Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 1 May 3 May >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. — Scott • talk

Fennis[edit]

Fennis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NFT game DMacks (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speeedy Delete - Wikipedia is not for MADEUP things. - MrX 00:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Zero sources to support WP:GNG. However, I don't see that the WP:SPEEDY criteria is supported. — Sangrolu (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - regularly as no speedy deletion applies. However, given the complete lack of sources for a game made up just yesterday, I would think this uncontroversial enough that a PROD would have been appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It does appear to be WP:MADEUP unless some reliable sources can be found, but at this point it does not look promising. Mkdwtalk 06:44, 9 May 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. — Scott • talk 10:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IWorld of Cars[edit]

IWorld of Cars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find video game sources: "IWorld of Cars" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Non-notable unreleased video game. Appears to be an indie mod to the official World of Cars Online game produced by Pixar Studios. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 23:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Without sources there is no strong assertion to notability. This does seem to be in the territory of gamecruft for a non-notable mod. Mkdwtalk 06:48, 9 May 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) 00:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procurement PunchOut[edit]

Procurement PunchOut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, no reliable sources. The only Google Books hit is a diploma thesis that mentions the concept in one paragraph. Huon (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huon, I am aware that in your context, the concept of Procurement PunchOut may not seem to have notability. The reality is that within the procurement market (which makes up a large percentage of the business to business market) it is a very relevant aspect in eCommerce, which has become the status quo in commerce. Due to the fact that it is very niche, widely circulated sources are not readily available. That said, the ones I have used are in fact reliable, and I am continuing to look for more and better sources. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Mbenny101 (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are numerous Google books hits for this such as this and 'that. Warden (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Using search parameters that don't look for only the exact phrase "procurement punchout" will provide much better results. This is one book of several that discuss punchouts. As for the naming, it might make sense to move the article to Punchout (procurement). -- whpq (talk · contribs) 13:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 3 May 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) 22:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brendon Browne[edit]

Brendon Browne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable by WP:DIPLOMAT ("Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources.") AFAIK Browne, like most other diplomats, has never been involved in an “event of particular diplomatic importance”.

This particular unreferenced article reads oddly. If the subject was the Canadian High Commissioner to the Commonwealth of Dominica, why did he "present his credentials at the Citadelle of Québec"? Why should he "be styled His Excellency by Canadians . . ." etc. This is not clear to me, but then there are no references . . . . Kleinzach 12:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only [9] appears to "address the subject directly in detail." Since "multiple sources are generally expected," to meet WP:GNG I lean toward delete, waiting to see if more secondary sources about the subject appear. The question is not whether he served his country, but whether there are reliable sources about the subject. Enos733 (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Who's Who reference provides a brief but detailed biography. On-line archives of Caribbean newspapers seem to be scarce, so the sources I reported (after only a few minutes of Googling) are, I suspect, only a small subset of the sources which actually exist. Pburka (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That he was the final holder of a diplomatic office so important that it was closed to save money in 2011 does not raise his profile, in my opinion. Nor are trivial quotations in the local press. That's what ambassadors do. So far, he appears to have less press coverage than your typical Senator's press secretary. RayTalk 05:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC actually has three otucomes, one keeps DIPLOMAT the same, the second presumes notability of the ambassador, and the third presumes notability of the position.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it's what I believe, which is perfectly acceptable at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for some of Pburka's sources. At least a couple of them are not trivial. Cavarrone (talk) 08:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 20:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seem to be sufficient RSs for any version of the guideline. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would err on the side of keep for this one. Holds a high ranking position tile. Once the RFC finds a suitable resolution, the grounds of this AFD can be revisited. In the meantime, looking over a WP:BEFORE did reveal something interesting sources such as the BBC. Mkdwtalk 06:52, 9 May 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. — Scott • talk 10:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PdoMap (PHP)[edit]

PdoMap (PHP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is written like a review. It contains no sources and all of the information appears to be original research or taken from the project page on SourceForge. I had initially reviewed this article when it was created. At the time, I had noted a few issues on its talk page that I felt needed addressed primarily of which was proving that the topic is notable.

After 3 years, a Google search still turns up almost nothing on the project beyond this Wikipedia page and its page on Sourceforge. I am fairly sure that it does not meet the notability requirements. I am also suspicious that the article was created by one of the core developers who might have a Conflict of interest. Zell Faze (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm less concerned about the conflict of interest and more about the flat out lack of reliable third party coverage on the subject. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' - There is no coverage in reliable sources. For that matter, there isn't even coverage in unreliable sources like blogs and web forums. -- Whpq (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is arguably very close to WP:ADVERT. Because it lacks WP:SIGCOV, it doesn't appear to be a notable piece of software (I think it's software). Mkdwtalk 06:54, 9 May 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) 23:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sila Mariam Shah[edit]

Sila Mariam Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:AUTHOR. A web search brings up little but Facebook links. Competitions and prizes listed in the article are non notable. Safiel (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - SHE WILL BE PUBLISHING HER FIRST BOOK in december 2013, I THINK THIS ARTICLE SHOULDN'T BE DELETED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.14.135.139 (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2013‎ (UTC) --37.14.135.139 (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — 37.14.135.139 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - Little information about her. If or when her first book is published, as 37.14.135.139 suggests that it will be, we can always recreate the page. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - She is very young girl, with brillian talent. This article SHOULDN'T be deleted as her book will soon be in a market, and already she achieved many things in her life. Being pakistani-spanish UNESCO & AMCTAIC have been greatest achievments of her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.14.135.139 (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — 37.14.135.139 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - First of all, bolding your comments will not help your argument and I have removed excess bolding. Second of all, claims of possible FUTURE notability do not satisfy Wikipedia requirements of CURRENT notability. You need to establish why this individual is notable at this present time, not why she may be notable in the future. Safiel (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - SHE IS NOTABLE COX OF HER CURRENT ACHIEVMENTS SHE HAD MADE LIVING IN SPAIN, COX SPAINISH IS NOT HER MOTHER TOUNGE. N FROM A VERY BEGINING SHE HAVE BEEN VERY GOOD IN ALL COMPETITIONS. AND PREMI BONA PLATA JONES 2010 OF SPAIN IS SOMETHING VERY VALUEABLE. ONLY BRILLIANT STUDENT WITH EXCELLENT RESEARCH WORK ARE ABLE T0 ENTER IN THIS COMPETITON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.14.135.139 (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — 37.14.135.139 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - Also, please take a look at WP:ALLCAPS. Writing in all capital letters accomplishes nothing and is very annoying. Safiel (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing that indicates she can pass WP:BIO. Perhaps after she publishes her book. Not now. --Crunch (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR. Perhaps when her book is published she will meet the guidelines. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think she should be on wikipedia. as a good perfomance she had in her education career. she is underground poetess we can say. I consider her biography to be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetesskifan (talk • contribs) 23:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — Poetesskifan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. Is it admirable that someone has not only written a book but can speak multiple languages and is considered to be highly intelligent? Yes. Does that make them automatically notable? No. There are a lot of people out there that can doubtlessly not only make the same claims, but some of them could probably top them. The awards she's received aren't really usable for notability either, as the vast majority of them aren't enough to give complete notability, let alone contribute towards it. The big thing is that we need coverage in reliable sources to show that the subject of the article (in this case Miss Shah) is notable in the here and now. We can't keep articles based on the promise that she might be notable one day. The thing about "might" is that it might happen and it might not. I can't tell you how many people are out there, saying that their book/poem/product/talent is going to make them the next big thing. Almost all of them will fail regardless of how talented they are. Fame and notability is often just as much luck as it is talent. The reason I'm elaborating on that is because I want to stress how unlikely it is for any one person to fulfill any claims of future notability and how difficult it is for people to claim current notability. Miss Shah has not been the focus of any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. She might well one day become notable and if/when that happens, we can recreate the article. Until that time, we cannot have an article on Wikipedia. That articles about her have been created and deleted on some of the foreign language Wikipedias (some of which are far less strict on notability standards than we are) is fairly telling about her current notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - but she have been notable in barcelona because of her research project she've doone together with her team. kindly go n search for premi bona plata joves , n u will know its notable in spain.--37.14.135.139 (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC) jessica — 37.14.135.139 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Actually I was unable to find any real coverage of this prize to show that it's really notable enough to extend notability in general, let alone give absolute notability. The vast majority of prizes or recognitions out there are usually not the sort that give notability. Even if it was, this is a group award and not one that she received by herself. Most group awards of this nature are not the type that give absolute notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did and they're not enough to show notability. Facebook is never usable as a reliable source. One of the sources links to a Wikipedia article about something else that doesn't establish the notability of the award. The other sources aren't the type that would extend notability either for various reasons. None of them are enough to show that she or her work are so overwhelmingly notable that she passes notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite the verbosity of a few editors, I still do not see enough to warrant a solid notability claim through significant reliable sources nor meeting the criteria for WP:AUTHOR. Mkdwtalk 07:01, 9 May 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) JayJayWhat did I do? 02:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ceolwulf of Wessex[edit]

Ceolwulf of Wessex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable name in a register. No evidence of existence. Le Cheffre (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep that's about as hard as it gets for written sources from that time. Having a register entry is already pretty good. What it needs is the actual sources though. Edit: just checked the German version of the page: that one has literature and sources. As a newbie: would it be ok to transfer those over?Gmkeros (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. You need to make sure you attribute it correctly but that's not difficult. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia Projects for details. Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is inappropriate to just copy references from a different Wikipedia, unless you have actually seen the book or journal or website and verified that the reference exists and that it verifies the content for which it is a citation. Many fictitious references have been cited, or actual reliable sources have incorrectly been claimed to verify mistaken or hoax text in Wikipedia articles. And no Wikipedia article is itself a reliable source. Edison (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:59, 2 May 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. — Scott • talk 10:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Ice Baby (Zumba Remix)[edit]

Ice Ice Baby (Zumba Remix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musical release. No evidence of full-length professional reviews, charting or awards. Completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:59, 2 May 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. — Scott • talk 10:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oken Jeet Sandham[edit]

Oken Jeet Sandham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page looks like it was previously prodded for not having any references. The sources now do not meet WP:RS and there is no significant coverage of the topic. There are some passing mentions but nothing that goes into any depth about him. Looks like the article could still be "under construction," but this could have been addressed during the prod so I am taking it here for discussion. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it essentially duplicates the above with no added value:

