorite partner is Adam Rom, a rather Mitchumesque hunk who performs with an air of blithe obligation.", from an U-T San Diego article. Not enough to pass the notability bar. Cavarrone (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails relevant notability rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lia (pornographic actress)[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. No reliably sourced biographical content. Claim subject appeared in mainstream films is unsubstantiated, and she is not listed in the relevant standard castlist. Minimal number of porn credits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've edited the page in question. There are sources now for the significant biographical content of this web girl/model turned porn actress. I personally don't know that the Fleshlight and/or mainstream movie feature claims are true or not. This actress though is a current (or former) Vivid contract girl with not that many movies under her belt yet, has several award nominations (some minor), and at least some mainstream modelling coverage. Guy1890 (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Still fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. The article is lacking in reliable sources. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 20:57, 31 March 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 Mary-Kate and Ashley video games. J04n(talk page) 18:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mary-Kate and Ashley: Magical Mystery Mall[edit]

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

Non-notable video game. Only RS I can find that covers it is IGN Atlantima (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen for now. Redirect to List of Mary-Kate and Ashley video games. I found a few sources, but not enough to where I'd really say it needs its own article. What I'd really like to say is that we should redirect it to "List of Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen games", but no such article currently exists. I'll try to see if I can knock out a quick article, as I think that there is merit in having an article for their games, especially considering that they're occasionally held up as an early example of game companies beginning to market games towards young female consumers. But as a standalone article? Nah. It just falls short of that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking through the old redirect proposal as I've banged together a quick and dirty article for the video games as a whole. It looks like the video games were produced under "Mary Kate and Ashley", so I relabeled it as such. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I copied this lackluster video game to Wikialpha for archival purposes. Mathewignash (talk) 11:55, 30 March 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. J04n(talk page) 18:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Simonetti[edit]

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

No real coverage in outside sources. The two sources cited are her bio from the company (not outside) and a wedding announcement. Nothing I can find describes her as notable independent from her role as a reporter. Ducknish (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A close call perhaps, but I'd lean towards saying she's notable. Automatic Strikeout (T • C • AAPT) 01:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Reporters are tough as far as notability goes, because most coverage is written by them, not about them. Consequently, it is difficult to establish notability per WP:GNG. I still think Wikipedia should have a notability guideline for reporters, but as it stands, I don't believe Simonetti passes the general notability guideline. Go Phightins! 02:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteShe has literally no third party independent coverage. Considering http://www.silive.com/weddings/ the wedding announcement doesn't count. Ryan Vesey 07:15, 31 March 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 per WP:CSD#G7. Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mthunzi's Reed Mats (novel)[edit]

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

Non-notable novel lacking ghits and Gnews. Fail WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources, no notability. Huon (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion since mine would be seen as biased, but wouldn't the book itself be a reliable source? Therealjcvd (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Novels may serve as primary sources for their own content, but the book itself cannot establish notability - that requires independent sources. Huon (talk) 21:28, 24 March 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. J04n(talk page) 18:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Totaro Murakami[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:N's requirement of nontrivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources. The only coverage I could find in either English or Japanese was several iterations of his obituary (which mention little more than his death and that he was Japan's oldest man) and a handful of other trivial references. Long-standing precedent is that simply being the oldest person in a country is not sufficienty to meet the general notability guidelines and sustain an article (most recent example), thus the extent of coverage (or lack thereof) is the issue here. Normally a redirect to a list might work, but he wasn't even a supercentenarian, so I'm not certain where he would be redirected to. Canadian Paul 20:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm afraid that being super-old is not a claim to notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the absence of any in-depth coverage, this surely comes under WP:BIO1E - someone notable for just a fleeting moment. --DAJF (talk) 02:06, 26 March 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 02:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reported haunting of Alcatraz[edit]

