Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 25

Guide to deletion

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) 01:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Instructor-led training

Instructor-led training (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)

"Instructor-led training" is nothing but jargon for "Teaching" WQUlrich (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - it is certainly a form of teaching, but the term "instructor led training" or "ILT" is well-used, especially in the IT sector, and is considered different to normal classroom teaching. This issue of CIO magazine goes into some detail. This publication treats the two as one in the same. This book goes into more detail. Companies like Symantec (here) and Adobe Systems (here) use the term as part of their training programs (which is what I mean when I say it is more common in the IT industry). I suppose I wouldn't strongly oppose a redirect to Education (where Teaching already redirects), but I do think there are probably enough differences (and enough sources that provide details of the differences) to warrant a stand-alone article. Stalwart111 00:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Education and training is a big field and so it is to be expected that we will have a variety of topics and terms. A one-size-fits-all approach does not seem sensible. Warden (talk) 08:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm not familiar with education, and eduction terms, but am familiar with the term "instructor-led training" from IT. It is used to distinguish course with a human being doing the teaching versus computer-based training. A search on Google scholar would indicate that this is a topic of interest especially comparing the two types of training. Examples: [1], [2]. -- Whpq (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:GNG. Merely searching Google Scholar for "instructor-led training" provides numerous articles showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The article is merely a neglected stub (currently unmarked) ant needs some attention. - tucoxn\^talk 21:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

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. Although several of the opinions are not policy based nor particularly strong there is enough of an opinion based on the available sources that the subject is an authority in his field. J04n(talk page) 19:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Robert Isaacson

Robert Isaacson (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 of substance. Article references do not appear to be about the individual or are not independent. reddogsix (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I could have done a better job documenting it in this stub, but Robert Isaacson is in fact a KEY figure in the scholarship on 19th C academic painting; his name turns up in many books and journals in part because he put countless forgotten painters "back on the map". For that reason, I think a Wikipedia entry with a bit of biographical detail might be appreciated by people who read in this field and know him mostly just by name. Isaacson's gallery also put on a number of seminal shows, none of which I've listed; he was a notable trendsetter even outside 19th C academic painting. He's also interesting for the extended portrait drawn by his friend James Merrill in his 1993 autobiography; I wrote the stub with an eye to correcting some of the gaps for readers of that book, which is sometimes assigned in college courses.

Reddogsix, another User removed your first "speedy deletion" tag having confirmed the subject's substance; do you have the right to re-submit you demand? I believe others will back me on the substance issue, so I would appreciate your re-reading the article with an open mind; thank you for reconsidering your position. Sandover (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Having a name in an article does not create notability per Wikipedia standards. Being "appreciated by people who read in this field" is not a valid reason for having a Wikipedia article. The article must meet the criteria in WP:BIO or other associated guidelines. If the gallery is notable per guidelines, then perhaps the gallery should be the subject of an article.

You ask if I have the "right" to request an AfD be opened for the article. Certainly, since the purpose of an AfD is to accumulate more opinions and hopefully expand the content of the article, one would think you would welcome it. The purpose of the AfD is to provide a wider circle of scrutiny and perhaps better documentation to support the article's notability. Also, how is it you can read my mind and determine that I am not reading the article with open mind. 8-) I know, kind of silly, but not sillier than your statement. My best to you. reddogsix (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (confer) @ 22:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gossip) @ 22:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't think this article needs to be delete. The article contains useful sources & notability too. then why this "speedy deletion" tag? - War Minister (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - Sandover (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Based on what? reddogsix (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Notability and good sourcing, I'd like to think, but I'm biased. More to the point, I owe you an apology. Of course you've the right to put a "speedy deletion" tag on the article, and apparently to restore it if another User deletes the tag without proper discussion. I was confused by the fact that two different Users did this (the second after I'd left a comment on their Talk page encouraging them to weigh in on the discussion). Despite our unfortunate and acrimonious start, you've inspired considerable improvement to the article's footnotes and phrasing; this would not have happened had you not raised the initial flag. I am indeed appreciative. — Sandover (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Being regarded as an authority in oner's field certainly establishes notability at Wikipedia & the references are sufficient to establish that. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per DGG—Being regarded as an authority in oner's [sic ;)] field; WP:BIO; per sources available in article. (note: I was alerted of this discussion via a post on Kudpung's talk page, but this did not influence my !vote in any way) Theopolisme (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." [3], [4] and others in the article suffice. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure.) --Yellow1996 (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

My Little Pony: Equestria Girls: The Movie

My Little Pony: Equestria Girls: The Movie (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, WP:CRYSTAL. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk to me) @ 22:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Weak Keep - Looking at WP:NFF, I'm on the edge of this one because of the New York Times article linked here. Yes, the article is poorly written and needs serious cleanup, and a case could definitely be made it is too soon, but it does have national coverage already and the release of a trailer mentioned in the article should confirm it is out of pre-production, per WP:NFF. I'm still awfully shaky and definitely do not like the current direction of the article, but I would say it does have established coverage from a major reliable source to meet notability at this time. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 23:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep With coverage like the article in the New York Times [5] its not too soon to have an article about it. Dream Focus 02:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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

• Keep Filming completed (to meet WP:NFF) with release due in 2 weeks (June 15). Coverage meets WP:NF. Move article to proper title My Little Pony: Equestria Girls, overwriting the redirect which currently sends readers to a minor section at My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Withdraw I have been fully convinced that I have made this nomination in error after listening to the arguments to keep. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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) 19:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Nilbach Suchare

Nilbach Suchare (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)

An article we were notified about via OTRS about a purported pseudonym used by writers. Three references and a supposed quote that go nowhere, plus some important-sounding prose that does not support the claims in the article at all. There are also two external links to a book of pseudonyms that do not contain the term (no book does as far as I can tell). The kicker is the last paragraph: The goal behind creating Nilbach Suchare is to demonstrate that the Internet has become a reference for virtually all published material, so the canon no longer exists as a controllable, countable set, but a random, vacillating background, with a reference that also does not support the claim. Web results seem to indicate the term has been used to seed images into Google search. This is not a neologism with widespread use or notability, so I believe we're looking at a hoax. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - It might be somebody's pet project and they are seeding Wikipedia. In any case, it fails verifiability as none of the listed references check out. there's no page numbers on the book and searching for the phrase in the book finds nothing, nor do my own searches turn up anything useful. -- Whpq (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete apparent hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

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. LFaraone 00:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Rich DeMarco

Rich DeMarco (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)

Broadcaster with local awards only. and no other indication of notability DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (warn) @ 22:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (parlez) @ 22:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (barney) @ 22:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Online coverage basically limited to passing references of subject's association w/ Army athletics' broadcasting. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 23:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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 Secret Recipe (restaurant). J04n(talk page) 19:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Secret Recipe Australia

Secret Recipe Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article on a small chain of australian restaurants was approved at AfC . I do not think there is evidence to think it notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chat) @ 23:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect to Secret Recipe (restaurant). Based on this source, this is simply the Australian arm of the company. -- Whpq (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• • I agree with the redirect. For some reason I missed finding the article on the main chain, or I would have done it myself. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

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. Suicides are considered an extremally sensitive topic and there have been very strong opinions expressed in this discussion, much of it relevant, but also some non-arguments such as "There are about 29 things wrong with this".

The BLP issue has been brought up, but I actually didn't find every aspect of those arguments altogether convincing and there were many assertions of BLP violations without real explanations of how the article violated BLP. Note that articles may sometimes contain very unpleasant content about a person while still being BLP compliant if rigorously sourced. However Ken Arromdee made a valid point when he points out "It's violates BLP by implying that people who have not been convicted of causing deaths caused deaths". Even though the names of the alleged bullies are not mentioned, an implication that the peers of the suicide victims were responsible for the tragedy does cast a very dark aspersion, especially if the names involved can be found in a trivially easy manner even if not explicitly in the article.

I appreciate the concerns that A Quest for Knowledge had regarding some of the delete votes, but the issue of the serious nature of the accusations, that bullies were definitively the cause of the suicides on this list, is a valid argument that appears to have consensus support here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

List of bullycides

List of bullycides (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)

Notable bullycides found here. Only a few people in this list have articles.  Tentinator  20:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep The nomination points out that we have a navigational template which contains a similar list. Per WP:CLN, this is a reason to keep, not to delete. Warden (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (warn) @ 23:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (barney) @ 23:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep This is a list of those cases that got ample news coverage. Most cases won't be on the list of course. Most have their own Wikipedia articles about the person being bullied to suicide, and all have a reference to a reliable source saying this also. Dream Focus 20:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strong delete - Oh god no. I cannot think of a worse idea than having an article for almost entirely non-notable largely young people who have been driven to suicide. Jesus.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Are you out of your fucking minds! This is a gross violation of WP:BLP policy, and I can think of no legitimate reason not to blank it right now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• The people listed here are dead, not living. See Lists of people by cause of death for numerous other lists of dead people. Warden (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• WP:BLP also applies to the recently decreased, their families, and any alleged bullies.Martin451 (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• All those other dead people have families too. BLP means Biographies of Living People. The page is not a biography and the people are not living. The policy is not there so you can make an end run around WP:CENSOR any time the topic involves people. Warden (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you really so utterly clueless as to be unaware that WP:BLP policy doesn't only apply to biographies? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Editors are constantly trying to extend policies contrary to WP:CREEP. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." See also WP:NOTLAW. Warden (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• see WP:BDP for the recently deceased. BLP applies to all content on wikipedia, not just biographies.Martin451 (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• WP:BDP specifies 2 years at the outside as a grace period for recent death. The first person on this list died in 1967 - that's 46 years ago. Warden (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong delete - violates all sorts of policies, notably WP:V and WP:BLP (at least in spirit). {{Bullying}} already mentions all the notable cases; we really don't need this article, which is a flat-out terrible idea. Robofish (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