Oken Jeet Sandham takes Indian Muaythai Teams in Olympic recognized Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Peter Rehse (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see real notability. Being the first Indian on the council doesn't mean much - how many other members were non-Thai? The creator has just been blocked for a username problem, so might not appear here unless a request for unblock and rename is made. I'm trying to decide if their userpage is promotional or not. Peridon (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Could be autobio. An deleted article under the title Nepsonline was actually about Sandham. The userpage is about Nepsonline. Peridon (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I'm not entirely uncomfortable simply because there doesn't seem to be a specific guideline for practicioners of karate or muay thai. If we draw an analogy to WP:NBOX, the subject doesn't seem to make the cut. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see significant coverage of this person and he doesn't meet the martial arts notability guidelines at WP:MANOTE. The second article under discussion fails to show notability since it also lacks significant independent coverage--the only independent source is simply reporting results. Papaursa (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'll be damned, there IS a guideline for the notability of martial artists. Forget the weak delete, I can support a full on, screaming delete. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 7 May 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. — Scott • talk 10:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New York City FC[edit]

New York City FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no team yet. An expansion franchise hasn't been awarded, and the sources in the article indicate it will be several weeks before an announcement. Until then, this is all crystal ball, all the time. pbp 18:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. czar · · 21:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — WP:TOOSOON. Kingjeff (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I originally PROD'd the article but the template was removed without explanation. I'd say delete, then merge into Expansion of Major League Soccer#New York City, but then, the content's redundant, so why bother? Mosmof (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - some football execs thinking out loud in the media. A vague proposal for a possible team - not notable. GiantSnowman 17:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. — Joaquin008 (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete Let's wait end of this month. Official annnoucemnet will be issued at Manchester city vs Chelsea friendly match at 26th May. If the official annnoucemnet not issued, Delete this article.Footwiks (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have it backwards - why rush to have an article about a team that doesn't exist. We can always create an article if and when the team is announced. Mosmof (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - theoretical team that doesn't exist or even have a confirmed name -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The team doesn't even exist so how can it have been founded this year? The word conntected is a new one to me. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 17:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Too soon for a stand-alone article per WP:CRYSTAL. Mentoz86 (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-existent topic. C679 21:12, 7 May 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 Celtic TV. Courcelles 04:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Channel67[edit]

Channel67 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As the heading says appears to be more like an advertisement also what need is there of this page on wikipedia? BadSynergy (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. czar · · 21:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted per G2 by Deb (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transactional Leadership Edit[edit]

Transactional Leadership Edit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not encyclopedic content. Tbh, it's hard to exactly tell what it is. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I've already speedy deleted this once. It's a test page - someone trying to edit the Transactional leadership article by putting the word "Edit" after it. Deb (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've speedied it now, and had a word with the creator's tutor, who agrees it is a test page.Deb (talk) 18:28, 2 May 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. — Scott • talk

Person of Interest (song)[edit]

Person of Interest (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not charted, non-notable, possible redirect to Rebecca Black JayJayWhat did I do? 18:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per GNG and NSONGS.[10] Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with you, TBNotch. Just because a song didn't chart does not mean the song is not notable enough to appear on Wikipedia, or even just notable. According to WP:NSONG, an article on a song must follow at least ONE of the criteria, and this article follows one of those, which would be having "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." Making articles on songs that have info only charting online is being under discussion, anyway. EditorE (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Charting is by and large considered the least reliable method of gauging notability for WP:NSONG. Looking through the talk page will show you the full conversation. That said, because of the amount of relevant content backed by reliable sources, this is exactly what NSONG requires for a stand alone article. Mkdwtalk 07:04, 9 May 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. — Scott • talk 10:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sing It[edit]

Sing It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not charted, non-notable, possible redirect to Rebecca Black JayJayWhat did I do? 18:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The "Not charted, non-notable" is a contradiction, notability is not dependent of the position in charts or viceversa, notability is given by the sources. Per NSONGS: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label", which passes, as well as WP:GNG criteria. Also, this is a forum for deletion not redirection. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agreed with Tbhotch. EditorE (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Charting is by and large considered the least reliable method of gauging notability for WP:NSONG. Looking through the talk page will show you the full conversation. That said, because of the amount of relevant content backed by reliable sources, this is exactly what NSONG requires for a stand alone article. Mkdwtalk 07:04, 9 May 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 University of Khartoum. Courcelles 04:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Dentistry - University of Khartoum[edit]

Faculty of Dentistry - University of Khartoum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't seem to be a particularly notable faculty, and it doesn't have any decent references to show otherwise. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:18, 2 May 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. — Scott • talk 10:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin A. Neil[edit]

Benjamin A. Neil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet standards for notability. Appears to be notable based on one allegation that was not resolved and several papers that were withdrawn. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not seem to meet WP:PERP: the "going back several decades" coverage is minor, local, and incidental, I don't see any basis for notability other than the stories of his alleged plagiarism, and these stories (while in high profile non-local sources such as the Chronicle of Higher Education) do not pass the standard of sustained coverage that persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete non notable person alleged to have been involved in a minor event that has no impact and no lasting coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete: I am a relative newcomer to posting in Wikipedia. Last night I posted un-sourced additions to this entry about a long-time friend to try to create some balance. The additions were removed by the initial author of the article, a writer who uses the pseudonym "nomoskedasticity." I have attempted to learn the rules today. I am a quick study.

The initial author violates Wikipedia's POV policy by highlighting one minor series of events in the subject's life without placing it in context with his overall achievements, which are significant. The overall portrayal of the subject is undeservedly negative. He actually is a pretty good guy.

A simple Google search of Nomoskedasticity's pen name suggests that he/she has a bias, bordering on obsession, with a very strict interpretation of the rules for citing sources. In one posting in a Wikipedia discussion, the author says "Anyone arguing that plagiarism isn't a serious issue for an encyclopedia needs to encounter an army of cluebats. (Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC.)" Taken literally, this is an invitation to violence against people who do not share the writer's perspective. This should rebut any inference that the writer has an open mind on his/her interpretation of the topic of plagiarism.

In another post on the Chronicle for Higher Education's site a writer using the name nomoskedasticity exhorts someone to "badger some reporters!" for coverage of a plagiarism allegation so that the news coverage could be the source of a Wikipedia page. ("UMass Plaigarist makes $166k/year" Chronicle, March 15, 2013.) This exhortation basically is an attempt to use a newspaper to "launder" original research so that it could be cited in a subsequent Wikipedia listing.

This makes me question whether nomoskedasticity wasn't the original informant for the Baltimore Sun articles mentioned in the disputed post. If so, he/she would be the original source of material that was run through a newspaper and subsequently cited in Wikipedia. I believe that this stretches Wikipedia's rules against original research.

I always like to use my name when posting opinion. Anonymous web posts are inherently unreliable because the reader cannot vet the biases and experiences of the writer.

Mark Adams, Baltimore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.197.73 (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — per David and per nom. I don't think WP:BASIC is within reach, and the WP:BLP1E nature of coverage/events doesn't help. JFHJr (㊟) 00:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - BLP1E situation for basically obscure academic; fails to rise to our standards of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I searched the Google News archive: [11]. Judging from the snippets there, and from their headlines and the abstract of one, I think that two of the newspaper articles used as references in the Wikipedia article are likely to contain only passing mentions of Mr. Neil, not in-depth coverage. One of the references is titled "Pa, woman, Carroll man admit fracas with officers‎"; neither the title nor the abstract mention Mr. Neil. The snippet says

    The guilty pleas were accepted by Judge Donald J. Gilmore after pretrial negotiations between Benjamin A. Neil, an assistant state's attorney, and Michael S.

    which could be a passing mention. The abstract of "Hopes of legally selling snowballs melt away before zoning board; 2 who tried to run stands from home are denied" consists of nothing but the headline--one that suggests a likely passing mention of Mr. Neil. The snippet on Google says

    "We need the patience of Job somedays," says Zoning Board Chairman Benjamin A. Neil. It is here that Rosia Morgan, 69, and Timothy McGinnis, 29, found ...

    which looks like a passing mention. Some articles mention that he ran for the Baltimore city council. —rybec 03:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There may not ever be a clearer example of WP:BLP1E than this. polarscribe (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject is not notable. Maproom (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and WP:SNOW close please? As above, this is really a one event BLP that is not notable. uhhlive (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Chairman of the zoning board for a city the size of Baltimore is a significant public office. A Google Scholar search turns up several pages of his writings in academic and professional journals. It appears that the articles subject is likely to meet the GNG even though the impetus to write the article is an event that, standing alone, would not demonstrate notability. There's a bit of a rush to judgment going on here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails SNG as a Politician and as an Academic. BLP-1E for a plagiarism scandal of some sort. Fails GNG beyond that. Carrite (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 and WP:CSD#A7 (although I found no evidence the person existed). Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khozi Matebese[edit]

Khozi Matebese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Something not right in this, I think. Things don't seem to add up. Most obviously, the presence of a calf-mauling tiger. As for the rest of it, I don't think notability is shown and I'm not at all sure what the point of it is. Peridon (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-notable, creator is a family member... Ansh666 18:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete CSD A7. I don't see any credible assertion of notability made for this individual, just rambling about this and that. Not sure why my CSD tag was declined, as the article qualifies. Anyways, if not speedied, then delete for complete and utter failure to satisfy WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: NOTGENEALOGY (no link yet?). (Notability is indirectly asserted, by including quasi-notable members on the list, I think, so speedy deletion is not the answer.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDIRECTORY is what you want, but I think that's just as unwieldy as NOTGENEALOGY... Ansh666 18:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I'm not really even following the thread of this little, um, story and I don't think there is any possibility of hammering this into anything resembling an encyclopedia article. Mangoe (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even though I have to admit it has a certain poetry in it.Gmkeros (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per CSDA7. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:40, 2 May 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. Rather obvious candidate for a speedy deletion; the discussion is very quickly coming to the same conclusion. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Edit- Article based[edit]

Wikipedia Edit- Article based (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be some kind of original research. PROD was removed by article creator without an explanation. Lugia2453 (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as a copyvio, I'd say - of the book cited. Or as a test page. Content bears no relation to the title. Peridon (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, test page which belongs in sandbox. The user looks like part of a York College class using Wikipedia... Ansh666 18:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
note Wikipedia Edit- Text based as well, from the same user. I posted on the Education noticeboard asking whether anyone had talked to the professor (User:Dr Ashton or the class Wikipedia:School and university projects/York College CUNY Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Ansh666 18:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:19, 2 May 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 MacGregor Arctic Expedition. (non-admin closure) czar · · 19:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Inglis Jr.[edit]