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

Fringe view presented as an article. Violates WP:FRINGE and WP:FORK. All sources appear to be written from a fringe point of view: no legitimate scholarly source suggests that there are ghosts on Alcatraz Island. Jehochman ^Talk 20:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any accounts of alleged haunting can be mentioned in the main article for Alcatraz Island or Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary if reliably sourced. (Unless that would violate WP:UNDUE of course.) --Atlantima (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Atlantima (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Atlantima (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)~~Keep~~ or Redirect to Alcatraz Island. Although I understand the paranormal nature of the subject of the article in question may get some people to think this kind of stuff is fringy and thus doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but an AfD is about notability. If one looks at searches such as this, this, this, and this, one will see that the subject of paranormal activity on Alcatraz Island has received significant coverage from multiple sources. Some of the publishers are reputable, and do not fall within the realm of vanity publishes. Therefore, given the depth of coverage given to the subject it is my opinion that the subject meets WP:GNG. At the very least the content can be summarized, and told as literary history of the Alcatraz Island, and a redirect to the Alcatraz Island be left in this article space.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name the reliable sources that have documented this topic? I am not interest in fiction, fantasy, self-published silliness, or opinions of paranormalists, psychics, pop stars, etc. Do you have anything from a historian, professor, or high quality news source? It's fun to tell ghost stories and make up legends, but unless these have widespread recognition, they don't belong on Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 12:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable as shown by the sources. Merging to the main article seems wrong to me, because that article should be about factual information on the island and prison itself. Kitfoxxe (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect. Remove all the credulous fringe sources and all you're left with is a couple of sentences about how Alcatraz is claimed to be haunted. Not enough to build an article on. The hauntings themselves are not facts, but the *claims* of haunting are, which can fit into the Alcatraz Island article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RightCowLeftCoast and Kitfoxxe; it's not about whether the stories are true but whether they are notable, and they are. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this article appears to be duplicated at Reportedly_haunted_locations_in_the_San_Francisco_Bay_Area#San_Francisco_Bay. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without a redirect. This material could and should be included in the main Alcatraz article (as is the case with other haunting reports - they get mentioned in the main article to the extent that they are reported in Reliable Sources), but it is not significant enough for a separate article. Even the title here, "Reported haunting of...", is more suitable for a section heading than an article title. This kind of report attaches to many places and buildings, from the RMS Queen Mary to the Whaley House (San Diego, California) to the Tower of London, but we don't have a single other Wikipedia article titled "Reported haunting of..." (BTW I have noticed before that there has been enormous splitting off of everything related to Alcatraz into separate articles, to the point where every single building has its own full article, see Category:Alcatraz Island. I had considered whether to propose a merge/redirect for minor facilities like Warden's House (Alcatraz Island) and Parade Grounds, but I decided it wasn't worth the effort.) In this case, the "haunting" material is well-to-excessively covered already in the other Alcatraz articles and is entirely inappropriate for its own article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Reportedly haunted locations in the San Francisco Bay Area. As this is a WP:FRINGE topic and the reliability of the sources currently used in the article is questionable, it seems to me that an entire article dedicated to the subject is WP:UNDUE. (As previously pointed out, it's also not standard WP practice to have separate articles dedicated to the "Reported hauntings" of specific locations.) Yet it is a reliably reported fact that Alcatraz is popular with ghost hunters (e.g. [1][2][3][4]). A paragraph or two mentioning this aspect of Alcatraz's reputation is appropriate within the broader context of Reportedly haunted locations in the San Francisco Bay Area. --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea that the reliably sourced info about Alcatraz haunting claims is probably not enough for a stand alone article, and that it could be put into the larger article. Somebody looking for supposedly haunted places in San Francisco can discover that Alcatraz is one of them. Somebody looking at the Alcatraz article should not see a bunch of content about the site being supposedly haunted. Wikipedia does cover notable fringe topics, but that fringiness should not be inserted willy nilly into mainstream articles. We have Flat Earth which mentions that there are modern Flat Earth thinkers, but the article Earth only mentions the historical aspect (people used to think the earth was flat), not the fringe theory (people today still claim that the earth is flat). Jehochman ^Talk 18:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If edit546852230 by LuckyLouie is kept, there is little reason to keep as a separate article, as it leaves the article as little more than a two-sentence statement-of-fact that could be easily merged into the main article. If the consensus changes and the old references are found to be valid, then the article should be kept as apppropriate WP:SPINOFF. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that books published by Capstone Publishers, Pelican Publishing Company, University of Missouri Press, Rosen Publishing, Sterling Publishing, and Barnes & Nobles have since been removed. These publishers appear to be reputable publishers, and the removal of this content could weigh negatively upon editors' opinions on whether to keep this article or not. As I said in my original statement, I can see a summarize, merge and redirect, but to whole delete reliable source content is uncalled for, especially when the article is undergoing AfD and the outcome has yet to be determined.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reputation of the publisher does not decide the question. What matters is the reputation of the author and the editor. Reputable publishers produce books that are the opinions of their authors, they publish fiction, they publish fantasy. Wikipedia is looking for reliable, scholarly sources. Jehochman ^Talk 21:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment U Missouri Press is a scholarly source. if that book discusses the legend of the hauntings, its a reliable source, and should be added back. I agree the others are not scholarly.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at this source, or are you just asserting something you don't know anything about? A publishling label does not magically make a source reliable. Jehochman ^Talk 12:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, I was not able to find anything about "hauntings" on the pages cited to U Missouri Press book, so remvd it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. This article looks like a concerted effort at pro-paranormal POV pushing and synthesis. When we find a bunch of cruft and reference verification failures, we need to strip the article down to what's reliable, and then we see that there isn't enough to have an article. Jehochman ^Talk 13:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the reputation of the publisher is a determining factor whether a source is reliable or not. For instance a book published by a vanity publisher would not normally considered a reliable source. Also a book published by a scholarly publisher, for instance say the University of Missouri Press is normally taken as a reliable source. Now of course, either way content is subject to verification that what is written is actually supported by the source provided.

Also calling the article "pro-paranormal POV pushing" does not assume good faith of the article creator, which I am not. Newer editors are not as failure with the rules of the road regarding creating content on Wikipedia. That being said, a POV issue is something that can be worked on, and AfD is not a substitution for article improvement; AfD is whether the subject is or is not notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - I was utterly shocked to find that there is actually a prison in San Francisco noted for its hauntings and it wasn't this one. Life is not fair. I don't see enough here to warrant its own article, and barely enough to warrant a mention on the main article. It's a lovely idea though. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect J04n(talk page) 18:44, 31 March 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; sources were searched for and not found. Those who are interested in this topic should take it to Hentaipedia, not Wikipedia. Shii (tock) 06:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biko 3[edit]

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

I have searched in both English and Japanese and the game seems non-notable. I am also nominating these related pages for the same reason:

--Atlantima (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 25 March 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) 00:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - this is defintely not my cup of tea, but being the law-abiding Wikipedian I am, I searched for sources and found none, unless you want to call uvlist.net and vndb.org "sources". --24.145.65.56 (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Insufficient in-depth third-party coverage to justify self-standing articles. --DAJF (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Illusion (company), agree that they aren't sufficiently notable for their own pages but are listed on that page. J04n(talk page) 18:51, 31 March 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. J04n(talk page) 18:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of Thuringia and Hesse[edit]

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

As some historical topics can be hard to reference, I'm bringing this one to AfD. It was tagged for speedy as a hoax, on the grounds that the references didn't mention the subject. The ones I have looked into don't. Also, there is too much of the 'little is known about' which is reasonably common in hoaxes. Created by an SPA. I think it's a hoax, but not blatant enough for CSD. Peridon (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was the one who tagged it as a hoax. DrKiernan (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. FallingGravity (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; certainly seems like a hoax to me. (I wonder what searching the textdumps for "little is known about" would bring us...) Andrew Gray (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me... Peridon (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Just tried it. First three pages of ghits were all genuine 'not known abouts'... Peridon (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hoax. He is supposed to have been "born in 1199 CE, to noble born personages in the Teutonic Kingdom of Livonia". There was no such place: that area was not conquered until the Livonian Crusade starting in 1198, the Teutonic Knights did not operate in that area until after 1225 when they were thrown out of Hungary by King Andrew, and there was not a Kingdom of Livonia until the 16th century when it was a Russian client state.

