Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 November	17 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to United States Senate election in Texas, 2014. Only keep !votes were by SPA users with obvious COI issues, leaving a consensus to redirect. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Stovall[edit]

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

Candidate for office who does not meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN – Muboshgu (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This candidate is challenging well known Texas Senator John Cornyn, just like Ted Cruz challenged David Dewhurst in the 2012 US Senate Race in Texas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvyoral (talk • contribs) 03:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC) — Lvyoral (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not a valid reason to keep. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There ought to be some information, based on reliable sources, which suggests that Stovall is well known in Texas. There is no such information in the article right now. Ratemonth (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate election in Texas, 2014. Appropriate and relevant information about the candidate can be placed here. A redirect to a page about the election is an appropriate outcome for candidates for national office. WP:POLOUTCOMES. Enos733 (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is important for this candidate to be publicized as Ted Cruz and David Dewhurst were during the 2012 election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WyattCS (talk • contribs) 01:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC) — WyattCS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not a valid reason to keep. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the comparison is not apt, since David Dewhurst was Lt. Governor of Texas at the time of the race and Ted Cruz was previously the Solicitor General of Texas. Both candidates met the requirements of WP:GNG before the election. Enos733 (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that too. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Candidate with no other notability. Publicising political candidates is not Wikipedia's remit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter Parents and the Media[edit]

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

Appears to be original analysis instead of an actual article with a clear subject. Seattle (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was A10 Speedy delete only hours before recreation by a different, new account. Talk page says it's a school project but I don't think WP is the place for this. --DHeyward (talk) 07:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete original research essay laden with opinion. Not appropriate even if sourced. -Nat Gertler (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR and NPOV issues abound. If they were addressed, we'd have an article that doesn't usefully expand on the existing helicopter parent article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 05:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, NPOV, and NOT. Helicopter parent should be able to absorb any media related interactions. Nothing appears salvageable as a merge. There is a plea on the talk page that this is some sort of project and the only two contributors are new SPA (so far) accounts. --DHeyward (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Engorgement[edit]

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

Unsourced dicdef, no sourcing found, just books that use the term in passing. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's far from being a great article but it has potential to be expanded. Even if not, it would need to remain as a disambig. violet/riga _^[talk] 23:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Potential to be expanded with what? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that it is anything more than a dictdef, much less a full-blown biology term, as indicated by its total lack of references. Also not a dab page candidate, as there is no Engorgement (band), Engorgement (film), etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a WP:DICDEF. Any potential content is covered already by the articles in the "see also." -- 101.119.15.13 (talk) 06:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of idioms in the English language. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't spill the beans (idiom)[edit]

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

Unsourced dicdef, no sourcing found beyond information in the game of the same name, or just passing uses of the term. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the comprehension of this idiom is the subject of extensive academic analysis and commentary. For example, see Metaphor and Thought; Understanding Figurative Language; Idiomatic Creativity: A Cognitive-linguistic Model of Idiom-representation; The Mental Corpus: How Language is Represented in the Mind; Introduction to Psycholinguistics: Understanding Language; The Origins of Grammar: Language in the Light of Evolution, &c. Warden (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of idioms in the English language. I was going to suggest "transwiki", but Wiktionary already has an entry on this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as per NRP. - SchroCat (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't go beyond what I would expect to find in a dictionary. --Michig (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by CambridgeBayWeather as WP:CSD A9. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dana M. Haggard (album)[edit]

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

I am putting this up for AFD for the same reason TonyBallioni nominated 4 other Dana Haggard-related articles for deletion. Jinkinson talk to me 21:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as utter garbage. --Michig (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added this to the original nomination about two hours after I started it. I have been inactive for a while, so not sure if that is kosher, but I thought it would be fine given that it was so close to the beginning and that it was already a multiple nomination. In any case, if these stay as two separate entries, I am in favour of Deleting this article as well per my reasons in my Dana M. Haggard nomination TonyBallioni (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alpha and Omega (film)#Sequels. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha and Omega 3[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, no reliable sources at all. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 16. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect temporarily to Alpha and Omega (film)#Sequels per WP:NFF and as being slightly TOO SOON. Allow return once prnciple filming is confirmed and this project receives more coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per MichaelQSchmidt. Betty Logan (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bells (EP)[edit]

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

Doesn't indicate notability. Laun chba ller 21:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, not released to a widespread audience, not likely to be searched by many people if anyone. DJUnBalanced (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Friend[edit]

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

Nominating Lucy Friend AND Ben Loyd-Holmes.