Robert Inglis Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:NOTABILITY. boy scout, no. public health officer, no. veteran, no. Arctic explorer, went to Greenland once. A well-meant story about granddad, but belongs somewhere else. Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to MacGregor Arctic Expedition as he was a member of that expedition. See this book for verification that he was a member. He seems to have led a rather exciting life, but there is no coverage in independent reliable sources. There are some references listed with no inline citation to indicate what is referenced, nor page numbers to indicate which part of the work is being referenced. I found from the MacGregor Arctic Expedition this link which is part of the Weather review, but soemthing like this would not be useful for notability. The obits look the be paid notices so they do not establish independent notability for the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 17 April 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, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 08:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 19:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Moore (writer)[edit]

Kelly Moore (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person fails WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. The biggest failing is a lack of substantial coverage in independent sources. JFHJr (㊟) 15:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Failure of WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK when you apply WP:42. Qworty (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Her book was published by a top-tier house, was on NYT list for seven weeks and has a lot of mainstream media coverage. Passes Wikipedia WP:AUTHOR because it was made into a movie. Also passed WP:BK re: notability and library holdings.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've cleaned out a lot of the stuff in the article that was sourced by non-reliable sources, so this is to be taken into account now. I'm leaning towards keep because of the Deadly Medicine book and for the reviews of her other book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Her book "Deadly Medicine" was made into a TV movie and is notable enough for its own entry, but even if it wasn't, the combined coverage for both of her books is enough for her to pass WP:AUTHOR. The thing about that policy is that even if the books aren't notable enough to merit individual entries, coverage for the works in RS can (and often does) show notability to merit an entry for the author of the works. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per most of the above. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This deletion request appears to be a spillover from the deletion requests for Tucker Reed and The Amber House Trilogy. However, her notability is established by Deadly Medicine. This is a spillover. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nobability has been shown, including being a New York Times best-selling author. AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:45, 5 May 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. Courcelles 04:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Medicine[edit]

Deadly Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This publication fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Sources cover the actual events, like this book, but do not cover this book. Note one of the sections is supported by a very short source that actually discusses the movie, a derivative work of zero note. The source doesn't actually cover this work. JFHJr (㊟) 15:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I find it highly doubtful that a book on the NYT bestseller list for 7 weeks is not the subject of multiple, independent reviews and thus a pass of criterion 1 of the SNG for Books. Checking... Carrite (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I'm not finding much. Surprising. Carrite (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best I can see is that the TV movie did get a bit of coverage, so it might be worthwhile to make this an article about the tv movie and book equally? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just because a book is a bestseller doesn't mean it's going to meet WP:BK. It might not pass WP:42, no matter how many copies were sold. However, a book that sold very poorly might have lots and lots of WP:RS that satisfy WP:42. Notability for books is never based on sales alone. It's based on significant independent multiple coverage. Same notability standards as for any article on Wikipedia. Simple enough, huh? Qworty (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and speedy close. Carrite is on target to suggest that a significant run on a major national best-seller list is a strong indication of reviews and similar coverage. And it takes only a cursory GNews search to turn up a feature review in the LA Times.[12]. It's also covered in a multi-book review in an Austin newspaper [13] and in a brief profile of the authors in a piece in the San Jose Mercury News [14]. It's evident, as is regularly pointed out in deletion discussions, that standard internet searches, especially Google web searches, are notoriously ineffective in turning up print coverage of books and their authors, particularly pre-the turn of the millennium. Amazon.com also shows a Publisher's Weekly review, another strong indicator of notability. Worldcat shows the title held by nearly 400 libraries, a strong showing for 25-year-old nonfiction. With all these indicators of notability, and no sign of a reliable search having been done to support the deletion rationale, deletion is clearly inappropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If notability means anything at all for books, a NYT bestseller is notable. We adopt the standards the world uses, and that's the key US standard. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC) .[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this was only reliant on the few reviews for the book that are still findable on the web, I'd probably have voted that this redirect to the author's page or get deleted. However considering that this book was later used to make a made for TV movie that gained a considerable amount of coverage, this pushes it from a delete/redirect into a "keep" for me. This entry can serve as a page for both the book and the movie. There's enough here to argue that it passes WP:NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — With all due respect to Wolfowitz, a movie review is not substantial coverage of the book. Any basis on this coverage is utter nonsense, and makes me wonder if the voters actually read the nomination or the article about the book. This is a disingenuous vote at best, and so are the collateral votes based on his vote. Second, one "book review" at hand is not only negative, but is arguably insubstantial. I hope admin will re-list this debate or close in consideration of these points. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hullaballo W. and AuthorAuthor above. Carrite (talk) 02:18, 7 May 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. Courcelles 04:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bermans[edit]

Bermans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Makes assertion of pioneering in computerised tax collecting, but I could not find siginificant coverage, or indeed any secondary sources to verify them. Appears to fail WP:CORP. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 14:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- The company's website suggests that the content of the article is accurate. They appear to be a specialist firm operating mainly in a narrow field of finance. My question is one of how significant they are, and I have no answer to that. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good deal of secondary sources found easily when search is narrowed with search terms including: "Bermans"; Liverpool; law. — Cirt (talk) 06:26, 5 May 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. Although the numbers in this discussion are fairly even, the delete opinions are more policy based, particularly in that WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL have not been met. J04n(talk page) 23:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catalina White[edit]

Catalina White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brittany Beede, she is a woman who signed a develoment contract and was sent to a minor promotion. Only one year in the business and she does nothing notable, never debuted in national TV and was released. No Notable HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails to meet the GNG. Feedback ☎ 17:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless appearing in Complex once, the online version of Maxim twice, and having a sextape makes you notable... she ain't notable for her wrestling career.LM2000 (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She WAS featured on TV for FCW. A number of those matches and appearances are on Youtube but most of them can't be found by searching her name or wrestling name but rather by searching for FCW videos from that time period. Wrestling fans who watch those videos and see her should be able to look her up on Wikipedia and find out who she is and more about her. 84.19.165.217 (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC) — 84.19.165.217 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A lot of people has appeared in FCW TV. A minor promotion with matches in youtube. No notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's a pro model. She's been published in many notable publications and magazines and has also been on the cover of several. 79.141.172.21 (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC) — 79.141.172.21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What magazines has she been on the cover of? None of this is mentioned in the article.LM2000 (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the argument that she can be found in matches on youTube, but not by her name tells you everything you need to know. Not notable enough to even be listed by name.  MPJ -US  07:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Catalina was indeed featured on TV for FCW throughout the year she was there, as a wrestler and in other on-screen roles. @ MPJ-DK , I think you have misunderstood a few things; FCW was not a "YouTube show", it was shown on TV, not YouTube. Any FCW videos on YouTube have been put there illegally by people who have capped it from TV, but WWE is very aggressive in protecting their copyrights and they get WWE/FCW videos removed from YouTube regularly so there are not many on there, and less everyday so you wont be able to find much FCW footage of her on YouTube. Also, many FCW uploads seem to just be titled by the date of the show or the episode number so even though she may be featured in those uploaded videos it wont come up if you search her name, so that has got nothing to do with her "notability" on FCW, its just a YouTube video title issue. Putting YouTube to one side, as I said, FCW was a TV show, Catalina was featured on the TV show throughout the year she was there and for anyone who watched the show frequently she was notable. 84.19.169.167 (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point. According to the article, White was in FCW only 6 month, it wasn't a lot of time. In this time, she had, according to this, only ona match. Only one match and in the article I don't see her work in the company (valet maybe?). She was in the farm terrotory, had one match in 6 months and appears in a minor, regional TV Show. As wrestler, i don't see her notable. As singer, only says "she want to be a singer and she announced her first single". Modeling, I don't know about covers and magazines (I only see two lines), but as a wrestler and singer, I think that she is totally no notable.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She's a professional and accomplished model. She has been published in many prominent magazines such as FHM, Maxim, Hustler Lingerie, Flirt, American Curves Magazine, JM Magazine, COED Magazine, Strobe Magazine, Mixed Magazine, Complex magazine and others. She's also been featured on the cover of magazines as the main cover-girl. Here's a few of those covers:

http://imgbox.com/abogv895 - http://imgbox.com/ace7AqKH - http://imgbox.com/acwAn8ue - 79.141.167.35 (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The magazine covers you provided are not notable magazines and likely her appearances on them were not covered by any reliable sources. It seems that she has appeared inside some notable magazines but based on the information we have on those appearances she was not prominently featured in any of them. She clearly fails WP:NMODEL. She has not had significant parts in any notable magazines nor does she appear to have a large fan following. I do not think there are enough reliable sources out there to cover WP:GNG. Her wrestling career is entirely non-notable per HHH's statements above.LM2000 (talk) 01:52, 8 May 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. Courcelles 22:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Wallace-Segall[edit]

Rebecca Wallace-Segall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass WP:JOURNALIST. Known in association with Writopia Lab, but notability is not inherited. (Also COI issues.) czar · · 17:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added Rebecca Wallace-Segall's former name, Rebecca Segall, to the page. She wrote for newspapers and magazines for nine years before she founded Writopia, and served as the senior editor of Psychology Today Magazine. The inclusion of her former name may help to verify her career in journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebeccaWS (talk • contribs) 18:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- I thought that my name would appear at the end of the comment since I logged in with my user account. -- Rebecca WS

  • Keep Founder of Writopia is notability, especially along with the editorship. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Writopia. It does seem to fail WP:JOURNALIST at the moment, but I see no need to delete the article and its history, since this is probably a case of NOTYET and a handy redirect target is available. RayTalk 18:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, I think she's marginally notable but Writopia Lab which also has an open AFD, isn't. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Writopia Lab AfD (link for those interested) closed yesterday. czar · · 23:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW J04n(talk page) 12:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duminda Silva Syndrome[edit]

Duminda Silva Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are zero reliable sources demonstrating that this is a medically recognised syndrome rather than just the effect of an injury to a specific individual. ukexpat (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This a novel term to medicine which is used for explaining the scenario mentioned in this articles content. Accordingly above comment by ukexpat is invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.197.201 (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A minor neologism in Sri Lanka following an investigation into an assassination. It only seems to appear in facebook pages, the comments section of news sites, etc...thus falling afoul of WP:NEO and our general notability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No reliable sources. Also, not worth the copy-edit that would be required to clean up. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : The article contains patent nonsense and is not based on any scientific or medical proof. The article is solely made by people for fun. Although there has been an incident regarding Duminda Silva it has no association to a syndrome or any medical finding. The article must considered for speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.172.9 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and close. Waste of AFD time. While I would not comment on the absurd and ridiculous series of events surrounding Duminda Silva, this article is a clear hoax and written entirely for the sake humour/insult. It's truly surprising to even see this page existing for so long. Also possible WP:NEO, per Tarc. P.s. I currently reside in Sri Lanka, and this page is your morning dose of laughter. EDIT: I think the IP talkpage edit here explains it all. Rehman 01:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and close. This is obviously a part of an ongoing political hate campaign in Sri Lanka. Article contains complete nonsense. Anandawardhana (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, per criterion 2: "unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it." I will leave it to admins and/or other users in good standing to warn or sanction the nominator. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Rappaport[edit]