"At age 19 (i.e. in 1218) he joined Grandmaster Otto I military service." In the list of Grand Masters of the Teutonic Knights the only Otto was Otto von Kerpen, 1200 - 1208, too early to fit this story, and succeeded not by "Otto II" but by Heinrich von Tunna.

Completely fails WP:V - not one of the cited sources mentions him. It's a pity that so many people tidy up articles like this, and do not take a minute to check whether the references mention the subject. JohnCD (talk) 10:45, 27 March 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) —Theopolisme (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Miscavige[edit]

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

Not independently notable. Redirect was reverted. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is the topic of multiple independent reliable sources which span for several years of coverage.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of her notability derives from her husband but there is sufficient evidence of independent notability. Ducknish (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Search for "Shelly Miscavige" on Google, in Google Books, or in any large scale news archive and you will find far more coverage than is required by WP:BIO. She is independently notable for being a high ranking Scientology member and a leader in the church until her unexplained disappearance in 2006. Several reliable sources also say that she introduced Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. Together, this makes her more notable than most of the people covered by WP:Biography. Andrew³²⁷ 06:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since the original deletion through redirect, this article has been expanded by 9,720 bites and 10 new reliable sources have been added.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the original poster if (s)he'd be willing to withdraw this AFD but my request was refused. Would this possibly be covered under speedy keep? Andrew³²⁷ 18:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Letting this run is actually better for you. Just saying. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:11, 27 March 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. J04n(talk page) 18:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Game (book)[edit]

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

Contested prod. I couldn't find any reliable sources discussing this parody book. Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 17:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage, WP:GNG. Ducknish (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything to show that this book really exists, let alone is notable. Most of what I found tended to fall along the lines of mirrors of the Wikipedia article or relied on this article as a source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sources used are very questionable; they should be challenged and removed before the article is renominated. Shii (tock) 06:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Naked Truth (How I Met Your Mother)[edit]

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

Episode is not notable due to having no independent outside significant (emphasis intended) coverage. References used and sources exist are ratings sites. Curb Chain (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to How I Met Your Mother (season 7), preserving history. I don't really see how this can be judged other than by hunch. Here's mine. If there are sources meeting WP:GNG then they have not been used. However, the WP:TVSHOW essay (linked to from WP:GNG via WP:COMMONOUTCOMES) proposes that individual programs airing on a national network are "likely to be notable" although it goes on to say reliable sources are more definitive. List of The Simpsons episodes indicates separate articles for every episode whereas List of Friends episodes links to seasonal synopses with selected episode articles.[5] There is no seeming policy, little guidance and variable precedent for whether such articles should exist. Thincat (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to How I Met Your Mother (season 7), not notable enough for a standalone article. Cavarrone (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Existing references meet WP:GNG, sufficient notability for a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm, as far as I can see the Elkhart Truth article (that is used just to source the plot) is a deadlink, so we can't judge its worth. Thefutoncritic is just a plot-and-cast listing, with nothing substantial. CBS is here a patent primary, non independent source. The only effective reference here appears to be the A.V. Club review. Cavarrone (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may not be looking hard ~~enought~~enough, but I can't even find the relevant mention of this episode in the Elkhart Truth article.Curb Chain (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the series article. A brief plot overview and episode order is fine, but it seems individual episode articles attract hopelessly trivial trivia, such as for example the entire Continuity section, which reads like a parody of stupid stuff from Wikipedia. Actual quote: "Ted uses a yellow legal pad to write down a list of pros and cons. He previously did this in Season 3..." Wikipedia isn't TVTropes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is enough notability to warrant the article. In three seconds of research, I found an IGN review of the episode not included in the article, which qualifies as significant coverage. Because there is no consistent policy on individual articles for episodes of a tv show, because WP:TVSHOW says that generally nationally broadcasted tv shows are relevant, and finally because there are significant sources cited in the article and undiscovered on the internet, the article should not be deleted. --Ben Knapp (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)— Ben Knapp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A search of "How I Met Your Mother site:ign.com" shows "How I Met Your Mother: "The Fortress" Review", "How I Met Your Mother: "Bad Crazy" Review", and "How I Met Your Mother: "Weekend at Barneys" Review". This site hires writers to write reviews for these episodes and for IGN.com's own (company) profit. These references do not lend notability to this article.Curb Chain (talk) 06:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your point seems illogical to me. Judging by the official wikipedia guidelines, not arbitrary ones, the IGN source qualifies as a notable source. It is written by a 3rd party, it is a secondary source, and it is certainly reliable. Just because IGN writes about other HIMYM episodes and tv shows and pays its writers, this does not somehow discredit the source. If HIMYM episodes were not popular than IGN would not write about it. --Ben Knapp (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)— Ben Knapp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I don't see any notability. IGN has reviews for almost every show on TV, even for Grey's Anatomy and Chuck episodes which were redirected.Curb Chain (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you are just giving your personal opinion (and I happen to agree the episode probably doesn't warrant a separate article). However, within policy, guidelines and precedent there seems to be no right or wrong – individuals may simply give their considered views and we see what consensus emerges in this case. On the general point, newspaper journalists are paid salaries to write articles ultimately for the newspaper owners' profit. Such sources can certainly establish notability. Thincat (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to How I Met Your Mother (season 7). Individual episodes can of course have their own articles when they have won notable awards or been written about and analysed extensively (ie: most Simpsons episodes), but this just looks to be a garden variety episode. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:53, 24 March 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. One can find reviews for just about every episode of a show like this. Reviews like this are not enough to show notability. To be notable, the episode ought to be significant in some way that others are not. Since there's nothing that makes this special, it ought to be redirected, and we should do the same to other episodes like this that aren't special. Ducknish (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close. After an AFD two weeks ago, a DRV last week, and another round of AFD without any significant support for straight-out deletion, it ought to be clear that this is just a routine editorial decision. Shut this timewasting clutter down. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is showing that the episode to be redirected. Is there something I'm not reading?Curb Chain (talk) 07:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep I agree. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is not WP:JUSTAVOTE Curb Chain (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The statements in the article's Critical response section sufficiently prove notability, although the key assertion that the episode is "the show's second most watched episode to date" needs to be sourced (and the specific date given). - ʈucoxn\^talk 03:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Keep !votes are unconvincing. It lacks the indepth coverage from third-party sources that WP:N stresses a topic must have for its own article. Should be redirected to the article about the season (rather than outright deletion) as a possible search term Till 10:53, 28 March 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. J04n(talk page) 20:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vrezh Kirakosyan[edit]