  To elaborate: firstly, this list, containing serious information about real people, is almost completely unsourced. Secondly, even if the information in it is true, listing non-notable crime victims like this violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and is arguably a form of secondary victimisation of their families. Robofish (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per Robofish. WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. This article is totally unreferenced, and most of the names do not have blue links. One significant point is that this article attributes a reason to the cause of sucide for all these people, and in doing so suggestes they are victims of crime. I also have my worries about the first external link which just seems to be a vehicle to make money.Martin451 (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's not totally unreferenced. It already had a bunch of external links and I have started to add inline citations, stating with Laura Finley, "Bullycide", Encyclopedia of School Crime and Violence, pp. 69–71. That's an encyclopedia which lists many of the names here. The topic is therefore encyclopedic, notable and passes WP:LISTN. Warden (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• One inline citation added after I made my comment. The external links are not reliable enough for this list, each entry should need to be referenced. The first link is extremely unreliable for this, as it is an attempt to sell a book.Martin451 (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• The second external link which has been used to write this list seems unreliable as several of items have been removed by editors for various reasons, including the deaths not being attributed to bullying. As such there is no cite to back up the majority of the list.Martin451 (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete One - it is a neologism from the start. Two - it names minor children who are victims. Three - most of them are clear BLP1E as far as their own notability is concerned. Four - it is unreferenced - and any sources used should refer to "bullycide" to be remotely allowable. Five - Need to demonstrate how great of a problem it is is a reason having zero weight on Wikipedia. With zero policy based rationales for keeping, and at least four policy based rationales for deletion, the choice is a Homer Simpson moment. Collect (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have added a reference to an encyclopedia which has an entry for Bullycide. My arguments are certainly policy-based and add WP:PRESERVE to the list to make sure. The attempts to WP:STEAM this are outrageous. How is it that this mob has just rushed in? Who has been canvassing? Warden (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• A notice on WP:BLPN pointing out gross violations of WP:BLP policy isn't canvassing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's blatant canvassing because it is apparent that the !votes this has attracted are not neutral. They are not well-informed either, making numerous factual errors and mis-statements. They are just turning the discussion, which was previously quite quiet, into a train-wreck. Warden (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• If you think what I did was canvassing, report the matter at WP:ANI. I could do with a laugh... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I am curious, Warden - how do you tell which !votes are "not neutral" in this discussion? VQuakr (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• We can start with the ones that use language like "out of your fucking minds" and "insanely". Warden (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Insanely: adverb. To a great degree; very much. Used in context, it was not directed at any editor. I stand by my statement that an unreferenced list that presents, as fact, a significant number of suicides of minors as the fault of a person or persons is an "insanely obvious" BLP violation. VQuakr (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• I am minded to speedy delete this immediately and would have done so already had I found it prior to this deletion nomination. Our own article, Bullycide, sums up the problem well: Legal analysts criticise the term because it links a cause with an effect under someone else's control. This list implicitly accuses, largely without any sourcing, other individuals of bearing some responsibity for the death of another. While none of the alleged bullies are named in this article, I quickly found examples in the list where there had been no criminal case brought and, in at least example, where one alleged bully had been tried but acquitted. Given the paucity of sources, I wonder how many other such examples there are in this article. CIreland (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:IAR and my speedy tag. Once the insanely obvious BLP violation is removed, we can discuss if there are enough crimes identified in reliable sources as "bullycides" to merit a similar, adequately referenced, list. VQuakr (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete What could anyone learn from this, except how to find the victim's families and troll them (provided they even exist; hard to tell with these sources)? Ridiculous word, too. What do we call it when a bully is killed? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note. I've just deleted one person from this list on the grounds that they seem to still be alive. I don't suppose anyone wishes to contest this... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Update I have added several sources and the list has been boiled down by another editor to entries which are blue links or have sources. In working briefly on the list, it was apparent that sources are readily available for such entries - it's just a matter of doing the work. There are numerous books out there which discuss the problems of bullying in school and which use these examples as case histories. The topic therefore satisfies WP:LISTN. Many or most of the cases are from the 1990s or before and so cannot be considered recent deaths. I'm going to bed now. Good night. Warden (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I was the editor who removed all the unsourced/unlinked entries. Contrary to your assertion above sources are not readily available for all the remaining entries. Going through them, I am finding around half to be flat wrong. A number of others are unclear, at best. CIreland (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Now finished going through what's left. It's no longer quiet so huge a BLP nightmare but should still be deleted. CIreland (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The cases I looked at mostly seem to stand up. Anyway, I have added a case from 1877 which was quite a big deal in its day. This puts the matter into a proper historical perspective. Recentism should not disrupt the work of building an encyclopedia which, by its comprehensive nature, must include the numerous tragedies and disasters which beset us. Warden (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have learned one thing going through those entries - very few, if any, cases of suicide following bullying are so simple as to be attributable to a single cause, as this list attempts to do. I doubt things were much different in the nineteenth century. CIreland (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:BLP. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Holy sparks, an unsourced list of people who were allegedly involved in felony crimes? This is an epic coatrack and a BLP nightmare waiting to happen. WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:WTAF come to mind, assuming we're so irresponsible as to ignore WP:BLP and let this stand. It should have been speedied by a sysop on sight. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete The referenced book about "bullycide" is self-published. The term is a neologism associated with a couple of self-published websites and a small group of people. The construction of the neologism strongly implies that a crime has been committed when a suicide occurs and bullying is identified as a contributing cause. As others have pointed out, such tragedies almost always have multiple causes. I see real BLP issues here, both for the families of those who died, and those accused (perhaps falsely in some cases) of culpability in these deaths. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - Probably a notable phenomenon, but this really should be an article rather than a list - particularly because the causes of a suicide are generally not so simple as to be able to be boiled down to "he/she was bullied," and at any rate, proving the causation of a suicide is fraught with BLP issues. Stacking a bunch of names and declaring them all to be unambiguously and provably "bullycide" is inadvisable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

---

• Update I have done more work and all entries have reasonably good sources now. There are multiple substantial books from respectable publishers such as Routledge amongst these. The only remaining issue seems to be the usage bullycide. It gets some play in the sources and seems to have been around for over ten years. But if we don't like it, it will be readily addressed by moving the page to another title such as list of suicides attributed to bullying. Warden (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• It seems as though you're intentionally just ignoring all of the issues being raised here and simply spouting your typical mantra of "there are sources so we have no choice but to keep through my misinterpretation of policy." Could you please actually look through the arguments so you can see that they have nothing to do with a lack of sourcing, but rather concern more serious issues?--Yaksar (let's chat) 12:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - a neologism and a gross violation of BLP. This article was never a good idea. GiantSnowman 08:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per CIreland and FreeRangeFrog particularly. This truly is Wikipedia at its worst. And we know about it. And it's still there. I despair. Begoon ^talk 10:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - but change to List of student suicides, which opens up the scope.--Auric talk 10:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per everybody above. How was this ever thought to be a good idea. It would never be either comprehensive nor accurate. Kiltpin (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep No valid reason for deletion has been provided.
  • The Tentinator says, "Only a few people in this list have articles". Individual items on list do not need to be independently notable or have their own dedicated articles. See WP:LISTN.
  • AndyTheGrump says, "This is a gross violation of WP:BLP policy." This is so vague as to be meaningless. What exactly is the BLP violation?
  • Robofish says, "violates all sorts of policies, notably WP:V and WP:BLP (at least in spirit)." Not all content requires inline citations. Only quotations, and material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged requires citations. And if you want citations, you can just add them. I'm sure most of the content is verfiable. Whatever isn't can be removed. But that's not a valid reason for deletion. That can be worked out through the normal editing process.
  • Martin451 says, "WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies". But WP:NOTMEMORIAL actually says we should not memorialize deceased friends, relatives and acquaintances. Which editor(s) has friends and family members on this list? WP:NOTMEMORIAL only requires WP:GNG be satisfied. Sadly, no one has based an argument on whether the article meets Wikipedia notability requirements. Since noboday has raised this, there's nothing to rebut and the default is to keep.
  • Collect says, "One - it is a neologism from the start." The title may use a neologism, but there's no reason why the article can't be renamed to something more encyclopedic. "Two - it names minor children who are victims." True, but I'm not sure what the problem is. WP:BLP only applies to living people and the recently deceased. Certainly, someone who died decades ago is not considered recently deceased. No one is seriously suggesting that we delete Anne Frank, right? "Three - most of them are clear BLP1E as far as their own notability is concerned." BLP1E applies to standalone biographies, not to events or lists.
  • In any case, I stopped reading the !votes at this point. It's clear that some editors don't like the article, but nobody has presented a valid reason for deletion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You want a reason to delete this? How about that it makes crude assertions of fact - that these are "people driven to suicide by bullying" - when the sources simply cannot support such simplistic and unqualified assertions. Suicide is a complex issue, and deserves proper encyclopaedic treatment, rather than facile and obnoxious list-mongering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: So, you are saying that no scholarly research has ever been conducted by sociologists, psychologists, or psychiatrists regarding this topic? That's a pretty extraordinary claim. Do you think you can back up that claim by reliable sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you usually resort to spouting complete and utter bollocks in AfD discussions? Where have I ever suggested that there has been no scholarly research into the topic. Nowhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. Seriously, you need to ask why? It's violates BLP by implying that people who have not been convicted of causing deaths caused deaths. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Exactly where in the article text are specific people named who are implied to have caused these deaths? Please list specific examples and I'll remove them myself if they are not reliably sourced. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • It is not necessary for people to be named in the article for there to be a BLP violation. People are named in the references, some of whom may be people falsely accused of bullying. Family members are named in the references. The very title of the article (and any alternate title proposed so far) implies that the "bullies" are criminally liable for these deaths. I hate bullying, and have since my childhood over a half a century century ago. But even accused bullies are entitled to BLP protection. Perhaps List of suicides where an accused bully of the victim has been tried and convicted in a court of law for culpability in the death might pass muster. Otherwise, no. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
      • BLP doesn't apply outside Wikipedia. This is a novel interpretation that I've never heard before. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Just because a person's name is only given outside Wikipedia doesn't mean that BLP is being applied outside Wikipedia, if the on-Wikipedia information is enough to uniquely specify the person. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Which entry provides enough on-Wikipedia information to uniquely identify a specific person? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
            • It doesn't need to be in the Wikipedia article itself, as dubious references in the article contain this information. It is a package. For example, the last current reference in the article is to a blog on HuffPo with a title of "His Name Was Steven: A 13-Year-Old Victim of Bullycide", which lists Steven's parents by name. Since when are blogs "reliable sources" for calling something "bullycide"? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
              • @Cullen328: I'm sorry, but I've tried to figure out what you're saying. Let me get this straight. You're saying that WP:BLP doesn't apply outside Wikipedia, but the only way to know that this is a BLP violation is to look at websites outside Wikipedia, and that the BLP violation is somebody's parents don't know the name of their own child is? Seriously, if there was a bona fide BLP violation, it should be easy to explain. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. It is impossible to get a complete list of those who died and even harded to find confirmation on their reason for suicide. This could unleash particularly bad BLP problems. I could see some minor controversy sprining up where some individual or journalist looks at Wikipedia for a list of bullycides and copies down the information, only for others to be outraged that someone else was or wasn't included. As the article implies it is a complete list with certainty in the causes of death, it cannot be considered reliable. Marechal Ney (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I just added {{Dynamic list}}, so people will know it will likely never be a complete list.--Auric talk 16:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete for many of the stated reasons, including BLP issues. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • @Niteshift36: What exactly are the BLP issues? It's difficult to understand what your objection is without explicit details. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• There are plenty of examples of issues cited already in this discussion. I've given my reason and know that I will not convince you otherwise, so I don't intend to waste time trying to. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