Bruce Rappaport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Total cheer-leading puffery piece about non-notable banker. Article fails standard Neutrality and Notability guidelines. Zachtron (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - Totally biased article about non-notable deceased banker. Article written with clear bias as a "cheer-leading puffery piece". Most references are unreliable and fail any type of common neutrality. This individual was a non-notable Joe-blow foreign banker. Article should be deleted immediately without fail! Zachtron (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 2. Snotbot  t • c »  11:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Retaliatory‎ tit for tat nomination. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Speedy keep. Rappaport's been a notably bad, bad boy, written about in the New York and Los Angeles Times. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Obvious retaliatory nomination. Sanction/trout as necessary. --Kinu t/c 13:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Disruptive nom. --Randykitty (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, per criterion 2: "unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it." I will leave it to admins and/or other users in good standing to warn or sanction the nominator. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Kingston Whitten[edit]

Wesley Kingston Whitten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonsense article promoting non-important historical professor with zero Notability. Article fails Neutrality and references are unreliable. Zachtron (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - Article's creator totally disregarded Neutrality and Notability guidelines. Article is a biased "promotional cheer-leading puff piece" about non-notable and unimportant individual. Zachtron (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 2. Snotbot  t • c »  10:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ????? The discoverer of an important effect that was named after him? With an obit in IVF news and his bio described in the Encyclopedia of Australian Science and in Historical Records of Australian Science? With 68 articles in the Web of Science, cited over 3000 times and with an h-index of 28 (despite the fact that his last article was published in 1996)? And then you say "references are unreliable" and "non-notable and unimportant individual"??? You deserve a trout! Speedy keep. --Randykitty (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Retaliatory‎ tit for tat nomination. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Randykitty. (However, trouting is for experienced Wikipedians.) Clarityfiend (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close I call for a speedy close of this disruptive AfD. This article was created by User:I am One of Many, who earlier nominated Rocket Records for deletion, an article created by User:Zachtron. Zachtron should receive a stern warning or perhaps even a block for disruptive editing. (And given that Zachtron claims to be an experienced editor, I think a trout is justified) --Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Obvious retaliatory nomination. Sanction/trout as necessary. --Kinu t/c 13:26, 2 May 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. — Scott • talk 10:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Walsh[edit]

Henry Walsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inarguably a non-notable sportsman. The cricketer has not played in any World Cups, and I can't find any reliable sources on Google either that could demonstrate anything significant the sportsman has done as a cricketer. I've seen articles about sportspeople with more assertion of significance than this one getting deleted via AfDs, but this shouldn't be counted per WP:WAX. smtchahal(talk) 10:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, will become notable if her plays senior cricket, but playing at Under-19 level isn't enough on its own. Harrias talk 13:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:CRIN and WP:ATH currently; maybe in a few months' time it will be different, but we can only judge on where he's got to now. Johnlp (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:15, 2 May 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. — Scott • talk 10:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evanescent grace[edit]

Evanescent grace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources seem to exist that suggest this term is in use, or that the concept is a notable one. This article is based entirely to blogs, and the only sources I can find are self-published. StAnselm (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete By the looks of things, there aren't any scholarly published discussions of Calvinism that mention this as a concept - it appears to exist only as an Arminian criticism of Calvinism, rather than a point of doctrine in the Calvinist faith. I've no objection to including it as such, but per StAnselm 's nomination, there seems to be little available beyond blogs and self-published critiques of Calvinism available for the purposes of sourcing. If someone can point me to a noted theologian who's written about the topic, then I'm prepared to change my position. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delayed delete Calvin does use the term in the cited source (Institues 3.2.11, the whole section is about this concept), and I'm sure there are academic sources that discuss the concept under less particular language. I'd be fine eventually merging it into an appropriate article (Election, Predestination, or Assurance), but I think we should give the author of this article notice and a time line in which to improve this. I think that the doctrine exists, and that the article as it is written (with perhaps a bit of a WP:NPOV bent and lacking WP:RS) is basically accurate, but I'm not sure that the doctrine is WP:N enough to merit it's own coverage. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And that is exactly why we have seven days for a deletion discussion. StAnselm (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A Google book search turned up nothing theological. The Institutes quote does not actually use the term, it just says that the grace being described may prove "evanescent." It doesn't even look like the same word is used in the scholarly Battles translation of the Institutes. --JFH (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 (talk) 21:26, 3 May 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 38 (City of Sheffield) Signal Regiment. — Scott • talk 10:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1 (RBY) Signal Squadron[edit]

1 (RBY) Signal Squadron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this fails WP:MILUNIT. Although a squadron in name, it only consists of 4 troops - probably the equiivalent of a company since its commanded by a major? Gbawden (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A unit which perpetuates the history of an historic Yeomanry regiment, as do many such squadrons and batteries in the Territorial Army. In addition, for many years it was an independent unit specialising in "special communications", whatever that may mean. And it's not just "a squadron in name"; it's a perfectly normal squadron. A squadron in Commonwealth armies is a company equivalent and a troop is a platoon. Only in the US Army is a squadron a battalion and a troop a company. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 38 (City of Sheffield) Signal Regiment. From searching in Google books, this was the only source providing more than passing coverage to this sub-unit, so it doesn't seem notable. In regards to the above comment, we have a Royal Buckinghamshire Yeomanry article, not to mention the 38 (City of Sheffield) Signal Regiment article on this squadron's parent unit. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Nick. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Any notable content should be at 38 Signal Regt and RBY. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Nick. --Molestash (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Nick. Intothatdarkness 21:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 11:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McColley[edit]

Kevin McColley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable as an author. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple novels by major publishers. The other side : a novel of the Civil War' has over 600 library holdings according to worldcat, Praying to a laughing God : a novel 400. There are certain to be reviews: and there are: The Other Side, Booklist. 96 (June 1, 2000) & Library Journal. 125.10 (June 1, 2000) . & Publishers Weekly. 247.20 (May 15, 2000) & Kirkus Reviews. 68 (May 1, 2000) ; Switch, Tribune Books (Chicago). (July 20, 2003) & The Horn Book Magazine. 73.4 (July-August 1997); Praying to a Laughing God" The New York Times Book Review. (Sept. 13, 1998) & Library Journal. 123.6 (Apr. 1, 1998) & Publishers Weekly. 245.5 (Feb. 2, 1998); Sun Dance The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books. 49 (Dec. 1995) & Booklist. 92.9-10 (Jan. 1, 1996); Pecking Order Publishers Weekly. 240.50 (Dec. 13, 1993) The Walls of Pedro Garcia similarly In anPy case he is included in the major Gale Encyclopedia,Contemporary Authors Online. Detroit: Gale, 2005 , the standard encyclopedia on the subject and thus proof of notability. . On what basis does the nom. feel this is a non-notable author? 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the above and substantial coverage in Kirkus[15]; some of the reviews are quite short, e.g. those in Publishers Weekly[16][17][18], NYT review[19], but cumulatively it offers a lot of info, and one or 2 of his books may be notable in themselves. His last book was in 2000, so there's not a lot of online sources, but e.g. in this Minnesota Public Radio story.[20] --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:29, 3 May 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 Worldwar series. Duplicated subject. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwar[edit]

Worldwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references, not notable, and there is already another page for this series of books. Blelbach (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Proposal says "there is already another page for this series of books". Which page does this refer to? Is a merge or redirect appropriate? There are articles on the individual books in the series, and List of Worldwar characters: should some or all of these be proposed for deletion too? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Worldwar_series. That would be the mentioned other page.Gmkeros (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Worldwar series. Obvious case of duplication. (Thanks, Gmkeros, I didn't notice there was another page on the series before.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 11:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Candy[edit]

Brooke Candy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason Dhf510 (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Not a notable person.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little out of order, but the reason follows the nom's signature. czar · · 03:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She might not have charted, but a quick search shows that she's still being profiled and reviewed as a musical act. She's also been featured on the song "Cloud Aura" from Charli XCX's charting album True Romance. Burnberrytree (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Right now, this BLP of a musician leans on AOL, Vibe (magazine), Pitchfork Media, and her official website as the most reliable sources of information. Most of these are considered reliable for music-related articles as evinced by WP:ALBUM/REVSIT. Unquestionably, the article needs work, but it's still a stub. I think the article needs to incubate, so we can allow time for more serious editors to spruce up the article and find more sources. I have no doubt that this could be on its way to a C or B rating within a few months. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 03:56, 5 May 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 regional airliners. And, if still needed, continue to merge material from the history as appropriate, per the discussion.  Sandstein  07:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of short-haul aircraft[edit]

List of short-haul aircraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also nominated:

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

The list of short-haul aircraft covers the exact same subject as the list of regional airliners while the latter article is better written and higher quality. The list of short haul aircraft does include more older aircraft, although it is by no means complete. However, I think that since the definitions and distinctions of regional, wide-body, etc. aircraft were not really clear during the 1930s and 1940s, it is silly to try to have a list of regional aircraft from before the Korean War. Since the list of short-haul aircraft is basically a redundant, ugly mess, it should be deleted in order to focus on the cleaner list of regional aircraft.Kbog (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge early aircraft material into list of regional airliners and Delete the rest. Certain seems like a duplicate and the small amount of text actually highlights the fact that they are referred to as regional airliners. They should, then, be listed as such. Stalwart111 06:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the historical use of the term, I wouldn't oppose a Merge/Redirect solution either. Stalwart111 06:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am in favor of your proposal, but I think we should make this article strictly about postwar aircraft. The DC-3, Fokker F.VII, etc. may be considered "regional" by today's standards of capacity and range but they did not serve the same purpose in airline routes and services because they were the standard size main airliners of the time. Kbog (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that would be a problem. I think the "last article standing" (after the redirection of the other two) will need to be cleaned up but what remains in that article is probably a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE. Stalwart111 00:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AFDs merged.
  • Comment - Well, isn't this nice, there is a third duplicate article. That must be a pretty rare occurrence. I have nominated it too for deletion here. Kbog (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've merged the AFD for Short haul into this one. The AFD notice at Short haul now directs here and I've closed the other AFD and removed it from the log. Cheers, Stalwart111 05:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect per Stalwart - duplicate, but valid search term. Ansh666 18:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is potential scope for an article covering short haul airline operations, history, business models, competition with high speed rail, etc. But this isn't it. Can someone rewrite it? Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there might be some scope for an article covering the history but that should probably be at Short haul flights or something, shouldn't it? Stalwart111 00:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or short-haul flights, using the correct dash so the MoS people don't get uppity Ansh666 05:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh God, the MoS people will lynch me for that! Stalwart111 06:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Hyphen hysteria! - The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having looked through the three lists and the prose articles about regional airliners, I've realized that while the list of regional airliners may not have as many aircraft as the other two articles, it is nevertheless complete. The other two articles are only longer because they include three classes of aircraft which in my opinion should not be considered "regional airliners": medium-sized pre-WWII transports (e.g. Fokker F.VII), the wave of postwar aircraft designed as DC-3 successors (e.g. CV240), and medium sized 1960s jet airliners (e.g. Sud-Aviation Caravelle). I have in fact added most of the dubious entries to the list of regional airliners in commented form, ready to be added to the article if needed. If there is objection to not including any of the above types of aircraft, the discussion of exactly which aircraft to include can take place in Talk:List of regional airliners. Thus, in my opinion, sufficient material has been merged to List of regional airliners to render the duplicate articles fully superfluous. Feel free to review it. Kbog (talk) 20:27, 6 May 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. Feel free to continue the discussion about renaming or merging on the article's talkpage. J04n(talk page) 16:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Amber House Trilogy[edit]