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

Not significant.--178.78.183.156 (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and inclined to speedy close as frivolous - apart from being a highly competent first/only edit from a sole purpose IP. Win the X Factor in any country and that's notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:44, 27 March 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. J04n(talk page) 21:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perennial tea ceremony[edit]

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

The perennial tea ceremony is a localized event by an obscure organization. There is no indication for its notability. Searches point mostly to sites that were derived from this article for the most part, while there was little to none reliable and secondary sources found. This seems more a promotional piece than anything else. Cold Season (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 24. Snotbot t • c » 15:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see enough refs to pass GNG, and if the creator Lin Easu (林易山) and the Ten Ren Teaism Foundation don't have articles and don't seem to be googlable outside of the blogosphere, then I doubt this ceremony is notable. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a Ten Ren Tea company (which seems notable), but there's no mention of a Foundation in the article. Someone asked on the talk page there what connection there was between the company and the Foundation, but in about nine months no-one has answered. I can't see anything on Google that looks like an RS - many mirrors, GNU licensed things and pages with titles like "Naked Hairy Men" (not investigated...), wordpress and so on. Peridon (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, that's a long way off: Ten Ren Tea --> Ten Ren Teaism Foundation --> Perennial tea ceremony. This may be covered in the Chinese media somewhere, but I only see blog matches at search engines. If you want to dig deeply, feel frea, but I avoid clicking too many of those websites due to a bad experience once, and a fair few warnings that my browser is heading to a bad url. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears only to be connected to this Foundation, which doesn't seem particularly notable itself. Peridon (talk) 10:19, 31 March 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 02:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ValueLabs Inc.[edit]

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

Article about a company where the article creator works. Does not meet WP:CORP Dejakh~[[User talk:Dejakh|talk!

Keep The article does meet WP:CORP with independent and reliable sources, please go through the sources again. Thanks- tausif(talk) 18:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC) ]]•did! 12:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Errm, what?? I have checked all the sources listed, and not a single one of them does more than just mention ValueLabs in passing, or include its name in a list. A couple of them don't even mention it at all. There is absolutely no substantial coverage cited at all, in any kind of source, reliable or not, independent or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This reference covers significant enough. Thanks! tausif(talk) 07:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a four-sentence report on another business extending its trading range, with two passing mentions of ValueLabs. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I said above, there is no substantial coverage in any of the cited sources, and my searches have also failed to find anything suitable in independent sources. Not notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Madguy000 has added new references, which gives substantial coverage in the cited source. Would this be good? tausif(talk) 17:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that Madguy000 has added are as follows: a reference to www.valuelabs.com, which is not a reliable source; a reference to www.thehindu.com, which makes no mention of ValueLabs except for a list of 19 names, one of which is the name of someone who works for ValueLabs; an article about office design, in which the company that designed ValueLab's office space features prominently, and ValueLab is therefore mentioned several times, but only as the business that uses that office space, not as a primary subject of the article; an article in the Financial Express, the essential content of which is that ValueLabs has set itself a target for increasing its turnover, which has all the appearance of being a write-up of a press release, and in any case is only coverage of a trivial issue, not the sort of substantial coverage required by Wikipedia's ntoability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete.The article seems fine though even though the references are really bad.But it does meet WP:CORP Uncletomwood (talk) 13:25, 29 March 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 02:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Technology Consultants[edit]

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

Delete Looks like a promotional article. Dejakh~talk!•did! 11:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment The question here at AfD is whether this company is sufficiently notable for an article, not other factors such as the quality or objectivity of the article, which can be fixed through normal editing. AllyD (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have added a reference to a book which uses the firm as a case study (found via Google Books search). In addition the article already has a range of references: I don't find the Wall St Journal one very impressive (a passing quote), but the others are more substantially about the firm, albeit all in its home area of Boston. The question is whether these demonstrate coverage of more than a firm simply going about its business, but actually meeting WP:CORPDEPTH; I am just tipping to the positive. AllyD (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. It isn't a matter of counting sources; it's a matter of what the sources say about this business. Specifically, do the sources say that this business has done anything with the kind of significant effects on history, technology, or culture, of such durable importance that it should be remembered in an encyclopedia? I don't see that now, and don't see that likely; it's a staffing and recruitment firm, the sort of business that probably will never become an encyclopedia subject simply by plying its trade. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP for lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Specifically: it gets mentioned in passing, or its CEO gets quoted, in a few major-publication articles; not enough. There are a couple of articles specifically about the company, from the Boston area business journal; but coverage in the local business paper does not suggest that the company has significant impact anywhere else. As noted above, it is unlikely that a purely local IT staffing and recruitment firm is ever going to get the kind of notability needed for inclusion here. It certainly doesn't have it now. --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 1 April 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 02:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Thailand camp fire[edit]

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

Article details a non-notable event, fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. Randor1980 (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 24. Snotbot t • c » 11:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Speedy] keep. Article could definitely be better, but 30+ deaths and coverage from the BBC, CNN, and Al Jazeera certainly suggests notability. It would be helpful if you explained why you think the event is non-notable. IgnorantArmies 14:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability established by press coverage. Everyking (talk) 01:01, 27 March 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. Bundling these together was really not very clever. Once the comments start to diverge on individual athletes it becomes next to impossible to untangle them and reach a decision on each individual case. This was really an abuse of WP:BUNDLE, the articles are unrelated other than being in the same sport. As a group, the decision has to be keep based on debate participation. Spinning Spark 21:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Driscoll, Hade Vansen, Scott Orlinger, Steven Slocum[edit]