  @Niteshift36: I'm not asking you to convince me. I'm asking you to tell us what the BLP violation is. So far, there have been several !votes which have claimed BLP violations, but no one has been able to explain what the supposed BLP violation is. If you don't know what the BLP violation is either, there's little more we can do here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Your assumption that I don't know what the violation is just because I don't choose to entertain your request is condescending and also ignores that fact that BLP was not the only reason I said delete. Next time you speak to me, AGF. On second thought, don't bother speaking to me because I won't respond to your baseless insinuations any longer. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• The BLP violation is the accusation that the bullies are culpable for these deaths. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• @Stuartyeates: Which entry claims such an unsourced accusation against a specific person? And if one such entry exists, why does that mean that the entire article should be deleted? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• The reliable sources referenced for each entry and the information in the linked to Wikipedia articles for these cases say bullying was the cause. Dream Focus 06:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Factually incorrect - see for instance Suicide of Amanda Todd, which clearly states that the investigation into the causes of her death is ongoing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Read the rest of that article. She told everyone it was because of bullying before she killed herself. There is no reasonable doubt about that. That article is categorized as Category:Bullycide, Category:Female suicides, Category:High school students who committed suicide, Category:Victims of cyber-bullying, category:Suicides by hanging in Canada, and Category:Suicides in British Columbia. Dream Focus 17:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• We do not base Wikipedia content on what you consider 'reasonable doubt'. As for the categories, we should probably get rid of them too, but that isn't what is being discussed here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• We based it on what reliable sources say, and all the news coverage said it was because of suicide from bullying. Dream Focus 17:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• It was because of suicide? I don't think that anyone is disputing suicide was the cause of death. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• I meant to say "suicide from bullying". Fixed that now for clarity. Dream Focus 22:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• And on what policy-based-grounds should we ignore the source that states that there is an ongoing investigation into the causes of Todd's death? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• The article list the various things that happened to her with references to reliable sources. She mentioned these things in her YouTube video. Those things are clearly acts of bullying. Dream Focus 23:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• And how exactly does that justify ignoring a source that states that there is an ongoing investigation into the causes of Todd's death? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• @Niteshift36: Ummmm...wow. Asking someone to explain what the BLP violations are is "condescending" and a failure to "AGF"? Seriously?? Wow. Honestly, I don't know how to respond when you won't tell us what the problem is. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep this article. at least in the form I find it this morning. The concept is highly notable and likely to become more so especially in terms of the "cyberbullying" concept and means of online interaction so prevalent in our times. My strongest objection to the article is the titular term "bullycide" itself in terms of some of the arguments above (perhaps need to add a caveat regarding the legal critcism of term); however, it is consistent with the article so named and I'm not sure I could come up with a better term. While more arguments for the delete side cite BLP, the arguments of the keep voters seem more thoughtful & nuanced, which to me makes it more or less a wash, but vigilant watchers of this article must ensure that it does not exceed its current, restrained, scope. Boogerpatrol (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete: There are about 29 things wrong with this pbp 02:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we could change the disclaimer which Auric added, to read: "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness or common human decency. You can help by nuking it from high planetary orbit, and periodically returning to check that the ashes have not reanimated."? Begoon ^talk 05:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Long, complicated discussion above. Ultimately, I don't see how this article is workable. Bondegezou (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

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.

-- edit conflict

• Comment -- The most important principle here, in my opinion, is that we don't delete articles on valid, notable topics, even if we consider the current state of those articles weak. Instead we try to improve them. In my opinion, since reliable sources have been paying more attention to bullying, to suicides triggered by bullying, have commented that there seems to be an alarming increase in bullying, and in suicides triggered by bullying, articles that cite those reliable sources can be written, that fully comply with all our policies. Geo Swan (talk) 10:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment -- The tragic events triggered by the bullying of Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons, two recent Canadian deaths on this list, were (1) covered very extensively; and that coverage extended to drawing parallels with similar cases, and commentary on the broader issues -- therefore, in my opinion, if those individuals had somehow survived, we would not consider BLP1E applying. Geo Swan (talk) 10:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

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) 22:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Rosalyn Wild

Rosalyn Wild (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)

A bit tenuous, especially the claim to be notable for being a passenger in a shopping cart! Another editor has also raised notability concerns. Though Wild was a finallist in the Britain's Kindest Kid competition, the other awards are only from a local charity. Being only very local in nature, I don't think the news coverage is substantial enough to meet WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talkin' to me?) @ 22:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (barney) @ 22:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Did she take part in designing the cart in any way or was she just a passenger? If she was just chosen to be the passenger then I think that sort of downplays her part in the record. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not finding much, but this article from a local paper seems to suggest that she didn't actually do anything than get chosen at somewhat random to ride in the cart. The people who look to have gotten the actual award from Guinness seem to be the store owners. I don't think she's actually listed as the record holder on Guiness, but I'll check there as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. The awards are all local and the world record isn't actually held by her, but by the Tesco company itself. The official Guinness page doesn't even mention her, just the Tesco company. I don't mean to make her sound like her local achievements aren't wonderful, especially for a teen her age, but she hasn't done anything that would really make her pass notability guidelines at this time. She won a contest to be a passenger. She didn't design the cart itself and that's really the only thing here that would really count towards notability guidelines- although I don't think being a Guinness record holder is something that we keep an article for on that basis alone. I look forward to her future achievements and I hope that one day she does pass notability guidelines so she can be re-added. Until that point though, this is a delete from my end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete' - Seems to be fine upstanding teen; the type that may find a way to make a significant impact in the future. Her accomplishments to date a laudable, but not sufficient to meet inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

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. would be SK#1: nom withdrawn, but there is a deletion argument (albeit rejected) (non-admin closure) czar · · 19:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Mixel Pixel

Mixel Pixel (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, no third party references, written like a PR puff piece. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as per CSD:G11, tagged as such. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I have removed that Speedy notice. This is an article about a US-based band originally contributed by an active editor who appears to be New Zealand based, which suggests that at the least it is not unambiguous advertising or promotion per G11. As to the article itself, as can be seen from the references, the band has a biographical article on Allmusic and reviews (albeit brief) in reputable newspapers. Whether that is enough to confirm notability, I am dubious, but it does suggest that AfD is the right place for that discussion/decision. AllyD (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

---

• Keep http://pitchfork.com/artists/2966-mixel-pixel/ [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] 86.42.93.209 (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep and withdraw nomination: looks like I was wrong and there is ample material to establish notability. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

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. LFaraone 00:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Alexis Houston

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Alexis Houston
• Articles for deletion/Alexis Houston (2nd nomination)

Alexis Houston (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 my field, but this accepted afc submission does not seem to meet either the GNG or any of the criteria for music. The earlier AfD closed unanimously as de;lete. If I'm wrong, tell me, & I'll withdraw the AfD . DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (state the obvious) @ 22:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (confer) @ 22:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - Still has the same problems the previous version had. I find no reliable source that supports notability, and I'm inclined to think that this article has been created to support a hoax. The photo is also overdue for deletion due to unanswered licensing issues. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 12:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

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. LFaraone 00:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Go Promotional

Go Promotional (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 in-depth secondary sources establishing notability, no significant coverage. 2 of the 4 sources are their own press-releases, another source does not mention the subject at all. The first source is a press release by another company, which hardly seems objective either. Crispulop (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete -- Looks to me like a NN advrtising agency. Notabilitry is not inherited, so that having notable clients confers no notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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. This should be a editing issue, not an AfD one. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

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. This should be a editing issue, not an AfD one. Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

1528 in India

1528 in India (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 scope for improvement and finding reference better to remove all articles in 1500 series and create a new one like 1500-1600 In India if necessary. Benedictdilton (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (barney) @ 23:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep of course there is room for growth--actually great room for growth, because our coverage of Indian history is still rather sketchy. Even if we did merge, we'd merge to decades, not centuries. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep this and all similar articles nominated for deletion as these have good potential to grow over time. India was/is a large country and surely there would be a number of notable events across India in those eventful years in its history. Shyamsunder (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Merge all to 1520s in India. There is not likely to be enough content for annual categories at such a remote period. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Merge all to Timeline of Indian history. These are all stubs and even jamming ten of them together will still result in a larger stub. Why create an amalgamation article when one already exists? Yes, these topics can grow. But it makes more sense to start building at the Timeline article and break out portions as appropriate.Chris Troutman (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. There are a dozen similar (yet unbundled) articles at AfD with varying consensus. Bundling was specifically requested at the 1521 AfD. (AfDs: 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1526, 1527, 1528, ...) Not sure if an admin would be willing to combine the lot for the nom (or how that process would go) but no one has argued to consider these noms separately, nor to decide them separately. I recommend moving discussion to the first AfD (1500 in India) for the time being. czar · · 16:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Article has potential for development, and it can be developed as in the case of 1938 in Scotland.Rayabhari (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Honestly? 1938 in Scotland is a link farm stub; it should be deleted, too. "Potential for development" is not legitimate criteria. Almost anything could have potential for development. Each entry is supposed to be developed in order for it to exist. Otherwise, articles can be userfied, put in the incubator, or put into the AfC process. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

"Potential for development" is legitimate criteria, policy in fact; see WP:PRESERVE as well as WP:BEFORE. Timeline/list articles like 1938 in Scotland have zero chance of being deleted. Don't confuse your personal preference with how you would like WP to be run with how it actually is. postdlf (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

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. This should be a editing issue, not an AfD one. Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

1524 in India

1524 in India (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 scope for improvement and finding reference better to remove all articles in 1500 series and create a new one like 1500-1600 In India if necessary. Benedictdilton (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (confer) @ 22:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Three important events are already there, and of course there is room for growth--actually great room for growth, because our coverage of Indian history is still rather sketchy. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Merge all to 1520s in India. There is not likely to be enough content for annual categories at such a remote period. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. There are a dozen similar (yet unbundled) articles at AfD with varying consensus. Bundling was specifically requested at the 1521 AfD. (AfDs: 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1526, 1527, 1528, ...) Not sure if an admin would be willing to combine the lot for the nom (or how that process would go) but no one has argued to consider these noms separately, nor to decide them separately. I recommend moving discussion to the first AfD (1500 in India) for the time being. czar · · 16:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • • Keep Article can be developed in the lines of 1938 in Scotland.Rayabhari (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

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. This should be a editing issue, not an AfD one. Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