The Amber House Trilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nonnotable book, has been reviewed, but no extensive coverage, i couldnt find any. PS we cant call it a trilogy until all 3 are published. this is really an article on the first book. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — No significant coverage, mostly tiny online reviews, no indication it passes WP:NBOOK. JFHJr (㊟) 15:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:BK and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kelly Moore (writer).Userfy/weak keep. I have to argue a weak keep based on the BotCfCB review, which is considered to be more in-depth than the other stuff. I do see evidence of a VOYA review on the amazon page for the book, but can't seem to actually locate it elsewhere so I'm not really counting that towards this book. If someone can dig it up, I'm willing to change to a keep. In any case, I'm still not really solid as far as my keep goes, so I volunteer to userfy this until the next book comes out if it's to be deleted. If the second book gets coverage, we can always move it back to the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right. The coverage thus far doesn't seem significant enough. Userfy might be a good option in this case. I still don't believe this article belongs in the main space. Qworty (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose userfication. This is part of a walled garden created by associates of the coauthor in order to promote her. Let an unassociated person incubate this article, if anyone unassociated actually thinks it's worth doing so. JFHJr (㊟) 15:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because it's created by someone with a COI doesn't mean that it couldn't potentially pass notability guidelines at some point in time. Normally, yes, most of the time the articles created by someone with a COI are decidedly non-notable and are unlikely to gain any real coverage to pass notability guidelines, but sometimes such articles could notability guidelines in the present or have a real chance of passing notability guidelines in the future. I wouldn't have volunteered to userfy it if I didn't think that there was a reasonable enough chance that it could gain more coverage. I can assure you that I'm not associated with the publisher and wouldn't move it back to the mainspace until it got more coverage for the second and/or third book. Userfication doesn't really do a lot of harm in instances where the person requesting has no COI, has a genuine interest in updating and/or adding it to the mainspace if/when it gets more coverage, and is aware of what does or doesn't count as reliable sources. Yes, I do hate it when people try to use Wikipedia as their own spam garden, but completely deleting everything and closing off the option for interested (and uninvolved) editors to cultivate articles with potential doesn't really help out Wikipedia any. It might punish the people using Wikipedia as a promotional avenue, but it's sort of cutting off a piece of your nose to spite your face. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to the author (and I argued for keep at that AfD). ' Given an author and their works, both of which are mildly notable, it's better to keep the article on the author, who may write more--and if the book is reasonably successful , generally does. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename simply to Amber House. The cited reviews are sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability for the title reviewed; whether the trilogy as a whole is notable enough for an article should be determined after the expected publication of further volumes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as consensus is still developing. Consolidate Amber House Trilogy and Tucker Reed to allow discussion of which if either to keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, the reviews probably just barely push this over criteria #1 of WP:NBOOKS, in my view. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak Keep, the reviews push this over criteria #1 of WP:NBOOKS. And it's part of a series so will become more notable: "Given an author and their works, both of which are mildly notable, it's better to keep the article on the author, who may write more--and if the book is reasonably successful, generally does." User:MissTempeste 23:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Let's be clear: you're quoting another editor, directly above, and not any sort of policy. And the quote is a reason not to keep but to merge. Plus, your own comment about future notability is a very poor argument. Would you care to refactor, pointing to any WP:NBOOK criteria and coverage to match it? JFHJr (㊟) 23:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly what part of "the reviews push this over criteria #1 of WP:NBOOKS" do you think needs to be "refactored" to point to an NBOOKS criterion? Let's be clear, JFHJr, your comment makes no sense. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:54, 7 May 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. Michig (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Wilk[edit]

Steve Wilk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews. CSD removed by sock puppet. In addition, article for creation submission refused. See [21]. Should be speedy. reddogsix (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Googling this name pulls up endless links to references. Biographies of living persons are welcome by wiki. Reviews and credits are found in a search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tethria (talk • contribs) 05:00, 2 May 2013‎ — Tethria (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User (article creator) has been blocked as sockmaster. czar · · 15:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    None of substance or apply to the correct person. If you can find them, feel free to add them to the article. reddogsix (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean "none of substance or apply to the correct person" This statement is grammatically incorrect and does not make sense. Please reword your statement. All the links provided take me to pages where I can see the name and picture, there for verifying this person. You need to prove that is does not pertain to the article listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raddman26 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — Raddman26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked as sock of Tethria (article creator). czar · · 15:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - </sigh> (You forgot to add and your mother dresses you funny.) Add a that between the or and apply. You do not seem to understand the basic premise that the references must meet Wikipedia criteria. The references associated with the article are self-published and do not meet the definition of secondary. I'll say it again, if you can find references that work add them to the article, otherwise the article fails to meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. Currently there is nothing that meets the criteria. reddogsix (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Keep per above. Alex2564 (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Ezekiel53746 ~Amatulić (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Please explain how the provided "references" meet the criteria for "secondary" references. Where are the independent, verifiable references? reddogsix (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Additionally, when I google “Steve Wilk” the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 10th links all point toward the subject in question. Credits on IMDB have to be screened as well. I search for the same name in it pulls up books and reviews, the same links the article author posted on the page. Pictures to match too. I vote to keep the page open, however it is not my work so this is the end of my argument. Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raddman26 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — Raddman26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked as sock of Tethria (article creator). czar · · 15:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - you do not seem to understand the basic premise that the references must meet Wikipedia criteria. The references associated with the article are self-published and do not meet the definition of secondary. I'll say it again, if you can find references that work add them to the article, otherwise the article fails to meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. Currently there is nothing that meets the criteria. reddogsix (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't seem to meet notability guideline for creative professionals; only related sources I can find are the author's personal website, bookselling sites, and an IMDb credit list. – 296.x (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be a promo article with plenty of self-generated sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Closing admin, note the SPA contributions above (two so far, both blocked socks).
    This article has zero references of value. References that are available are poor: self-published sources, user-generated content, nothing I can see in a brief search that indicates there is any reliable secondary source independent coverage as required by WP:GNG, WP:V, and WP:RS. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The two refs given are not reliable independent sources. The books appear to be Amazon Kindle editions - that is, self published. The games side probably isn't notable. The one mentioned hasn't achieved an article here yet. Having powerful friends doesn't make one notable. Nor does being involved in politics at an unspecified level. Peridon (talk) 18:08, 3 May 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. No consensus to delete, merge can be performed without needing to ask permission. Also, why do all of you have redlinked usernames? Shii (tock) 15:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ecash[edit]

Ecash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article above and its related topics are not notable and are not properly cited as such. KyleLandas (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The included articles are:

ECache (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
David Chaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DigiCash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--KyleLandas (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Electronic cash is about the German EC-Karte and looks to be a translation of its German equivalent, minus the sources there. Not quite sure what the relevance of this debit card is to the other electronic currency related articles. Funny Pika! 06:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the same genre (banking technology) and lacks notability and references in the same fashion. --KyleLandas (talk) 06:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a bit too broad to be bundling articles together. It can get confusing when discussing a debit card, three different digital currency schemes and a person related to it in one Afd. I'd guess that electronic cash is major German debit card system [22][23], though it'd be probably best to have someone from Germany confirm that. Haven't had a chance to look through the others. Funny Pika! 10:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Unless I am missing something obvious to others, It appears this page has ample national 3rd party coverage. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ecash does not. It has one dated, irrelevant book from the 1990s and a CNET article talking about the failure of this product. Notability is not shown through any of the sources. --KyleLandas (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, yes, Electronic cash may be spared. I will be removing it from the list. --KyleLandas (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me it's easy to find multiple mentions of this company, and the related ones, in many different international sources. Sorry Kyle, it looks to me like it meets GNG and CORP with ease. One might consider a MERGE into a single article on chaum's various companies, perhaps into his bio. But an outright delete of this information seems heavy handed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A merge of Ecash into David Chaum would be appropriate.
A merge of Digicash into David Chaum would be suitable as well. --KyleLandas (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice: Electronic cash has been removed. The above concerns may no longer be applicable. --KyleLandas (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm seeing lots of good secondary sources in very simple searches from links, above, including Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, when reading about electronic cash I continually found references to Chaum, he appears to have been the first guy to have published such a scheme and appears to be considered notable in the academic and industry cryptography and digital cash communities. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:51, 10 May 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. Courcelles 04:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finnbay[edit]

Finnbay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find any reliable third-party coverage on this company. BigPimpinBrah (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 19 April 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) 00:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- The article is important in pointing out a daily running news source in English language in Finland. It has been linked by Helsinki University, Study link Finland, Finnfacts and so on. It is the only independent source in its area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.204.169.184 (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't seem to find any independent coverage for this three month old Finnish website. I don't think the first initiative done by expats in the history of Finland is a credible claim of significance - as it's too vague and unverifiable. Possibly CSD A7 territory. Funny Pika! 06:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • yeah that is deleted, i think the rest is adequate enough to keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.204.169.184 (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication of notability per WP:WEB, and no significant coverage online from WP:Secondary sources. Captain Conundrum (talk) 14:56, 7 May 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. Courcelles 04:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Max Nicastro[edit]