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

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Hade Vansen)- Google search shows a lot of tabloid news sites and not much else. Struggles to fulfil WP:N to be honest. BerleT (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note:- I have merged other new AFDs with this one as they tackle very similar articles of people with very similar backgrounds and about the same claim (or non-claim) to notability. Feedback ^☎ 16:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- These pages just have to go. Just being signed to a contract doesn't make someone notable. Hade had a few vignettes on Smackdown and the others didn't do anything of note. Not one of them actually had a run on TV. It's time we remove all this cruft. Feedback ^☎ 16:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - these seem sufficiently notable (within their subgenre). – SJ + 03:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pro wrestling is a tabloid-friendly subgenre, but I don't see why that is a reason to delete these bios. All have cites, and seem to have been at least regionally known. – SJ + 21:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hade Vansen, no comment on others. Hade is one of the more notable british wrestlers of the 00s. Just because he never made much impact in the US, doesn't mean he is NN 5.70.13.145 (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC) — 5.70.13.145 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I find it odd that your first contribution to Wikipedia was this AFD discussion. Could you explain that to us?

Feedback ^☎ 17:39, 26 March 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, KTC (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - Biographies are good, especially in a sports context. They're referenced, they hold water, they stay. End of. Humblesnore (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We aren't talking about references, we are talking about notability. Three of them aren't appear in a major promotion and aren't know in notable indy promotion (Scolum appeared in WWE, but only two weeks). Only wrestled in a minor promotion and some of them are retired. I don't see any notability. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:48, 30 March 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. J04n(talk page) 21:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of domestic Twenty20 cricket competitions[edit]

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

Apart from a list of winners, it does not add information than that included in Twenty20. List does not meet WP:LISTN as the competitions have little connection with each other. Any possible expansion to the article would be more suited for inclusion in Twenty20. SocietyBox (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This clearly expands on the information in Twenty20 and just as clearly the competitions have a connection with each other, being the national competitions in the same game. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete superfluous list, redundant to other articles. May be scope for re-creating it in the future if the structure of the articles relating to Twenty20 cricket changes. Harrias ^talk 12:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I disagree with the nominator that there is no relation between these competitions; they are all professional competitions in the same form of the game, and some of them grant entry to the Champions' League. Incorporating this information into Twenty20 would make that article too large and unwieldy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:46, 24 March 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, Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list of notable competitions and winners. Needs work to clean it up, but that's not the point of AfD. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep however I would limit the list to just Twenty20 competitions in full member countries (those matches which hold official status). Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 20:14, 24 March 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. Content can be userfied by request. Shii (tock) 06:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in County Durham[edit]

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

Wikipedia isn't travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey2010 Talk 03:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikivoyage - This type of info would be excellent for Wikivoyage and should be moved there. If the end result of this discussion is to delete the article, I will take it upon myself to move the material. The author's work is valid. However, it just ended up in the wrong place. Bill Pollard (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and difficult or impossible to maintain. The information (rather than the data) in the article would be better placed in locality articles - so Durham, for example, has a nice map of the park and ride system which is entirely appropriate in that article (or could be split into my standard suggestion (which no-one ever seems that bothered about to develop) of a prose article about transport in the locality). No feelings one way or another about transwikification but if people want to do that then Wikia might be the better location to do it to as they seem to be more interested in lots of interesting lists of stuffs. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 20:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in County Durham, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 22:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with transwiki. Making our problem Wikivoyage's problem is not a good idea. Bus routes are continuously updated and changed, but not continuously maintained on wiki's. They've been having a large problem with this. Furthermore, all the relevant information is all under WP:NOTTRAVEL. Mkdw ^talk 03:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage specifically states that "transports systems generally do not have articles unless there is a compelling reason for an exception". Most bus route Wikivoyage articles are deleted through VfD (their AfD) process and a mere link to the official bus routes website is listed on whatever city or region's main article. This is what I'm talking about making our problem, their problem, when it should simply be deleted. Mkdw ^talk 23:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like this solution. It references the route information, yet gets Wikivoyage out of the business of trying maintain cumbersome lists. Bill Pollard (talk) 05:43, 31 March 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 Hellcats of the Navy. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

USS Starfish[edit]

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

A fictional submarine in a single movie, Hellcats of the Navy. Too trivial for an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator is right, too trivial. All of the information in this article should already be in the article on the movie, and we are talking about 3 sentences (1 actually should be enough.) Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hellcats of the Navy. The ship doesn't seem to be notable outside the film, but still could be a plausible search term. Funny ^Pika! 06:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for reasons given above. SMP0328. (talk) 06:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Article should go, but it's a plausible redirect, so we should keep it that way. Ducknish (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the above. No policy-based reason for deletion has been articulated: fictional elements of notable works get directed to the work. Jclemens (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per cogent comments above. Makes sense and serves the project and its readers. And in an aside, this fictional submarine has received enough coverage and alalysis so that it would be reasonable that Hellcats of the Navy include a section on the fictional submarine.[6][7][8] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Gamaliel (talk) 22:32, 25 March 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 The result was delete. Content can be userfied by request. Shii (tock) 06:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Greater Manchester[edit]

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

Wikipedia isn't travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey2010 Talk 03:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Transport in Manchester or Transport for Greater Manchester or a stand alone article on Buses in Manchester if someone wants to create it. The lead section is one of the better ones I've seen although much of the information from that is essentially repeated in the two articles we already have on transport in the city. If there is hoards of historical information about buses (that will have interesting and reliable sources for it no doubt) then a stand lone article on buses to go with those articles might be worthwhile. But the list is simply impossible to maintain due to the nature of buses and will lack reliable third party sourcing for the majority of the information in it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 20:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Greater Manchester, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 22:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. It is unfortunate that so many of these lists are on at the same time but they are no more notable than a list of hotels or a list of convenience stores.--Charles (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with transwiki. Making our problem Wikivoyage's problem is not a good idea. Bus routes are continuously updated and changed, but not continuously maintained on wiki's. They've been having a large problem with this. Furthermore, all the relevant information is all under WP:NOTTRAVEL. Mkdw ^talk 03:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage specifically states that "transports systems generally do not have articles unless there is a compelling reason for an exception". Most bus route Wikivoyage articles are deleted through VfD (their AfD) process and a mere link to the official bus routes website is listed on whatever city or region's main article. This is what I'm talking about making our problem, their problem, when it should simply be deleted. Recommended something be moved over there with out being too familiar with their guidelines. Mkdw ^talk 23:19, 30 March 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 The result was delete. Content can be userfied by request. Shii (tock) 06:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stagecoach Manchester bus routes[edit]