1523 in India

1523 in India (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 scope for improvement and finding reference better to remove all articles in 1500 series and create a new one like 1500-1600 In India if necessary. Benedictdilton (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chatter) @ 22:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Two important events are already there, and of course there is room for growth--actually great room for growth, because our coverage of Indian history is still rather sketchy. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Merge all to 1520s in India. There is not likely to be enough content for annual categories at such a remote period. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. There are a dozen similar (yet unbundled) articles at AfD with varying consensus. Bundling was specifically requested at the 1521 AfD. (AfDs: 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1526, 1527, 1528, ...) Not sure if an admin would be willing to combine the lot for the nom (or how that process would go) but no one has argued to consider these noms separately, nor to decide them separately. I recommend moving discussion to the first AfD (1500 in India) for the time being. czar · · 16:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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. This should be a editing issue, not an AfD one. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

1519 in India

1519 in India (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 scope for improvement and finding reference better to remove all articles in 1500 series and create a new one like 1500-1600 In India if necessary. Benedictdilton (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (post) @ 23:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Two important events are already there, and of course there is room for growth--actually great room for growth, because our coverage of Indian history is still rather sketchy. The principle of WP is growth as more people edit. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Merge all to 1510s in India. There is not likely to be enough content for annual categories at such a remote period. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. There are a dozen similar (yet unbundled) articles at AfD with varying consensus. Bundling was specifically requested at the 1521 AfD. (AfDs: 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1526, 1527, 1528, ...) Not sure if an admin would be willing to combine the lot for the nom (or how that process would go) but no one has argued to consider these noms separately, nor to decide them separately. I recommend moving discussion to the first AfD (1500 in India) for the time being. czar · · 16:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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. This should be a editing issue, not an AfD one. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

1518 in India

1518 in India (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 scope for improvement and finding reference better to remove all articles in 1500 series and create a new one like 1500-1600 In India if necessary. Benedictdilton (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (post) @ 23:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep 2 important events are already there, and of course there is room for growth--actually great room for growth, because our coverage of Indian history is still rather sketchy. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Merge all to 1510s in India. There is not likely to be enough content for annual categories at such a remote period. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. There are a dozen similar (yet unbundled) articles at AfD with varying consensus. Bundling was specifically requested at the 1521 AfD. (AfDs: 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1526, 1527, 1528, ...) Not sure if an admin would be willing to combine the lot for the nom (or how that process would go) but no one has argued to consider these noms separately, nor to decide them separately. I recommend moving discussion to the first AfD (1500 in India) for the time being. czar · · 16:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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. This should be a editing issue, not an AfD one. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

1517 in India

1517 in India (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 scope for improvement and finding reference better to remove all articles in 1500 series and create a new one like 1500-1600 In India if necessary. Benedictdilton (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gas) @ 23:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep 2 important (albeit related) events are already there, and of course there is room for growth--actually great room for growth, because our coverage of Indian history is still rather sketchy. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Merge all to 1510s in India. There is not likely to be enough content for annual categories at such a remote period. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. There are a dozen similar (yet unbundled) articles at AfD with varying consensus. Bundling was specifically requested at the 1521 AfD. (AfDs: 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1526, 1527, 1528, ...) Not sure if an admin would be willing to combine the lot for the nom (or how that process would go) but no one has argued to consider these noms separately, nor to decide them separately. I recommend moving discussion to the first AfD (1500 in India) for the time being. czar · · 16:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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. This should be a editing issue, not an AfD one. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

1516 in India

1516 in India (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 scope for improvement and finding reference better to remove all articles in 1500 series and create a new one like 1500-1600 In India if necessary. Benedictdilton (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chinwag) @ 23:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• KeepOf course there is room for growth--actually great room for growth, because our coverage of Indian history is still rather sketchy. That an obviously important military commander is still a redlink shows the great distance we gave to go in this area. DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Merge all to 1510s in India. There is not likely to be enough content for annual categories at such a remote period. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. There are a dozen similar (yet unbundled) articles at AfD with varying consensus. Bundling was specifically requested at the 1521 AfD. (AfDs: 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1526, 1527, 1528, ...) Not sure if an admin would be willing to combine the lot for the nom (or how that process would go) but no one has argued to consider these noms separately, nor to decide them separately. I recommend moving discussion to the first AfD (1500 in India) for the time being. czar · · 16:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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. This should be a editing issue, not an AfD one. Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

1514 in India

1514 in India (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 scope for improvement and finding reference better to remove all articles in 1500 series and create a new one like 1500-1600 In India if necessary. Benedictdilton (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (whisper) @ 23:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep As with the others, several important events are already there, and of course there is room for growth--actually great room for growth, because our coverage of Indian history is still rather sketchy. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Merge all to 1510s in India. There is not likely to be enough content for annual categories at such a remote period. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. There are a dozen similar (yet unbundled) articles at AfD with varying consensus. Bundling was specifically requested at the 1521 AfD. (AfDs: 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1526, 1527, 1528, ...) Not sure if an admin would be willing to combine the lot for the nom (or how that process would go) but no one has argued to consider these noms separately, nor to decide them separately. I recommend moving discussion to the first AfD (1500 in India) for the time being. czar · · 16:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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. This should be a editing issue, not an AfD one. Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

1513 in India

1513 in India (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 scope for improvement and finding reference better to remove all articles in 1500 series and create a new one like 1500-1600 In India if necessary. Benedictdilton (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (rap) @ 23:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Three important events are already there, and of course there is room for growth--actually great room for growth, because our coverage of Indian history is still rather sketchy. This was in my opinion a very ill-conceived series of nominations. Better to look for things to add then to complain that they haven't been added. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Merge all to 1510s in India. There is not likely to be enough content for annual categories at such a remote period. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. There are a dozen similar (yet unbundled) articles at AfD with varying consensus. Bundling was specifically requested at the 1521 AfD. (AfDs: 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1526, 1527, 1528, ...) Not sure if an admin would be willing to combine the lot for the nom (or how that process would go) but no one has argued to consider these noms separately, nor to decide them separately. I recommend moving discussion to the first AfD (1500 in India) for the time being. czar · · 16:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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. This should be a editing issue, not an AfD one. Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

1512 in India

1512 in India (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 scope for improvement and finding reference better to remove all articles in 1500 series and create a new one like 1500-1600 In India if necessary. Benedictdilton (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (barney) @ 23:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep All of these articles are expandable, and undoubtedly will be, as we get decent coverage of these topics.~
• Merge all to 1510s in India. There is not likely to be enough content for annual categories at such a remote period. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. There are a dozen similar (yet unbundled) articles at AfD with varying consensus. Bundling was specifically requested at the 1521 AfD. (AfDs: 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1526, 1527, 1528, ...) Not sure if an admin would be willing to combine the lot for the nom (or how that process would go) but no one has argued to consider these noms separately, nor to decide them separately. I recommend moving discussion to the first AfD (1500 in India) for the time being. czar · · 16:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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. This should be a editing issue, not an AfD one. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

1511 in India

1511 in India (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 scope for improvement and finding reference better to remove all articles in 1500 series and create a new one like 1500-1600 In India if necessary. Benedictdilton (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk) @ 23:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Of course there is scope for expansion--we probably have covered the history ofIndia to about 10% of the depth we've covered Europe. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Merge all to 1510s in India. There is not likely to be enough content for annual categories at such a remote period. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. There are a dozen similar (yet unbundled) articles at AfD with varying consensus. Bundling was specifically requested at the 1521 AfD. (AfDs: 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1526, 1527, 1528, ...) Not sure if an admin would be willing to combine the lot for the nom (or how that process would go) but no one has argued to consider these noms separately, nor to decide them separately. I recommend moving discussion to the first AfD (1500 in India) for the time being. czar · · 16:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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. This should be a editing issue, not an AfD one. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

1510 in India

1510 in India (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 scope for improvement and finding reference better to remove all articles in 1500 series and create a new one like 1500-1600 In India if necessary. Benedictdilton (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (state) @ 23:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep as explained above sufficiently, If there's any field we are drastically incomplete, it's non-European history! DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Merge all to 1510s in India. There is not likely to be enough content for annual categories at such a remote period. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. There are a dozen similar (yet unbundled) articles at AfD with varying consensus. Bundling was specifically requested at the 1521 AfD. (AfDs: 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1526, 1527, 1528, ...) Not sure if an admin would be willing to combine the lot for the nom (or how that process would go) but no one has argued to consider these noms separately, nor to decide them separately. I recommend moving discussion to the first AfD (1500 in India) for the time being. czar · · 16:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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. This should be a editing issue, not an AfD one. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

1505 in India

1505 in India (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 scope for improvement and finding reference better to remove all articles in 1500 series and create a new one like 1500-1600 In India if necessary. Benedictdilton (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (speak) @ 23:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Four important events in this one. How many would the nom think sufficient to justify these articles? DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep This has ample potential. Why delete it. Shyamsunder (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. There are a dozen similar (yet unbundled) articles at AfD with varying consensus. Bundling was specifically requested at the 1521 AfD. (AfDs: 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1526, 1527, 1528, ...) Not sure if an admin would be willing to combine the lot for the nom (or how that process would go) but no one has argued to consider these noms separately, nor to decide them separately. I recommend moving discussion to the first AfD (1500 in India) for the time being. czar · · 15:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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. This should be a editing issue, not an AfD one. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

1508 in India

1508 in India (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 scope for improvement and finding reference better to remove all articles in 1500 series and create a new one like 1500-1600 In India if necessary. Benedictdilton (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (warn) @ 23:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep as above. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Merge all to 1500s in India. This will need a headnoite that it relates to the decade, not the century. There is not likely to be enough content for annual categories at such a remote period. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. There are a dozen similar (yet unbundled) articles at AfD with varying consensus. Bundling was specifically requested at the 1521 AfD. (AfDs: 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1526, 1527, 1528, ...) Not sure if an admin would be willing to combine the lot for the nom (or how that process would go) but no one has argued to consider these noms separately, nor to decide them separately. I recommend moving discussion to the first AfD (1500 in India) for the time being. czar · · 16:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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. This should be a editing issue, not an AfD one. Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

1507 in India

1507 in India (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 scope for improvement and finding reference better to remove all articles in 1500 series and create a new one like 1500-1600 In India if necessary. Benedictdilton (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (constabulary) @ 23:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Only one so far, but there is room for growth--actually great room for growth, because our coverage of Indian history is still rather sketchy. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Merge all to 1500s in India. This will need a headnote that it relates to the decade, not the century. There is not likely to be enough content for annual categories at such a remote period. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. There are a dozen similar (yet unbundled) articles at AfD with varying consensus. Bundling was specifically requested at the 1521 AfD. (AfDs: 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1526, 1527, 1528, ...) Not sure if an admin would be willing to combine the lot for the nom (or how that process would go) but no one has argued to consider these noms separately, nor to decide them separately. I recommend moving discussion to the first AfD (1500 in India) for the time being. czar · · 15:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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. This should be a editing issue, not an AfD one. Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