Max Nicastro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor league player who has yet to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if he does or otherwise achieves notability. DJSasso (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 19 April 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) 00:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Little coverage of his hockey career after a quick glance. Most coverage is a WP:BLP1E/WP:BLPCRIME problem in that he was wrongfully accused of a crime. Resolute 13:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:49, 2 May 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. Courcelles 04:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Murray (ice hockey)[edit]

Matt Murray (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable junior player who has yet to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if he does or otherwise achieves notability. DJSasso (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 19 April 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) 00:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails NHOCKEY, and I can't find much beyond local coverage for other sources. Resolute 13:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:48, 2 May 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. Courcelles 04:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Serlin[edit]

Jordan Serlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet notable per WP:BIO. I cleaned up the worst of the WP:Vanispamcruftisement, and not much of note remains. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Captain Conundrum (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 18 April 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) 00:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 03:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Agostino[edit]

Kenny Agostino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable amateur athelete that fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if he does or otherwise achieves notability. DJSasso (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 18 April 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) 00:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:44, 2 May 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. Consensus is clearly to keep, with support for the suggestion that this be rewritten as an article on the M.A.M. group. Michig (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

M.A.M. College of Engineering and Technology[edit]

M.A.M. College of Engineering and Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claims of notability. Institution doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 12:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Degree-granting institution affiliated to Anna University. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources can be provided to demonstrate notability - so far there are none. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Anna University - I couldn't find any sources showing notability. Found mostly a lot of "college stats and facts" type websites.-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added the institution's own website and a ref confirming the Anna University affiliation. AllyD (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Degree-granting institution affiliated to Anna University. TerriersFan (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It is my understanding per WP:ORGDEPTH that even if this college is tied to a larger university, it does not inherit that university's notability. Without notability of this specific college demonstrated in the article, I am leaning toward delete. This is what I understood from the relevant policies. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has generally been consensus that accredited degree-awarding institutions are notable. In India, accreditation means affiliation to an institution with university status, hence the keep opinions above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please link to the discussion where this consensus was reached. Also note that I have asked you multiple times to provide such a link and you never have.-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very simple policy called "common sense". We all know that consensus has been reached. We only have to look at the many past AfDs to see it. There is no point in your endlessly asking for some sort of written proof of what is patently obvious to all who take part in these AfD discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:29, 17 April 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, Stalwart111 00:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite as article on M.A.M. Group of Institutions incorporating also the existing article M.A.M College of Engineering. The Indian higher education system is perhaps unique in the variety and complexity of its networks. Some such groups are groups of institutions of a similar purpose under private control--either profit-making or charitable, with a number of campuses in different cities; these would be equivalent to the multiple campuses of a US state university, which we normally consider as separate, with separate articles. As far as I can tell, this group is different: they are the related subject-oriented colleges of a single university, roughly equivalent to the separate colleges of a large US university. Our practice on these varies: for a major university where the colleges are particularly important, they often get separate articles; for a less important university, they are covered in one article. There is no clear separation--sources are normally available to write separate articles if it serves any purpose, but often it does not. That would appear to be the case here: the purpose of providing information would be best served by a single article with redirects. (I've worked on these before, and I volunteer to write an adequate stub to start off with that will at least bring together the various units.) The affiliation to Anna University is yet another type of networking, characteristic more of India than any other country, derived from a system formerly prevalent in the UK: not all Indian universities actually have authority to offer degrees, and the ones that do not offer the degrees formally through a connection with one of the universities that are so authorized. There may be no other relationship, besides the major university acting as a certifying body. Such a merge is never appropriate. Additionally, Indian universities (as in some other countries with still developing higher education systems) are prone to form relationships of some sort with whatever institutions they can in better-known education systems--and universities in the US and, to a lesser degree, the UK, and probably elsewhere, are reciprocally eager to form such connections to establish an international presence, however nominal. It is not necessarily easy to tell the actual state of affairs from the web sites, without some experience in interpreting the terminology--it took me severasl years of working with these articles here to keep it straight; consequently, many of the WP articles are quite confused. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep then Rewrite/Merge per DGG's awesome analysis above. TerriersFan (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and then rewrite as article on M.A.M. Group of Institutions per DGG. Salih (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted pursuant to A7 & G11. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptualeer[edit]

Conceptualeer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism reddogsix (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. If we accept the article at face value, it is about a neologism with no evidence of common usage. If we look a little further, it's thinly veiled promotion. Either way, it's afoul of policy. —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Quite the epitome of a non-notable neologism, asking us to Google it right from the article page. It's his personal social media handle, and happily declares its own lack of notability. czar · · 03:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I removed the vaguely related promotional material, but this is still a non-notable neologism that only seems to be used as the creator's username. – 296.x (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete At the very least, utterly non notable neologism. Promotional. I have tagged for A7 and G11. Safiel (talk) 04:04, 2 May 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; merge with Scala (programming language) possible. This was not a great discussion, but vox populii est vox dei. Shii (tock) 15:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kojo (programming language)[edit]

Kojo (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all primary. I was unable to find any suitable sources by Googling. It's possible the subject may become notable in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Msnicki (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The author of Kojo here. Kojo is a promising open-source learning environment for children that is used worldwide. I have some links on this page: http://wiki.kogics.net/kojo-world - which might help to establish notabilty. Also, please note that people I did not know added Kojo information to Wikipedia in the first place - in the two articles where this information exists: the Kojo article itself, and the Educational programming languages article. That might itself be considered an argument in favor of notability! (The Kojo article is currently out of date. If it remains on Wikipedia, I'll update it) Lalit.ash.pant (talk) 04:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 18 April 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) 00:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete - As far as i can tell this programming language is an offshoot from Scala (programming language). Because it is obviously not yet noteable enough to have its own page it could be merged with the page for Scala which seems to be more built up and is not being disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatmark (talk • contribs) 03:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to clarify, Kojo is not a programming language itself. It's a (computer programming based) learning environment for children, in the form of a software application, that uses the Scala Language. So maybe the Kojo article needs to be called Kojo_(software). Lalit.ash.pant (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say it is a DSL based on Scala, especially since it has added pedagogical tools and also translations of the DSLs to other languages than english (Swedish?). Professor Björn Regnell writes (translation) "Kojo is the best tool, with a low barrier of entry, I have seen for making real text based programming available for children, that is also usable all the way up to university level" [1]

Oluies (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At AfD, the only issue we consider is WP:NOTABILITY, which has a more technical meaning here than in ordinary conversation. Here, it's not enough that something seems noteworthy but that multiple WP:RELIABLE WP:INDEPENDENT WP:SECONDARY sources have actually taken note. Each of those words is significant. Different editors will interpret the guidelines differently but my rule of thumb to establish notability is on the order of a couple 1000-word articles in established publications by authors having no connection to the subject. Often, the difference between seems notable and sources have taken note is just a matter of time. If the sources aren't there now because the subject is quite new, perhaps they will be in a month or so, in which case the article can be reinstated without prejudice. That's exactly what happened recently with Julia. Another option if the outcome is delete is to request WP:Userfication so you or others can continue to work on the article in user space while you search for new sources. Msnicki (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete I looked for secondary sources and found a few. the Odersky news piece mentioned in the article is only semi-independent, being coauthored by the creator of Kojo. The software has made it onto lists of Best Free Ways to Learn Programming and of Learning Scala; these are independent, and the second looks reliable, but neither is in-depth. My impression is that this software is up and coming and could easily become notable in time, like the Scratch (programming language). But right now, it is WP:TOOSOON, there just hasn't been enough time for the press and/or academics to make note of it. Regretfully, the article cannot stand. I recommend either merging a summary to Educational programming languages or deletion with no prejudice to recreation when multiple reliable sources become available. Sorry, --Mark viking (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or per WP:PAGEDECIDE, coverage at ReadWrite and techsupportalert and scala-lang.org show notability. Diego (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Erring on the side of caution here, I'm opining that the ReadWrite article taken along with the other CITEs mentioned here meet GNG. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ReadWrite article is WP:PRIMARY and not helpful in establishing notability. From that article: "this post was co-authored by Lalit Pant, the creator of Kojo ." Msnicki (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And Einstein authored a lot of articles we quote all the time. At issue is not the author, but the source. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't work that way. (a) Einstein did not write this and (b) even if he had, if he was writing about his own work, it would not count toward establishing notability. See my comments above. You cannot make your own work notable by writing about it yourself, no matter how wonderfully you write. The essence of notability is that others must take note. Please read the guidelines re: WP:Notability and WP:PRIMARY sources. Msnicki (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have inverted my argument. The question is solely whether or not the source meets the requirements for GNG. If it does, then the author of the work is of little consequence. My example was to illustrate that it is the source we consider when citing, not the author. I'd be perfectly happy to entertain arguments on SELF if you feed RW is a vanity press, or that you don't consider RW to meet the needs of GNG. But just because the author of an article is involved doesn't address its NOTE. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that it doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. At AfD, no one cares about your "argument" if the source consists of the author writing about his own work. Under the guidelines, to establish notability takes sources that are independent of the subject. Since Pant was a co-author of the article, it does not contribute toward satisfying WP:GNG. This is black letter and the reason you need to stop arguing and read the guidelines first. Msnicki (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, then, you are saying that ReadWrite is not suitable for GNG. Is that correct? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying this article in RW isn't suitable for establishing notability of Kojo. From WP:GNG, ""Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources". This article isn't WP:SECONDARY, it's primary. It could have been a fully acceptable source if only Pant hadn't been a co-author. The publication appears reliable RW appears to be a reliable publication and the article is certainly long enough and it's undeniably about Kojo (i.e., it's not just a mention in an article about something else.) The sole problem (but this is all that matters at AfD) is that it is WP:PRIMARY by virtue of the fact that it consists of Pant writing about his own work. That makes it unhelpful in establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep WTF is it with Msnicki? "If I've never heard of it, it doesn't exist" yet again. I know you claim to live near Seattle, but not everything is either Microsoft or unimportant. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, is this necessary or helpful? Or is this non-guidelines-based strawman argument just one more gratuitously nasty and completely ad hominem example of why no one likes you or cares what you think? Msnicki (talk) 19:18, 8 May 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. Courcelles 04:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea McNulty[edit]

Andrea McNulty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a non-notable local politician, known only for routine coverage of her tenure as County Legislator of Niagara County, New York. She wasn't even required to stand for election. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Sionk (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Was there a reason this couldn't have been PRODded or boldly redirected? RayTalk 18:18, 26 April 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) 01:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see a good redirect target (redirecting to the council would not have been helpful), but a prod would have worked well, as far as I can tell. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably correct about using PROD first - my oversight, sorry! I've PROD'd the article about McNulty's predecessor, which is much shorter and hasn't been edited for many months. Sionk (talk) 08:34, 2 May 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. Obvious delete - no need for relist (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Beck[edit]