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

Wikipedia isn't travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey2010 Talk 03:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stagecoach Manchester where there should be a summary of the major routes and an external link to the current timetables so that anyone who wants to know which bus to catch can look it up somewhere where there is the faint chance that stuff might be reliable and up to date. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 20:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a Stagecoach Manchester bus, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 22:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page, and WP:PRODUCT as well. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. 13:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete per WP:N, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. It is unfortunate that so many of these lists are on at the same time but they are no more notable than a list of hotels or a list of convenience stores.--Charles (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with transwiki. Making our problem Wikivoyage's problem is not a good idea. Bus routes are continuously updated and changed, but not continuously maintained on wiki's. They've been having a large problem with this. Furthermore, all the relevant information is all under WP:NOTTRAVEL. Mkdw ^talk 03:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage specifically states that "transports systems generally do not have articles unless there is a compelling reason for an exception". Most bus route Wikivoyage articles are deleted through VfD (their AfD) process and a mere link to the official bus routes website is listed on whatever city or region's main article. This is what I'm talking about making our problem, their problem, when it should simply be deleted. Recommended something be moved over there with out being too familiar with their guidelines. Mkdw ^talk 23:20, 30 March 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. Content can be userfied by request. Shii (tock) 06:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Shropshire[edit]

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

Wikipedia isn't travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey2010 Talk 03:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and difficult, if not impossible, to maintain using reliable third party sources. The transport section in the Shropshire article could use a short paragraph about buses or, of course, there's always the option of someone developing a standalone prose article on Buses in Shropshire and putting a pile of historical information in that as well as a summary of the current situation. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 20:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Shropshire, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 23:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with transwiki. Making our problem Wikivoyage's problem is not a good idea. Bus routes are continuously updated and changed, but not continuously maintained on wiki's. They've been having a large problem with this. Furthermore, all the relevant information is all under WP:NOTTRAVEL. Mkdw ^talk 03:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage specifically states that "transports systems generally do not have articles unless there is a compelling reason for an exception". Most bus route Wikivoyage articles are deleted through VfD (their AfD) process and a mere link to the official bus routes website is listed on whatever city or region's main article. This is what I'm talking about making our problem, their problem, when it should simply be deleted. Recommended something be moved over there with out being too familiar with their guidelines. Mkdw ^talk 23:20, 30 March 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. Content can be userfied by request. Shii (tock) 06:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Leicestershire[edit]

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

Wikipedia isn't travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey2010 Talk 03:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and difficult to maintain using reliable third party sources rather than claiming that "references" which are searchable timetables are suitable. The standard option of a standalone article remains viable of course. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 20:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Leicestershire, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 23:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with transwiki. Making our problem Wikivoyage's problem is not a good idea. Bus routes are continuously updated and changed, but not continuously maintained on wiki's. They've been having a large problem with this. Furthermore, all the relevant information is all under WP:NOTTRAVEL. Mkdw ^talk 03:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage specifically states that "transports systems generally do not have articles unless there is a compelling reason for an exception". Most bus route Wikivoyage articles are deleted through VfD (their AfD) process and a mere link to the official bus routes website is listed on whatever city or region's main article. This is what I'm talking about making our problem, their problem, when it should simply be deleted. Recommended something be moved over there with out being too familiar with their guidelines. Mkdw ^talk 23:20, 30 March 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. Content can be userfied by request. Shii (tock) 06:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Cambridgeshire[edit]

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

Wikipedia isn't travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey2010 Talk 03:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable and difficult if not impossible to reliably maintain. The Guided Busway already has it's own article as does Transport in Cambridge and Transport in East Anglia. A similar article on Transport in Cambridgeshire would be entirely appropriate as a prose article if someone cared to write it. As this one stands it at least has some secondary sourcing in the prose sections so they might make a good starting point for that article - or one on Buses in Cambridgeshire but I am convinced that the majority of lists of bus route articles have no place sustainably on Wikipedia. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 20:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Cambridgeshire, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 23:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with transwiki. Making our problem Wikivoyage's problem is not a good idea. Bus routes are continuously updated and changed, but not continuously maintained on wiki's. They've been having a large problem with this. Furthermore, all the relevant information is all under WP:NOTTRAVEL. Mkdw ^talk 03:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage specifically states that "transports systems generally do not have articles unless there is a compelling reason for an exception". Most bus route Wikivoyage articles are deleted through VfD (their AfD) process and a mere link to the official bus routes website is listed on whatever city or region's main article. This is what I'm talking about making our problem, their problem, when it should simply be deleted. Recommended something be moved over there with out being too familiar with their guidelines. Mkdw ^talk 23:20, 30 March 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. Content can be userfied by request. Shii (tock) 06:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Trafford[edit]

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

Wikipedia isn't travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey2010 Talk 03:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the possibility of redirect to Transport in Manchester, Transport for Greater Manchester or even to Trafford where there is a section on transport that might benefit from a touch of expansion with interesting, sourced prose about bus services etc... As it stands the list if non-notable and can't be reliably maintained using third party sources. Transwikification is, of course, another possibility - probably to Wikia. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 20:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Trafford, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 23:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with transwiki. Making our problem Wikivoyage's problem is not a good idea. Bus routes are continuously updated and changed, but not continuously maintained on wiki's. They've been having a large problem with this. Furthermore, all the relevant information is all under WP:NOTTRAVEL. Mkdw ^talk 03:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage specifically states that "transports systems generally do not have articles unless there is a compelling reason for an exception". Most bus route Wikivoyage articles are deleted through VfD (their AfD) process and a mere link to the official bus routes website is listed on whatever city or region's main article. This is what I'm talking about making our problem, their problem, when it should simply be deleted. Recommended something be moved over there with out being too familiar with their guidelines. Mkdw ^talk 23:19, 30 March 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anydro[edit]