1506 in India

1506 in India (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 scope for improvement and finding reference better to remove all articles in 1500 series and create a new one like 1500-1600 In India if necessary. Benedictdilton (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (shout) @ 23:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep As before. These series of articles are well established. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Merge all to 1500s in India. This will need a headnote that it relates to the decade, not the century. There is not likely to be enough content for annual categories at such a remote period. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. There are a dozen similar (yet unbundled) articles at AfD with varying consensus. Bundling was specifically requested at the 1521 AfD. (AfDs: 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1526, 1527, 1528, ...) Not sure if an admin would be willing to combine the lot for the nom (or how that process would go) but no one has argued to consider these noms separately, nor to decide them separately. I recommend moving discussion to the first AfD (1500 in India) for the time being. czar · · 15:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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. This should be a editing issue, not an AfD one. Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

1504 in India

1504 in India (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 scope for improvement and finding reference better to remove all articles in 1500 series and create a new one like 1500-1600 In India if necessary. Benedictdilton (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (converse) @ 23:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Five this time. This is certainly enough, so I gather the nom has some objection to these articles, regardless of content. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Merge all to 1500s in India. This will need a headnote that it relates to the decade, not the century. There is not likely to be enough content for annual categories at such a remote period. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. There are a dozen similar (yet unbundled) articles at AfD with varying consensus. Bundling was specifically requested at the 1521 AfD. (AfDs: 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1526, 1527, 1528, ...) Not sure if an admin would be willing to combine the lot for the nom (or how that process would go) but no one has argued to consider these noms separately, nor to decide them separately. I recommend moving discussion to the first AfD (1500 in India) for the time being. czar · · 15:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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. This should be a editing issue, not an AfD one. Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

1503 in India

1503 in India (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 scope for improvement and finding reference better to remove all articles in 1500 series and create a new one like 1500-1600 In India if necessary. Benedictdilton (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (post) @ 23:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

kk That there are two red links for kings here, indicates how sparse our coverage is, and the great possibilities for expansion. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Merge all to 1500s in India. This will need a headnote that it relates to the decade, not the century. There is not likely to be enough content for annual categories at such a remote period. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. There are a dozen similar (yet unbundled) articles at AfD with varying consensus. Bundling was specifically requested at the 1521 AfD. (AfDs: 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1526, 1527, 1528, ...) Not sure if an admin would be willing to combine the lot for the nom (or how that process would go) but no one has argued to consider these noms separately, nor to decide them separately. I recommend moving discussion to the first AfD (1500 in India) for the time being. czar · · 15:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• Merge all to 1500s in India, per nom and Peterkingiron. When (and if) that article becomes large enough, we can start spinning off. RS either exist, or they don't; expansion is only possible when it's...well, possible. Miniapolis 14:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

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. LFaraone 00:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Following the Red Asphalt Road:Zombie Apocalypse The Musical

Following the Red Asphalt Road:Zombie Apocalypse The Musical (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 about a book with no independent sources. A self-published book where the article is written by the books author. Fails WP:NBOOK in all. Ben Ben (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete I had placed a Prod notice on this article with the rationale "No evidence that this self-published book meets the notability criteria." The Prod notice was removed in order to bring the article to AfD; I'm not sure why? But no matter, as per my Prod rationale, I see no notability here. AllyD (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry Ally, this wasn't my intention. Had the article for a few minutes on my screen before I tagged it for AfD. Don't know, why I didn't get a warning from Twinkle.--Ben Ben (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete self published book, with no holdings in worldcat. I have just speedy deleted the article on the author as A7, no indication of significance; we can't do it here; but perhaps we can regard it as G11promotion for the book. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The intention of this article was surely promotional, without a doubt.--Ben Ben (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Someone might also want to look into the image in the article as well. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 18:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete and probably snow close as this doesn't have a chance of surviving. This is pretty obviously an attempt at promotion, but the article is just neutral enough reading to where I don't think we can give it a mercifully swift end via speedy. There are no sources out there that would show notability for this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

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. SK#1: nom withdrawn, no deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar · · 19:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Victoria Park, Los Angeles

Victoria Park, Los Angeles (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, independent sources. Citations go to a historical society. This is simply a small, gated community which can be Redirected to the larger neighborhood of which it is a part—Mid-City, Los Angeles. In fact, one of the graphics is already used there. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The venue is certainly historic, but it can be successfully covered as one of the topics within Mid-City, Los Angeles, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep The article seems fine and covers a bigger area than one far away might imagine. I seem to have started it back in 2009 in order to remove a redlink from National Register of Historic Places listings in Los Angeles, California, which identifies places by neighborhood. The Mid-City, Los Angeles article also properly links here, as it does to other separate neighborhood articles including Lafayette Square, Los Angeles and Wellington Square, Los Angeles. I suspect Mid-City neighborhood is bigger than many cities and counties elsewhere in the United States, and bigger than many U.S. territories and several countries, even. And, this article and the other ones are long enough articles already that they do not seem appropriate to merge into the Mid-City article. If the deletion-nominator wishes, they could add more to the Mid-City article about this neighborhood, but this article will still have more, and should be kept, IMHO. --doncram 17:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that Mid-City is bigger than 50 or more countries, and that Victoria Park is bigger than 10 or more countries (see List of countries by population).... --doncram 17:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Administratively close and re-list with the proviso that either it be re-listed with all of the neighborhoods in Mid-City, Los Angeles or that it be re-listed on the condition that if it can demonstrate notability at least to the degree as the most-deficient non-listed neighborhood in Mid-City, Los Angeles then it should not be deleted. On other words, don't pick on this neighborhood without being fair and dragging in the other neighborhoods to face the same scrutiny. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Wellington Square, Los Angeles and Lafayette Square, Los Angeles are two such neighborhoods that have Wikipedia articles.

• Comment: Many large cities have articles about neighborhoods large and small. In general, the questions raised at AFD should be 1) are neighborhoods in this city considered "presumed notable" much in the way that cities themselves are? This is going to vary from city to city. 2) If not, are there any particularly notable neighborhoods that should be excluded from deletion? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't fault GeorgeLouis for his neighborhood AfD nominations, although I take your point. The problem is that Los Angeles real estate agents manufacture neighborhoods like con-men manufacture gold bricks. The question is not whether real neighborhoods are notable, it's whether some neighborhoods are real at all. Many of them are not.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly a notable neighborhood; the National Register of Historic Places does not list its properties as being located in insignificant neighborhoods. References could be improved and I'll see what I can do. --MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I added a couple of references showing that both the Los Angeles Times[14] and the City of Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Commission[15] believe the neighborhood to be real and significant. --MelanieN (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep It was sufficiently recognized as a separate neighborhood in the 1920s to have organized its own streetlight design, which in Los Angeles is sufficient unto itself for conferring notability:

Virginia Comer (2000). Streetlights. Princeton Architectural Press. pp. 34–. ISBN 978-1-890449-10-0. Retrieved 25 May 2013.

And Roy Campanella slept there!

Neil Lanctot (8 March 2011). Campy: The Two Lives of Roy Campanella. Simon & Schuster. pp. 366–. ISBN 978-1-4516-0649-2. Retrieved 25 May 2013.

Finally, although I find it hard enough to follow the surveyerese to be 100% certain this is the same neighborhood, it seems to be mentioned in the amended city charter of 1913 (do a find on the page for "Victoria Park") as one of the delimiting landmarks of the city boundaries. I'm not 100% sure but I'm 99% sure. The language makes it clear that they're talking about a neighborhood Southeast of the intersection of Santa Monica Blvd and Seward Street and also adjacent to Crenshaw, which seems right. Thus it's real, thus it's an inhabited place, thus it's notable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarification When I said "inhabited" --> "notable" I was making a shorthand reference to WP:NGEO. I'm sorry if this wasn't clear to all.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment To add to and support Doncram's hunches above about the size of this neighborhood: the Mid-City community, of which Victoria Park is a part, houses 10% of the population of Los Angeles,[16] in other words 10% of 3,800,000 or about 380,000 people. If Mid-City were a country it would rank 176th by population, out of 242 countries - larger than Bahamas, larger than Iceland. That 380,000 figure suggests that all neighborhoods of Mid-City hold (at a minimum) tens of thousands of people, maybe hundreds of thousands. I'm tempted to remove the word "small" from the lead sentence. These neighborhoods are "small" only by Southern California standards. --MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Mid-City has 55,000 residents. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Your source is cited to the city planning department. My "10% of LA's population" quote is sourced to the city planning director - in a written report, no less. Your 55,000 figure is almost certainly correct; one wonders what the planning director was smoking. OK, so 55,000 people brings the Mid-City community in at # 208 out of 242 countries, just behind Greenland. My point and Doncram's stands: these are BIG communities by almost any standard. --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing that there is more than one meaning of "Mid-City" at work. Just try to figure out the difference between at the least two meanings of "West Los Angeles" and about sixty of "Westside".— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per all of the lovely people who already advocated the keep. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep As with the other comments. I'm a little puzzled at the nom complaining that the citation go to a historical society. That's exactly where citations for articles on historically important things go DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Riposte: I agree with DavidWR. The question is whether this Mid-City article will be continue to be relegated solely to the ghetto of Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles and Oki's Dogs and public transportation, which is snobbism at a most depressing level. ‪Wellington Square, Los Angeles‬, Victoria Park, Los Angeles, and Lafayette Square, Los Angeles, are as much a part of the Mid-City environment as the Crenshaw Light Rail Line, and people who read the Mid-City article should be made aware of that. There is precious little substance to the three subsidiary articles (much of it WP:Original research), like this one, but what there is could be trimmed to the essentials and easily placed into the Mid-City article where they belong. As for the citations to historical societies, OF COURSE a historical society will bend over backward to say that a particular place is Notable, particularly when it makes money from its home tours, when a truly neutral source would scratch its figurative head in puzzlement. Wikipedia readers, particularly Mid-City readers, deserve better. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, even though I would like to keep this article. I think that DGG's remarks are founded in a lack of understanding of the incestuous relationship between historical societies and real estate agencies in Los Angeles. For LA neighborhoods, historical societies certainly cannot be considered reliable sources in general. I think that the best solution would be a level 2 subsection in the Mid-City article with a {{main}} link to the article under consideration, because, unlike many made-up neighborhoods in Los Angeles, this one seems real.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That Mid-City article makes me want to reconsider the use of the LA Times mapping LA project as a reliable source. MelanieN's larger number is almost certainly referring to the proper Mid-City. Ah, but what have we to do about it here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