Kenneth Beck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing notable. Runs a non notable Wharton alumni placement organization, and everything else is minor. Accepted by the CfD process, but shouldn't have been. The article on his association has been deleted once from mainspace, and declined there several times at AfC. DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 25 April 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) 01:12, 2 May 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. Courcelles 04:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hussen Ibraheem[edit]

Hussen Ibraheem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So four valid sources have been provided (ignoring imdb), and all of them are short descriptions about two films the person this article is about has directed. But there are no sources at all that could establish the notability of the person independently. Even the films seem to be non-notable, judging by the extremely short descriptions made in the sources. The article seems to fail the criteria for notability. smtchahal(talk) 09:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 25 April 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) 01:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither the person nor the works stands out by their respective criteria.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As yet lacks reliable sources to support notability. Maybe in the future... 99.136.252.252 (talk) 18:27, 8 May 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. Michig (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence B. Brown[edit]

Laurence B. Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Author of non notable self published books. Almost no library holdings in worldcat. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. DGG knows his stuff and is much more adept at finding sourcing than most of us are; when he says that someone doesn't appear to be notable, we shouldn't doubt him unless we have the sourcing at hand. The coverage currently present is minimal and insufficient for sustaining an encyclopedia article. Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He is the author of non-notable books which have not been widely reviewed or obtained by many libraries. Being a Muslim convert does not make one notable. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He was described by the Saudi Gazette as "a well-known convert to Islam", and he is well-known among Muslim activists. His views are very much in demand from Muslim think-tanks, websites, and media. If it's true that completely insignificant internet memes like Boxxy deserve their own pages then there should be no dispute that actually influential people like Brown do deserve their own entries as well. Brown certainly has been discussed or interviewed by a number of reliable third parties so he meets this criteria for notability. It seems like a major reason why articles like this get deleted is because most Wikipedia users are irreligious and therefore are unable to understand the importance that religion plays in the lives of other people. Popular Muslim evangelists like Brown actually play a more important role in the world than the internet memes and Youtube series which do get extensive coverage on Wikipedia.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "most Wikipedia users are irreligious", let me add that I AM religious (and Muslim), CurtisNaito, but I still think Mr Brown lacks notability and the page should be deleted. Demonstrate your case that Brown's "views are very much in demand from Muslim think-tanks" with evidence. And as for the usefulness and reliability of the Saudi Gazette, don't forget that it also describes Brown as something he certainly is not: "a renowned scholar". George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he is quite well regarded among Muslim activists. Abdur-Rahman Abou Almajd, an Egyptian writer and columnist on Islamic affairs, said of his works "I am amazed at his abilities for such intricate analysis of the bible(s) and the Quran and his ability to transcribe it in a way that can easily be followed." We could say that he is something like the David Barton of the Islamic world. His followers view him as a top-notch scholar though his "scholarship" is not well regarded outside of activist circles. I first encountered his works at a meeting of Muslims students at UBC Vancouver and the Saudi Arabian students told me that he is very well regarded throughout Saudi Arabia. As noted in the article, he works as an orator at the Islamic Research Foundation. As I said, we should start out by deleting articles like Boxxy and The Annoying Orange before we tackle actually important people like Laurence B. Brown.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear CurtisNaito, with respect, we don't make delete/keep decisions on a comparitive basis. We judge individual articles purely on their own merits (or lack of merits). You provided no verifiable evidence of Brown's notability; just anecdotal evidence. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The amount of hits that this guy brings up when searching on google and other engines is a heck of a lot. To me it seems surprising that he is up for deletion. I've spent a day reading up about him. I vote a strong keep here. (Solution55 (talk) 08:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • The amount of hits someone gets in Google is irrelevant. (WP:GHITS) A person, place, thing, or concept can bring up millions of hits, yet none of them might be usable as a reliable source. I'll see what I can find, but saying that there are a lot of hits might just mean that there are a lot of merchant sources or links to places that are otherwise unusable. It might mean that he's popular, but popularity does not give notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Any notability must be sourced by way of reliable sources, but like I said- I'll see what I can do. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I hear what you're saying, but I wasb't just referring to the amount of hits on Google he gets and BTW: Google isn't the only search engine around. Looking at the content and the sites with articles that come up about him are an indication of his notability. Anyway that's what I have come across. Cheers (Solution55 (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • So far Google has been one of the better search engines I've had experience with, although I do regularly supplement that by searching JSTOR and my college's access to the various scholarly searches. I still have to repeat that hits don't mean a thing as far as Wikipedia is concerned. There are a lot of false positives that can show up, as well as the aforementioned merchant sources and various other unusable sources. I've had instances in other AfDs where something will come up with millions of hits, yet none of those will be usable. The number of Ghit results or search engine results haven't sufficed as a justification for notability for years. I understand your frustration, but that is not an argument that will help this article survive AfD. The only time an argument along those lines will work is if you can show where JSTOR searches show that many different journals cite him as a reference- and for that, you'd need it to be around the hundreds to keep on that basis alone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tried to find sources, but ultimately they just weren't there. I did find where he's cited as a source here and there, but not in any way that would show that he's such an overwhelming figure that he would pass notability guidelines on that criteria. The thing about the "an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" part of WP:AUTHOR is that the cites would have to say that the person did something that was incredibly landmark along the lines of creating the wheel for whatever field(s) the person was in or is cited in hundreds upon hundreds of peer reviewed journals and academic texts. I found a handful of places that mentioned him, but not enough to show that he'd pass under that guideline. The thing about that criteria is that it's implied that if someone is that much of an important figure and is so widely cited, they'd have received direct coverage about them. We don't necessarily require that someone along the lines of Dr. Brown receive as much coverage as Elle McPherson or even Francis Crick, but we do need more coverage than what has been placed on Brown's article. He hasn't been the focus of any articles in reliable sources, nor have either of his books received substantial coverage. I would say that Brown might be usable as a reliable source, but being a reliable source does not automatically give notability. He's one of thousands of people who, while being respected in their fields, do not pass notability guidelines here on Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong- it's frustrating that we can have articles on people for things that seem shallow to you or I, but the difference is that Boxxy has received coverage in enough reliable sources to pass notability guidelines while Brown hasn't. That's just the way our media works and while I wish it were otherwise, it's not up to Wikipedia to make up for the inequality of coverage for any and all persons or subjects out there. I'm not saying that anyone is trying to actively promote Brown, just that he doesn't pass notability guidelines and we can't give him a free pass because anyone sees him as smarter than the entire cast of Jersey Shore and thus more deserving. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On your "being a reliable source does not automatically give notability" — absolutely right. For example, any Ph.D. dissertation from a real university is a reliable source, but the vast majority of authors thereof aren't notable. Nyttend (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having an article in the Saudi Gazette and not much else except Google hits to YouTube videos and merchant sources seems to indicate Brown is on the verge of notability, but not quite there yet. Presently fails WP:AUTHOR, but no problem recreating should more reliable sources conferring notability arise in the future. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note from the article itself that he has also been mentioned by Arab News, American Muslim FRESH Magazine, and the Islamic Research Foundation. His first novel has been reviewed by a substantial 123 people on Amazon.com.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear CurtisNaito, Amazon customer reviews are not an evidential source. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability guidelines require extensive coverage, and that isn't the case here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:07, 6 May 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 Procedural close. There is no argument for deletion, the pages have been marked for merger for years with no real opposition. J04n(talk page) 16:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of blues rock performers[edit]

List of blues rock performers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CONTENTFORK of List of blues rock musicians. Although List of blues rock performers has more substance, both articles can be renamed to list of blues rock artists (and List of blues rock musicians is a broader name). Both have been proposed to be merged together, and List of blues rock performers has been tagged with the WP:OR warning. Both articles are entirely unsourced. List of blues rock performers fails WP:N. Curb Chain (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your nomination is kind of all over the place, as it seems you just want them merged because they are duplicates, but you raise a lot of irrelevant criticism. Blues rock is a recognized, notable genre, and there are plenty of notable musicians whose work has verifiably been characterized as such, so notability is not an issue (and I really don't understand why you said just one of the duplicative lists is not notable). And whether either list presently contains OR or currently does not have sources is irrelevant as those are cleanup issues not deletion issues, when the subject and core content are verifiable.

    So the only problem as I see it is that there are two lists of redundant scope, so neither should be deleted, instead one should be merged into the other. As for whether "musicians" or "artists" is a better name for the list (either is better than "performers"), that renaming concern is also not an AFD issue, though I note that both are commonly used judging from the contents of Category:Lists of musicians by genre. postdlf (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - can be improved or possibly merged by I see no case for deletion FlatOut 12:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only reason to keep both this and List of blues rock musicians is that one is indexed by name and the other by decade. I don't know the relevant Wikipedia policy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think then we should have one article, indexed by decade, bybut alphabetized within each decade. Otherwise, both pages are WP:CONTENTFORKS of one another.Curb Chain (talk) 01:03, 25 April 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, LFaraone 00:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ghettoizes blues-rock performers in much the same way that, oh, I don't know, a category on Women Novelists might ghettoize female writers. Qworty (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen some half-baked, WP:POINTY AfD entries in my day, but that takes the prize. If this is how you plan to act, kindly remove yourself to some other topic area please. Tarc (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously. One of the most absurd non-rationales to cross AfD in the last year. The closing administrator would do well to ignore this childish temper tantrum. Carrite (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - and discuss in the appropriate article talk page. As the two articles have been edited independently over the years, any merger will necessitate one of these titles to eventually be a redirect to the other per licensing concerns. Deletion was never a viable option here, so honestly this was a rather ill-advised AfD filing. Tarc (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Molecular and Genetic Medicine[edit]

Journal of Molecular and Genetic Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