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

The existence of the topic of the article, the river Anydro, is questionable. The creator of the article, User:Pumpie, was blocked for making hundreds of questionable edits, without giving sources. In his edit summary, he wrote that the article is a translation of a Greek Wikipedia article, but this does not exist. Markussep ^Talk 18:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 17. Snotbot t • c » 19:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Greek Wiki article: Anidro Phthiotidas (in Greek)... but it's wholly unsourced except for a song. An-hydro of course means "without water", a curious name for a river. There is a real village of that name in Phthiotis at (38.922825,22.702031) and there does seem to be a watercourse there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, the river is in Elis, Peloponnese, not in Phthiotis. I suspect Pumpie just mistranslated something he found somewhere on the internet. Markussep ^Talk 22:03, 17 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With no sources or evidence there can not be an article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree. Having done a basic search, there is nothing by that name (the Greek name) in the region referred to in the article. If it exists, it's somewhere else. Either way, as Kitfoxxe rightly points out, we need sources and there are none. Stalwart111 04:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes, the best that can be said is that it's based on a muddle. As it is, it's unsourced and made-up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the existence of a geographic feature is in question to this degree, it's best to say better safe than sorry and remove it as a potential hoax. Ducknish (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ADF Solutions[edit]

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

unassessed article which appears to be written like an advertisement, and does not appear to hinder any significance. Qxukhgiels (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 17 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence - okay, the first two points raised in the nomination aren't really reasons for deletion. Ill be honest - I don't know what the third part means - hinder any significance...? Agree entirely that it's written like an advertisement, but that's a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problem. The sourcing isn't great; my assessment thereof:

1. Washington Post - pretty good

2. Popular Mechanics - passing mention of one of the subject's products in a list of 12 such products

3. DFI - an article which is mostly about the industry, not the subject in question. However, the article does mention the subject (and only the subject, no other companies) and says their product was highest rated by the US DOJ.

4. Interview with the company owner. Not generally much good as a source.

5. Public Service News - about the industry in general, doesn't mention the subject at all.

6. Nothingham Post - seems okay, obviously local in scope but not from the local area of the company in question (if it's US based)

But I also found:

7. This review of their product.

8. This item which seems to have been based on a press release, though the content editors of the site say they don't accept news in that form and that they produce content themselves.

On balance, I'm not entirely convinced that there's the depth of coverage we would normally want to see for a company to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, but I don't think we're very far away. Another quality source would probably tip it over the edge for me. But I'm not ready to call this non-notable and the fact that they seem to have done business with almost every government in the Western world weighs on me. Perhaps the nominator could specify what exactly they were concerned about here that fits a deletion rationale. Otherwise, I'd probably be inclined to suggest a good dose of copy-editing first. Stalwart111 04:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Stalwart111. Moreover, the article doesn't really seem to be written like an advertisement. smt cha hal 06:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I agree with the nominator, it is more advertisement/promotion then not. If it is keep it should be fundamentally rewritten. I'm just not seeing clear notability here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:28, 28 March 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 Underoath discography#Compilation Albums. Rs chen 7754 02:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Play Your Old Stuff[edit]

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

Non-nontable re-packaging of the band's first three albums. At best, it could be a comment in the articles of those three albums. The only RS that discusses it that I could find was http://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/cdreviews/PlayYourOldStuff.asp and it's an empty entry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing at http://www.allmusic.com/artist/under%C3%B8ath-mn0000211095
http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=2477172
http://audioinkradio.com/2011/09/underoath-release-play-your-old-stuff-triple-cd
http://newalbumreleases.net/40775/underoath-play-your-old-stuff-cd1-2011/
http://www.todayschristianmusic.com/artists/underoath/albums/play-your-old-stuff/
http://www.alterthepress.com/2011/10/underoath-to-release-play-your-old.html
http://www.clashentertainment.com/music/5-music/5073-qplay-your-old-stuffq-says-underoath I'm getting close to the bottom of the barrel here.

In short, nothing that meets coverage and RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Underoath discography#Compilation Albums. All we really have here is that this compiles the band's first three albums. That would be useful information to add to the entry in the band's discography. As a plausible search term, this should redirect somewhere that's helpful to the reader. --Michig (talk) 07:42, 10 March 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, Keeper | 76 15:18, 17 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Michig. Seattle Weekly has a nice review of this compilation but that's about all I can find besides what's listed above. As this release merely collects three of the band's early albums and doesn't have much in the way of coverage, I think that fact can be mentioned within the album's box at the discography page. Gong show 05:01, 24 March 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. Revised per User:Toddst1, result should be "delete" as a redirect would provide no context and be confusing. L Faraone 03:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PearUp Media[edit]

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

This article is about a company with no coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Sourcing in the article is mostly from unreliable sources, or are not independent. The only source that comes close to be reliable is teh SVG EXaminer, and that is a community newspaper, and that source is simply a legal announcement and not coverage. I can find no coverage when I conducted my own searches. Whpq (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Resident Evil 6. No significant coverage from non-primary reliable source to indicate the company is notable as outlined in the guidelines WP:CORP and WP:GNG. However, the company played a major role in producing content for Resident Evil 6, therefore I am suggesting that the article be redirected to the article about the game, and if the company receives significant coverage in the future it can be recreated.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Currently, the Resident Evil 6 article makes no mention of PearUp Media, or even any mention of the music. that can be fixed by editting, but is that desirable? I looked for minor recognition of PearUp for the Resident Evil 6 music, and I just don't see it as a passing mention, or of discussion even in unreliable sources. Given that, I'm not convinced that redirection is the right direction to take. -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 12 March 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, Keeper | 76 14:38, 17 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Economics in Tuzla[edit]