About historical societies: It's true that a local or neighborhood historical society (like the one cited here) can pass along unreliable information and can take a promotional attitude toward the neighborhood. At the time of nomination the only references in this article were from a local historical society; IMO they were insufficient to establish notability, so I can see why the article was nominated for deletion. Reliable Sources have been added to the article since then. I think DGG was talking about region-wide historical societies, such as the Los Angeles City Historical Society or the Historical Society of Southern California; such societies and their journals are generally Reliable Sources as well as establishers of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Related article which I just nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craftsman Mansion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Withdrawing nomination. With some severe editing and the new sources, the article seems to be just great for Wikipedia, provided a nice reference is made to it in the Mid-City, Los Angeles article, which I intend to do very shortly. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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 · · 19:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Paolo Vietti-Violi

Paolo Vietti-Violi (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)

Unsourced essay that doesn't accurately explain the importance of the subject. Would take a complete rewrite to fix this. Falkirks 14:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: needs sources, and appears to be an imperfect translation of the long-established Italian Wikipedia article (with section headings added and the order of some of the text juggled), but appears to be notable. PamD 19:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, the article was nominated for deletion 25 minutes after its creation and 15 minutes after the last edit by its creator. The subject is clearly notable and easily sourcable, as shown by the same sources later added to the article. It would be more useful trying to explain to the editor which are the differences between Italian Wikipedia and English Wikipedia than starting a deletion discussion. Cavarrone (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strong keep - The article was nominated for deletion much too soon, as Cavarrone points out, and after sufficient editing is clearly notable. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep The article prose and references definitely need work (I did some, as have others, but there is a lot to be done), but the individual himself appers sufficiently notable. It would be good to get WP:RS for honours etc. but that is symptomatic of his lifespan preceding online resources. AllyD (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. An article, not an essay, and being poorly written is not a criterion for deletion. Apart from anything else, he was a Grand Officer of the Order of the Crown of Italy, the second-highest grade of that order, which I think definitely qualifies as "a well-known and significant award or honor" per WP:ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Absolutely no reason to delete this.--Ipigott (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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. LFaraone 00:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Swindon Spitfires Women's and Girls' F.C.

Swindon Spitfires Women's and Girls' F.C. (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)

PROD contested with rationale "appear to have played in national cup" - however, not only is that claim not currently backed up by any reliable sources, I do not think it makes this club notable, especially when it so comprehensively fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 12:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete According to their websites history, they have only played in regional leagues. The cup they won was the Southern Regional League Cup. Periglio (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - Absolutely not notable. – PeeJay 23:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - non nontable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete -- We do not generally allow articles on amateur sports clubs playing only in local leagues. If they may have participated in the early rounds of the FA Cup, it would only be at a level where they were competing against other amateurs, not the later stages where the professional League cluibs join in. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - If it's true that they were founded in 1967 they are one of the oldest existing women's football clubs in England and must have been among the first 40-odd to affiliate to the Women's Football Association in 1969. In Wendy Owen's book they were listed among 86 participants from England & Scotland in the 1971–72 WFA Cup, or 'Mitre Challenge Trophy' as it was then. They were in regional group 8 with all-conquering Southampton WFC. I haven't found much else yet but the suggestion that they are not notable because they play at a low level now isn't very convincing.

I suppose you could make an analogy with the male clubs who competed in the early days of the men's FA Cup. Many of those play at a low level now (or are defunct) and their articles seem to be only referenced with pretty trivial, list-of-stats-type sources. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you've said if it's true shows that we are unable to verify even the most basic facts about this club. GiantSnowman 13:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

At least some of us are trying to. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Trying but failing. GiantSnowman 15:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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 does appear to be a consensus that this article is too vague, or at least could be replicated by a category. Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

List of climbing areas

List of climbing areas (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 supposedly a list of climbing areas. But what it consists of is a mostly unreferenced list of areas that may or may not have Wikipedia articles where climbing may or may not have occurred. The articles linked are not to climbing areas insomuch as cities/towns where climbing occurs, which to some extent is pretty much everywhere. The articles listed very rarely (in ever, I didn't find even one on a small, random sample) even have anything written about climbing. A list of climbing areas may be a notable list, but the list that is currently present would have to be trimmed to near nothingness and re-written from scratch. A better solution would be to simply delete the current list and let someone start over. Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep This list has been developing for nine years now. The nominator wants to delete it and start again. But we can tell that he's not going to be the one doing this work as there was nothing stopping him just getting on with it immediately by editing the article. The idea seems to be that some mind-reading, clever climber is going to stop by and rebuild all this again. But who's that going to be once you've annoyed all the existing contributors by deleting their work? I've got a better idea — let's just improve the page as it stands. Per the parable of the stone soup, I have just tossed a rock into the pot. Warden (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• That's not a valid WP:SK reason. I have trimmed the list (to zero entries) based on your suggestion though. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Your action demonstrates the frivolous nature of your nomination. See WP:SK#2 Warden (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sure the closing admin will give this !vote the weight it deserves: zero. The same amount of weight all the rest of your AfD votes should be given. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Nathan Johnson, you just removed everything without checking. I hade a quick scan of the article and I think around 10-15 links are to articles describing climbing areas. That means that indeed most of the artickel should be trimmed away but also that there is enough left to keep the article.Nico (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah. Just making a WP:POINT and being a WP:DICK. If someone hadn't restored it quickly, I would have. What criteria did you use to justify that 10-15 articles describe "climbing areas". Just looking at the list items, some should be about climbing (imho), but actually the climbing parts are minusculely small. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - Actually, despite the ideas that this can be built again, and the debating going on about that, I would argue that this list is not notable enough per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Unless the articles linked were specifically those about climbing, and they're not, not to mention the large amount of red links that possibly indicate original research, I don't think a list of just areas for climbing is discriminate enough to have a list. I think it would be akin to having a list of every swimming pool in the world, or something of that sort. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 23:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please see Swimming venues by country for an extensive tree of categories and lists which cover places people can swim. Your example therefore demonstrates the appropriateness of doing something similar for climbing. Warden (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• That's a category, not a list. Category:Climbing areas already exists. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I have just reverted a blanking of the article. This is not a reasonable thing to do during an AfD discussion. Whether or not an article is justified can be best judged if people can immediately see the article DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: The current list is too open-ended and needs some constraints. Perhaps start with the requirement for a climbing guide from a reputable publisher, as mentioned on the climbing area article. Praemonitus (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep after removal of all areas that do not have an article on WP, or at least a whole section on climbing in the article of the place.Nico (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 3, 2013; 19:16 (UTC) 19:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete per WP:CSC; too few bluelinks and refs. Category:Climbing areas already exists, and lists don't need to duplicate categories. Miniapolis 00:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

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/withdrawn (non-admin close). Stalwart111 13:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Press Play On Tape (2nd nomination)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Press Play on Tape
  • Articles for deletion/Press Play On Tape (2nd nomination)

Press Play On Tape (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)

has been deleted before and this just seems to be a mirror of that page (it is in fact a complete duplicate, even retaining its old talk page). I cannot see any new sources establishing notability (just a few press notices about music events that mention them). Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - The Berlingske and Independent sources, to my knowledge, haven't been used before. But the most important thing is that I have systematically examined the sources and found at least three nontrivial ( significant) sources about this band and have indicated such on the talk page. The Independent and CNN could also be labeled significant, making it five. In the previous discussion the editors failed to examine the sources in depth. I am also awaiting word on a 2012 German article to see if it is significant. Plus there is a journal article which may count as another one. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Significant means more then a paragraph in an article about the subject. Also youtbue is not RS (as has been said before). At lest one of your other sources may be very dubious. I shall take that to RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

So Berlingske, TV2, and Computerworld all have over a paragraph, making it three. I'll check definitions. The journal article has a discussion on RSN. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:Notability defines it as ""Significant coverage" 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.[1]" so look at CNN and the Independent. They discuss aspects of the band in a manner above a trivial mention. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to check them because I have not heard of them. I am also having trouble finding your Computerworld source in the article. I have checked and Berlingske and TV2 appears to be good sources.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.computerworld.dk/art/41324/commodore-64-melodier-hitter-paa-youtube is Computerworld WhisperToMe (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems we have some notable mentions, I withdraw the AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus here is that working on songs that receive Grammys is not sufficient for notability. J04n(talk page) 22:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Kenneth Lewis (mix engineer)

Kenneth Lewis (mix engineer) (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)

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

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

Can't find any good sources; this certainly fails WP:GNG. I'm not sure what other guidelines would apply here. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails GNG and notability isn't inherited. The article gives the impression he's won a ton of Grammys, but his name doesn't come up in the Past Winners Search. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep I brought this to BLP because the article was a COI mess, but multiple sites support the Grammy claims--the question is whether enough of them qualify as reliable sources. Article still needs fumigation. 71.241.206.249 (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. His own blurb on his own website states "I’ve earned credits on 12 Grammy Winners, 64 Gold & Platinum albums and singles, 41 #1's, and 34 Grammy nominations." (bolding mine) Notice he himself doesn't claim to have actually won or even been nominated. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay; as is clear from my contributions to the article, I'm not invested on his behalf. But even the lesser claim may be worth something, especially if he's prominently mentioned in multiple reliable sources. If none of those turned up in the Google 'Grammy' search above qualifies, then deletion will be merited. 71.241.206.249 (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    • (Same user as 71 IP above)...though I voted keep, I'm tired of a WP:SPA that continues to remove the AfD template from the article, adds copyright violation text, and is generally trying to use this as a press release. If the article is kept it'll require editing and oversight to keep COI fingerprints away. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Note: 2thumbsupllc posted a few links to the article talk page:

  This one is on a school's website: http://www.berklee.edu/bt/173/alum_beat.html This is one of the biggest websites in korea: http://www.allkpop.com/2012/06/kanye-wests-mix-engineer-ken-lewis-participates-in-jo-kwons-solo-album Discog is the main website for credits: http://www.discogs.com/artist/Ken+Lewis Is another Credit Website: http://www.allmusic.com/artist/ken-lewis-mn0001206039

No comment, just passing it along. LFaraone 05:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• KeepI really don't know how to use this lol but I found him on the grammys on the page http://www.grammy.com/nominees you will see that both singles by FUN has his credits on there. Thats 2 credits and I can do a past search and find about 5 more if I need to :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.64.3.120 (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