OA journal publishing a handful of papers per year. Indexed in CAS, DOAJ, and (like almost all OA journals in the biomedical field) PubMed Central (and hence PubMed). None of these listings is particularly selective. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Article created by someone who appears to be associated with a number of OA journals of the type usually described as "predatory"; this sort of misuse of Wikipedia can't be allowed to stand, certainly when notability is so lacking. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom. Article meets criteria according to WP:NJournals .Indexed,Coverage,Independent sources..I request the above two pioneers to check the criteria before deleting...Paulwood99 (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Paulwood99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Indexed? Absolutely yes. In selective, major databases? Absolutely not. Independent sources? None that I can see. Criteria have been checked, this fails them all. --Randykitty (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I appreciate that nobody likes predatory journals. But as the nominator mentions, this journal is indexed in Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS), and CAS is mentioned in point 3 of section WP:NJournals#Notes and examples as an example of a selective database. Thus the journal seems to pass notability per WP:NJournals. While WP:NJournals is a guideline and not policy, it has been basically treated as policy in AfD discussions about academic journals in recent months. Thus passing WP:NJournals thresholds suggests keeping this article. --Mark viking (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then perhaps we need to change the example in NJournals... --Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark Viking, you are not applying NJournals correctly. It does not say, if a journal is listed in CAS it is notable on that basis. The criteria specified by NJournals are: 1. The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area. 2. The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources. 3. The journal has an historic purpose or a significant history. All of this must be addressed via "independent reliable sources". If there are independent reliable sources, they can be produced for this discussion -- but as things stand there are none on the article (only the journal's own website is being cited) and notability is entirely lacking. You are also incorrect in describing NJournals as a guideline; in fact it is an essay. The upshot of that comment is that a journal must meet the general notability standards of Wikipedia; again, independent sources are required, and there is no evidence that any are available. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand corrected; WP:NJournals is an essay, not a guideline. But it is also true that WP:NJournals has been a standard against which journals have been judged at many AfDs. The current AfD practice is that if a journal passes WP:NJournals, e.g., because it is indexed in Scopus or has a valid impact factor, that is usually enough to keep the article. People rarely write news articles or peer-reviewed papers about journals, so criteria like having reasonably large impact factors or being indexed in a selective database are useful proxies for judging notability. In his case I think of the the selective indices as the independent reliable sources considering the journal in depth.
Given that context, my chain of reasoning is as follows. Take criterion 1 in WP:NJournals#Criteria as the test. Note 1 in WP:NJournals#Notes and examples indicates that criterion 1 is satisfied if "the journal is included in the major indexing services in its field", and again in AfD practice, a single selective database has been enough. Note 3 indicates that CAS qualifies as a selective databse. Given that the journal is in indexed in CAS, then Note 1 in WP:NJournals#Notes and examples is satisfied and thus criterion 1 in WP:NJournals#Criteria is satisfied, and thus WP:NJournals is satisfied and the journal can be considered notable. Randykitty and I are often on the same page on these issues, but the crux of our disagreement in this case is the weight that CAS lends to notability; I think it is enough and Randykitty does not. I can understand his point of view; that the journal isn't in some of the larger indices is a definitely a mark against notability. But 'keep' is the conclusion I come to in my best interpretation of policy, guideline, and essay. --Mark viking (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're not addressing the point about sources. How can we write an article without sources meeting WP:RS? These things go together: no RSs means no notability, and without RSs we can't write an article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I checked on the editor-in-chief. According to the journal the editor-in-chief is located in Oxford, UK. It is possible to track a lecturer with name Muhammad Sohail in Oxford. This guy published his last scientific paper in 2007. A editor-in-chief who publishes no scientific paper for more then six years is pathetic and so is the journal. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 00:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Today I add a new argument. The journal is not indexed by any Thomson Reuters database. I searched the Web of Science (having access to all TR databases) and found not a single article that cited any article published in this journal. Considering the fact, that the journal is now eight years old and enough time past by to establish some notability, no scientist is taking notice from that journal. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 12:14, 2 May 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 sof delete. J04n(talk page) 16:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.H.T.[edit]

P.H.T. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like bogus Uberaccount (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: "Putting Husband Through" or "Putting Honey Through" (college) does appear to be a frequently used, albeit purely honorary term. I think it's likely notable. Praemonitus (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment This does seem to exist, as a 1950's accomplishment: [29][30][31][32]. Might not be as relevant now to women but may have been discussed at some stage during gender studies. Funny Pika! 00:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard to say. I thought this was a less frequent variant of the Mrs. degree, but that was merged into Mrs. in a deletion debate way back in 2006. But now, Mrs. doesn't mention the phenomenon at all. Perhaps it's worth recreating that article and merging this one there? --BDD (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 00:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've only ever heard of this as "Putting Him Through". Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article has been an orphan for three years, which means that nothing will ever link to it, and it is not encyclopedic. A weak case can be made to trans-wikify to Wiktionary. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "not linked to" =/= "will never be linked to" =/= "needs to be deleted". The only question we should be considering here is notability. ∴ ZX95 [discuss] 01:11, 4 May 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. Although it was demonstrated that this individual is mentioned in the various sources, the consensus was that these mentions do not provide enough significant coverage to pass GNG. — CactusWriter (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Richardson (diplomat)[edit]

Barbara Richardson (diplomat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable by WP:DIPLOMAT ("Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources.") AFAIK Richardson, like most other diplomats, has never been involved in an “event of particular diplomatic importance”. Kleinzach 23:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stay on deletion or keep until originator and others can find more references. I've had a quick look and it could be a task but perhaps some work put in with proper liks can prove notability. (Solution55 (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Actually only 10 words have been written in the article in the past six years. Re refs I had a look but didn't find any. --Kleinzach 09:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Head of mission, therefore notable. Forget WP:DIPLOMAT, as it doesn't say any more than GNG. Some people are notable because of the post they hold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG; "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria". As of today, this article doesn't have any references at all. --Kleinzach 09:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, but a quick Google search will verify her post. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

verifying her post is not the same as establishing notability. she fails WP:BIO, WP:DIPLOMAT and WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • strong delete fails WP:BIO, WP:DIPLOMAT and WP:GNG. Simply being a head of mission does not confer notability. LibStar (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable person in a notable position. [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. It looks like there are quite a few more articles on GNews behind pay walls or broken links. Pburka (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following her appointment to Bangladesh, she became ambassador, concurrently, to Zimbabwe and Angola and High Commissioner to Botswana[38][39][40][41]. She held those posts until 2011.[42] This article[43] discusses her appearance on national television in Zimbabwe. Pburka (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am satisfied that the first source cited by PBurka above (BIO OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA ALUMNI ASSOCIATION counts to GNG. The second cite is close and arguable. The others are more or less routine coverage of a politician doing their job. One or two more solid sources should be enough for a GNG pass; I do not believe that the mere position held is sufficient for a pass under the Special Guideline in this instance. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. Does not seem to have garnered more than token news coverage and a short bio in the alumni association website for her alma mater. Utterly fails to have significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. RayTalk 21:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tough posting perhaps, but just a job. Her predecessor Roxanne Dubé looks like an obvious delete too.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Regardless of whether she has presumptive notability, she has demonstrable notability per WP:GNG. She has received significant (i.e. more than passing) coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the the subject (see above). The articles specifically report on her speeches, her campaigns and her activities. A simple GNews search turns up dozens of additional articles, some passing and some significant. Some might argue that such coverage is routine for an ambassador, but that argument simply supports a claim of presumptive notability. Pburka (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pburka, coverage in the passing news is routine for Little League teams, local school math and spelling bee teams, and many others. Please do not confuse "is likely to be mentioned in the news" with significant and lasting notability. One is a strict subset of the other. RayTalk 03:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOMBARD: "A source may be reliable, but only cover a subject in a trivial manner, and if a subject is covered only by trivial mentions then it may not be notable no matter how many of them there are (see WP:BASIC)." Kleinzach 04:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you consider these sources to be trivial or unreliable?
  1. Bangladesh stands at ‘crossroads’ - she is the subject of the article
  2. Canada envoy launches pro-vote campaign in Bangladesh - article about a campaign she led in Bangladesh to encourage voting
  3. Canadian envoy calls for all-party elections in Bangladesh - transcript of a TV news report about the ambassador's campaign
  4. Le Zimbabwe veut exporter les diamants de Marange malgré des oppositions - an article from AFP about her involvement in the Kimberley Process, with reference to an interview on (Zimbabwe?) national TV
  5. Prospects high for Zim diamonds: Diplomat - an article specifically reporting on one of her speeches and her meeting with the Zimbabwean president
These are not trivial mentions. They represent significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Pburka (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look for example at the last one: "Outgoing Canada ambassador to Zimbabwe, Ms Barbara Richardson, says prospects are high that the forthcoming Kinshasa KP meeting will approve Zimbabwe’s diamonds to be sold on the open market, despite her country and Australia’s efforts to bar Zimbabwe from selling its gemstones." A reliable source? Really? Or perhaps Richardson is now working for Mugabe? Kleinzach 00:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kleinzach it really does not establish notability of Richardson. we need indepth coverage about her as the subject. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG does not call for "in depth" coverage. It calls for "significant" coverage, which "means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Pburka (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
read under WP:BIO, WP:BASIC : "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". LibStar (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, WP:GNG takes priority over other notability guidelines. Secondly, per WP:BASIC, we have "multiple independent sources…to demonstrate notability". Pburka (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

where does it say WP:GNG takes priority? for example, WP:ATHLETE, WP:PROF, WP:ENT take priority over WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

simply making comments in the media does not establish notabilty of the person, eg [44], [45]. [46], [47], [48], [49], [50] these 7 sources do not establish notability as she is merely being a spokesperson for the Canadian government, much the same way a police spokesperson might go to the media on crime stories. LibStar (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Being the head of a diplomatic mission does not make the holder of the office notable per se. Some ambassadors or high commissioners do indeed subsequently hold senior posts in their respective foreign ministry or even ministerial or international diplomatic posts (e.g. at the United Nations) which often makes them notable nationally and/or internationally. This person did not hold any such post, as far as I have been able to establish, nor was she the head of a major diplomatic mission. All diplomatic missions are not equal. Some are more important than others, some are rated higher than others. For example, Washington, Moscow, London, Beijing or New Delhi are among the plum missions for diplomats from any country, whatever their rank. Bangladesh, Angola and Zimbabwe are not in the same league. However, local newspapers, wherever the mission may be, often carry reports on the activities of ambassadors and other diplomatic personnel at an embassy in their country. Such reports, like those cited in this article, are not really valid references for notabilty purposes and do not mean that this diplomat or others in her situation are notable or meet the WP:GNG criteria.--Zananiri (talk) 19:27, 9 May 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. There is already an entry at Wiktionary - if anyone wants anything from here to add to that please let me know. Michig (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Andrew (clown)[edit]

Merry Andrew (clown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dictionary definition. Hesperian 00:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does that make it not a DICDEF? The OED does the very same thing. Usage in literature does not make something encyclopedic. Ryan Vesey 03:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the fact that is does not fulfill DICDEF justifies keeping the article? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 3 May 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.
  1. ^ Regnell, Björn (2013-04-29). "Lär dig programmera!". Retrieved 2013-05-06.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_May_2&oldid=1142631185"