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

Doesn't need an article. ♦ Tentinator ♦ 08:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 17 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed, we can have an article on a faculty if the faculty passes GNG. Most of them do not, and this one does not seem to be an exception. The only source in the article is the faculty website, which is not a RS. Merge relevant info into the article on the university and leave no redirect as unnecessary.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. Fails WP:GNG, and title is so long that it's a pretty implausible redirect, so there's no need to keep it in that capacity. All relevant information belongs on the main university page. Ducknish (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mince Show[edit]

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

Non-notable drag act that is also an "orphan." Burnberrytree (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 02:23, 17 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 02:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael St. Laurent[edit]

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

Non-notable drag queen and actor; only acting credit is bit-part in the The Rose as female impersonator. Burnberrytree (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: If notable for more than one piece of work from the 1970s, and even if no longer performing, are we to decide that notability is temporary? One film would fail WP:ENT if that was the only thing ever done, but performances elsewhere and with separate coverage could push this to meet WP:ENT even if all the coverage is for the person's specialty of being a female impersonator. More digging required. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:43, 15 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 17 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:25, 24 March 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 02:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veda Beaux Reves[edit]

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

Non-notable drag queen and non-notable musician. Albums have never awarded, charted, and reviewed. Burnberrytree (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets the general notability guideline with coverage in various newspapers such as The Sunday Times, The Irish Times, and The Sunday Business Post. I've added some sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:43, 12 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 17 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG. Snappy (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The "sources" don't seem to have links. Burnberrytree (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added multiple sources as noted. I'm not sure why you have referred to them as "sources" in quotation marks. I did not add links because they are not available online. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moi Renee[edit]

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

Non-notable drag queen with non-notable song/Youtube clip that has neither been reviewed, awarded, nor charted. Burnberrytree (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: The article does need sourcing, yes. But are all drag queen performers being singled out in this recent batch of nominations? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not at all; I just think that there are many drag queen articles at worst without notability and at best poorly written/cited. Some of the ones I nominated such as this or Jason Saffer/Jolene Sugarbaker only were created because they have Youtube videos; there isn't significant coverage of them otherwise. The only article I could find for Moi Renee was [9] which focuses on "Youtube Treasures." Burnberrytree (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:22, 16 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 17 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This probably should be been A7 considering it makes no assertion to notability, it's source is youtube, and does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Mkdw ^talk 03:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Circuit MOM[edit]

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

Non-notable drag queen and musician (as a musician, has no reviews nor has he charted). Article would be an "orphan" if not for the link from List of drag queens. Burnberrytree (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 17 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks notablity as a performer or musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:MUSICBIO with its local award that does not appear to be very prestigious. Mkdw ^talk 03:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sing It Back: Lyric Champion[edit]

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

So short-lived that it escaped the radar. No sources found that were significant. No meat added to article since 2007. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 11 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 17 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only 3 episodes, little to no coverage, fails WP:GNG. Ducknish (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minimal routine / run of the mill coverage for its series. Nothing in depth. Mkdw ^talk 03:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Being pulled after only three episodes indicates to me that it was NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taryn Jurgensen[edit]

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

The article meets Criteria A7 in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. The subject does not meet Notability guidelines. Eularia (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject meets notability, has skated in world champs and that is sufficient. Also this is pretty much the first edit the nominator did. Are you somehow connected to Jurgensen or?.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:17, 22 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She competed at the 2011 World Figure Skating Championships. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete (per discussion) ~~Keep~~ - yeah, this is a summary of her results. I take it the WFSC is among the highest-level events for the subject's sport? If not the highest along with the Winter Olympics? I think that's probably game over. Stalwart111 04:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I actually even kept the articvle, but then while trying to improve it realized that Jurgensen only competed in the qualifying round of the World Championship, and did not make it to the short skate. WP:ATHLETE has a special provision for figure skaters, which details the competitions sufficient to create notability. In particular, it says that participation in the World Championships is sufficient, unless this is just qualifying round. I do not have any other indications that Jurgensen is notable, hence the articla must be deleted. Sorry for the mess.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overtime, then. Ha ha. So when they say "preliminary round", that's the qualifying round, or the first round of finals? Stalwart111 09:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was actually the reason why I kept the article first. My understanding is that qualifying round is preliminary round (and for instance it is referenced in the World Championship article as such); there are no other qualifying rounds, and a skater from say Mozambique is welcome to come to the Championship venue, participate in the preliminary round, get classified last and so be it.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ofcourse everyone participate in the qualifying round but it is still the world championships. I think you are stretching the standard for inclusion for this article too far.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is very clearly written in WP:ATHLETE, please check the section on the figure skating.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense if the preliminary round is as you say. Do we know what event she competed in at the Four Continents comp? (participating in the free skate event is an inclusion criteria). Winning a national championships is also an inclusion criteria but she came 2nd and 3rd in the two years she competed. She also competed at two Junior Grand Prix events (though the criteria don't specify junior or senior competitions but I think the assumption is probably senior events only). Stalwart111 22:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is we then start to break off of the purpose guides like WP:Athlete are actually intended to serve. Guidelines like that are meant to help us evaluate when an article is notable enough that it can be assumed sourcing does exist, even if it can't be found. If we start extending it to things like 27th or 33rd place and the Four Continents competition (a better result might mean something more in a competition like that, but we really can't go and assume that such a low placing will likely lead to coverage) we're not really proving anything at all.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and junior events do not qualify.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well I can't speak for others but there seems to me to be fairly solid agreement about what counts and what doesn't. I still think this is probably a pretty close case against arbitrary criteria (2nd instead of comp winner, for example) but the arguments presented are convincing enough. Thanks guys, for taking the time to run through it. I've changed my note above. Stalwart111 10:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ymblanter. The notability guidelines for figure skaters clearly do not apply in this case. It is therefore necessary that we have significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, which we do not.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ATHLETE is clear that a qualifying round, even if for the world championships, does not guarantee notability. Ducknish (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arguable grounds for WP:1E as well. As such, under WP:NSKATE #1: "Competed at an Olympics or at an ISU senior World Figure Skating Championships (Competing in a world championship qualifying round does not guarantee notability.)" Mkdw ^talk 03:17, 30 March 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.