— 174.64.3.120 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete The person doesn't claim to have won Grammy's, just to have mixed songs that have won grammy's. However although he certainly exists, he doesn't particularly meet the notability guideline fully. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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) 11:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete The body of work does not meet notability level. Stormbay (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable, should be deleted. Koala15 (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep The article can certainly use some work, but that's beside the point. He is named on Grammy nominations, ergo Grammy think he is a significant contributor to the recordings nominated, ergo I think he meets notability criteria. Bondegezou (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG (only passing mentions and unreliable sources) or WP:BAND (I think it's a misreading of #8 to think it applies to every single person who's played a role in the creation of a Grammy-winning song or album). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Subject does not meet WP:CREATIVE (never found those Grammy noms for him specifically; while songs he's mixed may be notable, that notability is not inherited). Uaudio "interview" source is corporate site hawking its wares. Miniapolis 17:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

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 Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters. I have suggested a merge target; a more suitable one may be appropriate. Certainly from the wright of argument here, there is consensus that such an article is not sufficiently well grounded in policy to stand alone. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Plant creatures (Dungeons & Dragons)

Plant creatures (Dungeons & Dragons) (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 Dungeons & Dragons article is entirely sourced to primary and affiliated sources (D&D game books and officially licensed publications, and books authored by D&D writers) and thus fails our notability guideline. Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't feel so strongly that I'm going to suggest keeping this, but I wonder if having this quite in-universe article (basically a list) avoids having articles for each of the creatures included therein. Thoughts? Stalwart111 10:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Your comment has merit, of course, but this is already a sub-list of creatures that goes too much in-depth, considering WP isn't supposed to cover all of the D&D trivia. Lists have merit and that's why we already have huge lists mentioning every single D&D monster that exist, and we frankly don't need this kind of sub-lists that go too much into the details of creatures. Lists only work with the highest common denominator for which we can more easily find external coverage, that's why I'm fine with with global monster lists per game/edition, but not merely per in-universe criteria (like "creature type").Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, fair enough. I suppose I'm torn between the fact that there are sources and the fact that the sources seem to all be in-universe. But I also think whoever created the article could just have easily created articles for each creature. They haven't, and this is better than that. But possibly not much better. I think I'll refrain from !voting for now and will wait to see what others have to contribute. Stalwart111 12:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, this article was created in 2009 as a merge target for AfDed creature article. While I completely understand your reasoning, this shows, in my opinion, a gradual upward movement (from individual creature articles to creature type articles, to per edition lists) that corresponds to the strengthening of notability requirements and standards for fiction over the years. I just think it is time for another upwards movement, seeing this article has been tagged for notability and PRIMARY for almost a year, and that as of now it's more of an accumulation of plot summaries than a proper list, and it doesn't have more encyclopedic content that the individual non-notable articles it is made of. Your contribution made me realize I'm heading more for a merge to one of the lists at Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters than outright deletion, so maybe I could scrap this AfD and propose a merge for all these creature type "pseudo lists" instead. What would you think about that ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't think the deletion rationale is invalid, but that does seem like a sensible solution. It's here now, might as well let people talk about it. Tell you what, I'll kick the discussion off... Stalwart111 14:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Merge as appropriate to lists listed at Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters. List. Ha ha. Stalwart111 14:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Many of the individual plants were apparently merged here because they individually fail to satisfy WP:GNG. But the list also fails to satisfy the same criteria. Is there not one of these that can demonstrate notability? Praemonitus (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters and other related lists as appropriate, per Stalwart111. BOZ (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Nomination statement is no longer true, which suggests that other sources likely also exist, meaning that WP:BEFORE was not followed sufficiently well. Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Wrong. The source just added to the article, Dungeons & Dragons For Dummies, was published in 2005 and authored by Bill Slavicsek and Richard Baker, respectively Director of Roleplaying Game design and writer at Wizards of the Coast until 2011 ([17] "Bill Slavicsek [...] leads the creative effort for Wizards of the Coast. Richard Baker is a game developer and author of five Forgotten Realms novels."). Wizards of the Coast being the copyright-holder and official publisher of Dungeons & Dragons, the source, written when both authors were full-time WotC employees, cannot be seen as "independent of the subject" as is required by our notability guideline, and cannot grant notability to the topic. Besides, it only mentions the subject in passing and doesn't allow to build an encyclopedic article. I thus can't see how this could possibly suggest the existence of multiple secondary, unaffiliated and significant sources. Given that AfD comments must be based on policy and evidence and not on speculation, I urge you to rectify your comment, because my nominations is still perfectly valid, but I will rephrase it to cover your observation.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Once again, you insist on a level of independence that is simply not possible to meet for writing about a trademarked fictional element. Thankfully, the level of independence required by policy is quite a bit lower than what you would prefer. Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
      • The level of independence required by WP:GNG "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator." "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability." It doesn't set any kind of exception for fictional elements.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
        • • even if the "level of independence that is simply not possible to meet for writing about a trademarked fictional element." WAS a valid descriptor/exception - its not, there is no "if independent third parties do not exist than it is allowable to use works by closely related parties to establish notability" exception / ITICCDMPRIPR, this still fails the other vital portion of notability significant coverage. a two line passing mention is the poster child of "trivial coverage" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep or merge if we must. What strikes me about this article is that the list is quite incomplete (c.f. Monster finder) and that there is a lot information missing about the entries that are there. There are many secondary sources out there, such as D&D Monster Finder, D&D Wiki and the d20 SRD; D&D Monster Finder has content under fair use and D&D Wiki has some community content transferred with permission of WoTC, but no commercial licensing as far as I can tell. So they seem independent of WoTC. While these aren't news organizations or academic publishers, I don't doubt the fact checking by passionate D&D enthusiasts is better than most news organizations. Although they may not fit the traditional WP mold of a RS, I'd be comfortable with considering them reliable, especially with primary sources available to do our own fact checking. If by consensus such list sources are not considered notable, creating individual articles for each notable monster type may be the way to go. A merge the information, per WP:PRESERVE, would not be my first choice, but would be acceptable. --Mark viking (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, places like the D&D Wiki are community-created and don't count as reliable sources. We need to find sources with editorial oversight. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep and use to merge individual pages into it, keeping reasonably sized descriptions. Lists like this are the way to go for material of this sort, and is the usual consensus method. in an article, the individual parts of it need not be notable. In fact, if they are, we should have individual articles on them in addition to the list, or instead of it. DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I can't seem to find your policy-based reasoning for keeping the article. It was nominated because it fails WP:GNG, so where is the significant content from multiple independent sources required to keep it ? Individual parts need not be notable, but the article in itself needs to be, and "Plant creatures" is not. We already have List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters (and other broad lists) to merge individual pages, and you fail to demonstrate the need for more in-detail/in-universe lists. Consensus, on the contrary, seems to limit the number of lists with too narrow/in-depth scope such as this one (see for example House Do'Urden, recently merged to List of Forgotten Realms characters...).Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. One of many D&D articles currently completely lacking in independent reliable sources; in this case I don't think there's any evidence that such sources exist. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• delete fails WP:42 the basic requirement for a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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 via G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 11:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Jaylen D Bledsoe

Jaylen D Bledsoe (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)

Spammy article about young entrepreneur who while he may be vaguely interesting falls way short of the notability criteria for biographies and business people. Biker Biker (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• This has been repeatedly created and deleted (though not after an AfD that I can see) at Jaylen Bledsoe. If kept, it should be moved to that title. But, since the coverage appears to be too local in nature to show intellectual independence from the subject per WP:BIO, this should be delete. The source with more in-depth coverage also does not list an author, bringing its reliability into question too. VQuakr (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

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 and salt--Ymblanter (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Abdullah Kunde

Abdullah Kunde (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 was prodded, but the prod was removed by an IP and more unreliable sources inserted. The two remaining sources don't seem to pass WP:RS either, but I'm not sure. The only other sources found are either polemical Muslim-Christian debate sites or Youtube videos; no news stories of any kind. Fails WP:GNG, not to mention WP:Notability (people). MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that this article was already created and speedily deleted twice before per this page...what's going on? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete and salt. Not a notable character per media sources.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 18:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Query: you guys are referring to WP:SALT? I just found this now. It appears that the previous versions I linked to above had a little diacretic mark above the letter "e" in "Kunde" which may have allowed the creator to jump around the deletion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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. LFaraone 00:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

MonoGame

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

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

Challenged CSD. No indication of importance. SpinningSpark 00:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 01:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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) 00:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

---

What is the rationale for deleting this article? I disagree with the deletion. Ar-Pharazôn (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Spinningspark nominated this article for deletion because they believe it lacks significance to be in an encyclopedia. See WP:GNG for guidance. Also, feel free to bring forth references and give arguments as to why this article should be kept. That's what this discussion area is for. Regards, JamieS93 07:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JamieS93 07:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

---

MonoGame has been published in books, featured in game development magazines, and been a subject of popular podcasts. It is used in critically acclaimed games like Bastion and Fez. I see plenty of significance and disagree with the deletion. Tspilman (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep : has acquired enough references since nomination to establish notability. Dcxf (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

---

MonoGame is the spiritual successor to the Microsoft XNA framework, since the retraction of support by Microsoft it has become the leading choice for XNA developers as a forward facing platform with even more reach than is predecessor did. It now enables a true multi-platform experience for developers using Managed Code which is seen by most indie and new developers to be the easier path to development without all the fuss and worry of memory management and C++ languages. Just by being the successor to Microsoft XNA, MonoGame has earned it's place in the history books as a show of defiance by the community to not let such a fantastic platform die and even expand on the original idea that was XNA SimonDarksideJ (talk) 11:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

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 - obviously pointy nomination from an editor since blocked for an obvious username violation, and co. (non-admin close). Stalwart111 14:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Carl Person

Carl Person (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 man is not notable. He does not deserve a Wikipedia article of his own. Bill Still and Leroy Saunders were deleted, and this one should be too. Carlfuckingperson (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2013‎ (UTC)

• Delete there doesn't appear to be any reliable sources outside blogs and his personal website. NO mention of what qualifies Person for an article. DogsHeadFalls (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2013‎ (UTC)

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/withdrawn (non-admin closure). Stalwart111 10:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I Know What I'm Here For

I Know What I'm Here For (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 WP:NOTABILITY Unreferenced Flat Out let's discuss it 06:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator - article expanded and referenced by Michig. Flat Out let's discuss it 08:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Weak keep / Redirect to Millionaires (album). Although it is unsourced, the song may be notable as it "reached number 22 in the UK Top 40 singles chart"[18] and "was used by Ford in their adverts shown during broadcasts of the UEFA Champions League in the 2007/2008 football season." Considering reliable references may exist about the song,[19] or mentioned in reviews about the album,[20][21][22] it can be expanded if somebody puts a little of work. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. I have expanded the article using what I found from a quick search. Further coverage will certainly exist in print sources from the time of its release. --Michig (talk) 07:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

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. LFaraone 00:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

List of Monarchs of the United Kingdom by previous title

List of Monarchs of the United Kingdom by previous title (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)

Redundant information already listed in respective monarch's article. It is mainly a trivia article. Contested proposed deletion, though no reason was provided for the objection to the deletion. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete This article has an interesting history, and it seemed to have been created as an analogue of List of Presidents of the United States by occupation, and there is another for List of Presidents of the United States by other offices held. If that was the thinking, it shows a lack of understanding of the nature and purposes of royal titles in modern times. True, only five of them had been Prince of Wales (Geo. IV should be included), but that is because the title is not awarded to the female heir or the brother of the monarch. We could compile lists by name (the regnal name is not necessarily the name they previously used), by residence, or various other categories, but it has no more significance than those. Trivia, and an unlikely search term. --AJHingston (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per the above. The articles about American presidents are not comparable in that American presidents have a variety of paths to election, while this article is about a narrow set of titles received, sometimes automatically, via blood line.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete -- The only useful content relates to the cases where a king inherited from his brother - William IV and George VI. George III similarly has the rather silly statement that he was King of GB. The 1801 Act of Union changed the consitutional relationship with Ireland, but changed the extent of the realms where he was king not a jot. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I removed the PROD tag. Perhaps in the List of British monarchs page nots can be added to what the relevant monarch's title was at succession. In that case, this article would be redundant. Ohwrotcod (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the reasons that some of us are dismissing this as trivia is that these things are not really given much significance, and those who want to know are much better off referring to the article page for that individual. Cluttering the List of British monarchs page would not add value - it is not an important part of their identity as monarch. A glance at the relevant page of the official website of the current Prince of Wales will show how unimportant these things are - he is PoW as a matter of custom because he is eldest son of the monarch and heir to the throne and other titles are not even listed out. His mother was Duchess of Edinburgh because her husband was created Duke of Edinburgh on their marriage; she was already heir to the throne and it didn't mean that she changed status except insofar as she was then married and started a family. --AJHingston (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

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. LFaraone 00:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Act of War: MUD

Act of War: MUD (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 the test for WP:N. A Google search does not demonstrate "Significant coverage". All sources are primary not secondary. Coverage is not "Independent of the subject" with the only real info on the subject coming from the site itself. Article created in response to entry removal from a DAB. Hutcher (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 03:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG present in article, none apparent on a basic source review. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

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 under criterion G6, and Knob Mountain (Page County, Virginia) returned to the base name with a hatnote to the Montana mountain. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Knob Mountain

Knob Mountain (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)

Only one bluelink; a disambiguation page is not needed. ^King Jakob _C2 00:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and then move Knob Mountain (Page County, Virginia) back to this title, where it was originally. A dab page can be recreated if at least one other article is ever written. 69.95.203.139 (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy G6 and move the article back. Dricherby (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Scott Brown (chaplain)

Scott Brown (chaplain) (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 only independent sources I could find covering the subject in detail were this article from Christian Today and this article from Portsmouth News. I don't think this is quite enough to satisfy WP:BASIC. The other source in the article is a primary source from the Royal Navy and therefore can't be used to prove notability. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. The Chaplain of the Fleet ranks "with a Rear-Admiral", according to Circular 371, dated 1850(?). This 1975 London Gazette article lumps "Permanent or Pensionable Officers of Flag and General Rank and the Chaplain of the Fleet" together, which implies that hasn't changed. This satisfies WP:SOLDIER #3. He may also pass #4. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per a clear pass of WP:SOLDIER #3, as mentioned above. And the idea that a Royal Navy source can't be used to prove notability is totally wrong. StAnselm (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

  It looks like you are both right about WP:SOLDIER #3 and that this will be kept, yes. I'm not sure about your second point, though - this is a source written by the subject's employer, which means it isn't independent of the subject. We don't consider such sources for the purposes of judging whether subjects pass WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. Perhaps you mistook my comment to say that we couldn't use the source to verify the subject's rank? I'm guessing that you wouldn't find my comment so objectionable if I had used "WP:BASIC" instead of the word "notability". — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, in any case - feel free to withdraw the nomination. StAnselm (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

EDUCANG

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/EDUCANG
• Articles for deletion/EDUCANG (2nd nomination)

EDUCANG (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 organisation now defunct no WP:RS found. Last AfD in 2006 Paul foord (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Paul foord (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Paul foord (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• 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 25. Snotbot  t • c »  00:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete. I tried to find sources a while ago but came up with nothing. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete The activities of this entity do seem to have given rise to a notable case in terms of Australian rights concerning unfair dismissal judging from these articles from Aug 2006 & Sept 2007 (via Highbeam, sub. reqd.). However that is secondary to the subject itself about which no real evidence of notability is found. AllyD (talk) 05:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails even the most basic requirements for notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Per above. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 18:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely fails WP:GNG. - tucoxn\^talk 21:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to List of V for Vendetta characters. (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Valerie Page

Valerie Page (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)

Low notability character, coverage in RSes is minimal and not of the character in specific. Best option might be to merge into List of V for Vendetta characters. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Merge per nom, per WP:ATD, and per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storm Saxon. Jclemens (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 00:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

---

• Merge into List of V for Vendetta characters as per the above. Information on her from the comic and film can appropriately be incorporated into that list.  Gong show 15:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Merge per above. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 18:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Merge - with List of V for Vendetta characters per above. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Bondegezou (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

100% Love (2012 film)

100% Love (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable according to Wikipedia:Notability (films)

• The film is not historically notable
• The film has not received any major award

Solomon7968 (talk) 07:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. I had to dig, but I found some reviews and articles about the film. It's light, but just enough to pass notability guidelines for films. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment I am sure that you got reviews for the 2011 Telegu film of the same name. Can you provide citations of the reviews to clarify? Solomon7968 (talk) 09:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The TOI and Indian Express articles mention director Ravi Kinagi and star Jeet, so they're the right film. The India Glitz and One India articles are for a different film. So maybe more references are needed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 00:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

---

• Strong keep It is a mainstream Bengali feature film, starring major actors/actresses, and made significant business. Easily meets WP:GNG. For comparison, it is equivalent to a Hollywood movie from a major studio, and making significant business. Of course the article will gain with more references. Use this customized search for Indian English Newspaper search. --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Very notable film with notable music as well. It was heavily overshadowed by the Telugu film of the same name, but the Telugu industry is also bigger.Pectore^talk 18:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

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_Doctor_Who_audio_plays_by_Big_Finish#The_Companion_Chronicles. LFaraone 00:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Tales from the Vault

Tales from the Vault (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 source citations, no evidence of notability. My proposed deletion tag was removed by an IP editor without explanation, so I am now bringing this to AfD. Bondegezou (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• delete: no reliable sources, no way to verify the existence of that radio show --Rubyface (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect to List_of_Doctor_Who_audio_plays_by_Big_Finish#The_Companion_Chronicles. I managed to find one review, which got my hopes up, but there just wasn't any other coverage that I could find that showed that this is notable. It's a valid redirect to the overall page for the Big Finish audio plays, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

  Comments: Rubyface, just to explain, it's not a radio show, it's an audio drama released on CD for purchase. Tokyogirl, I have no objection to a re-direct (if this AfD decides not to keep the article). Bondegezou (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 00:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

---

• Redirect to what Tokyogirl said (too lazy even to copy-and-paste today). öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Article needs some work, but can easily be brought up to standard without hassle. AfD tag seems premature. Ohwrotcod (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect to List_of_Doctor_Who_audio_plays_by_Big_Finish#The_Companion_Chronicles as per Tokyogirl79. No evidence of notability. That or merge all Companion Chronicles to a single page? StuartDouglas (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

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 Adobe Creative Suite. Black Kite (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Adobe OnLocation

Adobe OnLocation (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)

Delete for lack of software notability under the general notability guideline, lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, lack of coverage in third-party sources, previously proded (September 2011‎), and merger suggested by DGG instead, no one thought it worth the trouble. Two essays may give food for thought: Wikipedia:Notability (software) and Wikipedia:Software notability. --Bejnar (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• merge If nobody else took the trouble, you could have done it yourself instead of coming here--its really pretty obvious. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to see if any one was interested, and they weren't. No comments in a month on a talk page that was otherwise active. I could have done a hack job on a merge, but I don't know the software. The more I thought about it, the more I thought that even a redirect might be more than it deserved, less than a footnote in history. It is not my area of expertise, and I'll bow to people who know more. --Bejnar (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete as lacking independent sourcing. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: trivially easy to demonstrate NOTEability, like this, this, this and this. All of these are well known widely read international magazines or similar. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 00:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

---

• Merge into Adobe Creative Suite. Even with sourcing, I would say there's not enough to warrant an article. A mention in the Creative Suite which it was packaged with, however, wouldn't be a bad idea. Red Phoenix ^{build the future…remember the past...} 23:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

UNDUE refers to a particular POV being pushed, and demonstrating UNDUE generally requires edits as a fix. I don't believe UNDUE is an argument for AfD, nor do I see any evidence that it applies to this case anyway. Can you be more specific as to why you believe UNDUE would override a demonstration of NOTE in this case? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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 soft delete. J04n(talk page) 22:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Team Spirit (film)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Team Spirit (film)
• Articles for deletion/Team Spirit (film) (2nd nomination)

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

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

Include Team Spirit 2 in the nomination. The articles have only 1 unreliable source, and the original nom was up for 3 weeks and no one found any sources so I think this should be deleted now. Also recommend against a merge to All Stars (film) as it is also unsourced, and possibly non-notable. BigPimpinBrah (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: This mentions Team Spirit. This from De Standaard is an interview with the director. I think this is a review of the film. (Both De Standaard links are paywalled.) I'm suspecting most of the coverage for this film will not be in English-language sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: There are quite a lot of reliable sources for its existence and relevance. For example the public broadcaster in Belgium referred to Team Spirit to point out where readers would know an actor from [23] in 2012. There is an interview with the director about the two Team Spirit movies here [24] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinfix (talk • contribs) 10:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: As in the first AFD, I will refrain from opinion until we hear from Wikipedians able to search for reviews in French, Dutch, or Flemish, for this 13-year-old non-English film. And again, as the article tells us this is a Flemish remake of a Dutch film, it might be sensible to redirect to a "remake" section in the article about the Dutch film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 00:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete. I searched for sources in French and Dutch/Flemish and nothing substantive came up. There are some interviews of director Jan Verheyen when the films came up, but those I could access are more about the director than the movies.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

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.