Articles seem to possible vanity creations of User:Sarah Gallienne (the articles claim that Friend and Loyd-Holmes are partners). Friend is a make-up artist for a variety of UK-based films/TV shows article reads like a CV and there's nothing to establish notability. Loyd-Holmes's principal acting credit is Band of Brothers but seems to be one of those credits on imdb where the actor/agent has credited themself, rather than that appear in the credits themselves. Article claims his film is notable, but I can't find any actual credible results for the awards it claims to have won. HornetMike (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both for now - Multiple searches including Google News found no third-party coverage not even for her magazine features or Skyfall. Obviously, this is another case of a behind the scenes person that doesn't get much attention. Nothing appropriate or significant to improve the article. As for Ben Holmes, I found some minor interviews and blogs (Blogspot, etc.) but nothing appropriate and significant. This brief mention also lists some of his other work but, again, minor at best. I couldn't find anything for the Film Festival award especially considering that current reference is dead and unretrievable. However, I did find this (brief mention in a screen listing) and another brief mention. Aside form that, he's had the usual TV appearances with small and minor roles, nothing noticeably big. There's also no possibility of a redirect for both Lucy or Ben. No prejudice towards a future article. SwisterTwister talk 22:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION. Betty Logan (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks signifcant coverage in independent reliable sources. Lucy Friend can be confrmed to work on make-up and hair, but there's no coverage about that (I could not confirm the claimed coverage in Port Magazine), and there is no indication of peer recognition in the form of significant awards. Ben Loyd-Holmes is a working actor. No indication of notability from hi IMDB roles list, nor indication of significant awards. -- Whpq (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Skrillex discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skrillex Vinyl Box Set[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Doesn't add anything to Wikipedia as a whole and unlikely to be visited by many people. This is literally just a list of existing tracks compiled into a non-notable vinyl. DJUnBalanced (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serves no purpose to have it's own dedicated article.Idensai (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Skrillex discography which seems the best place for the details of a non-notable compilation album. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G4 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nike sponsorships[edit]

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

Unsourced list consisting merely of countries and their flags. Lacks notability, context and fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - Mr X 19:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for CSD:G4 since this article was previously AfD deleted. - Mr X 23:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Programs Broadcast By Sbx[edit]

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

Unsourced list lacks encyclopedic value per WP:NOTDIR. - Mr X 19:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, G3 applied Shows are part of network that doesn't exist, and all of the contributions of EstebanJals (talk · contribs) seem to be completely false and all the signs of a children's show hoaxer. Nate • (chatter) 23:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closer Apart[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) Tentinator 19:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NBOOK. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see any evidence of this book on the internet at all, so it looks to be a little too premature to add here. On a side note, I do think that there is a little bit of a COI here, as the name makes it seem as if they're editing on behalf of a publishing/publication company. I don't think that they came here with any ill will to promote, so while I've blocked them I don't have any problem with them userfying any of the data on the page if they so wished it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence given or found. Claimed in unblock request to be a test, so it mightn't exist at all anyway. Peridon (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable if it even exists. Lagrange 613 07:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coverage is not present to meet WP:NBOOK#Not yet published books. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otauli[edit]

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

Orphaned BLP that has been unsourced since 2006. A Google search found little beyond Wikipedia. Michig (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An Uzbek writer, unable to find much online. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bhangu Aman[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:GNG. I am unable to find significant discussion of this singer in reliable sources. The ~~Hindustan Times~~ Times of India article does not appear to be real. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 17:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page as it is the record label started by the above individual and also contains a newspaper link (Hindustan Times) that is likely fake:

I tried search on Google and Bing both and clearly founded that first link is official facebook profile then youtube channel, afterwards we may see all the links are from online digital stores like iTunes, Amazon, Spotify. So it clearly shows that this is valid artist. An article is also avaliable at Times of India and local newspapers published many articles on Bhangu Aman. --Bhangu Aman 18:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhanguaman2 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find significant coverage in independent sources. The supposed Times of India article used as a reference, looks very suspect and is a likely forgery. Abecedare (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a hoax. PhilKnight (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Liaquat Kii Watt[edit]

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

This is not an actual movie. This is article is made against Aamir Liaquat Hussain. The title essentially means "Insult of Aamir Liaquat. This is derogatory as well as non-notable. There has not been a movie of this name. Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tiwana[edit]

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

Nothing has changed since the prior AfD. It still fails WP:GNG, there are no sources and this should never, in my opinion, have been closed as "no consensus". Sitush (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - taking back to AFD two days after the last one was closed - really? Giant Snowman 16:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really. There is no reason to keep it and there are quite a few admins who would have deleted it as basically being an expired PROD. If this gets no interest then I'll (neutrally) mention it at WT:INB. There are a host of similar crappy articles knocking about and they'll all be nominated in due course: the effort of keeping them in order is disproportionate. - Sitush (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - though a potentially quicker/easier route would have been to ask the closing admin to re-consider their close. Giant Snowman 19:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True. I'd tried that in another instance and got knocked back (different admin). I'll have to trawl through my recent AfD stuff to find that one and go through the motions again. I'm also considering raising the general issue at VPP, something along the lines of "should unsourced stubs remain in situations where an AfD produces no reason to keep". Some admins do seem to keep as "no consensus", others to delete and the inconsistency seems odd to me. There really are heaps of these Indian surname/clan articles about, usually generated by new-ish contributors or based on lists produced by a caste association that do in fact merely list - no discussion of origins/etymology etc, nada. - Sitush (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your "unsourced stubs" comments - it might be worth proposing something similar to WP:BLPPROD (maybe WP:UNREFPROD?) whereby all articles without a reliable source are subject to deletion within 10 days - and unlike BLPPROD it would apply regardless to when the article was created. I'd fully support that. Giant Snowman 19:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting thought, thanks. I'd give them a bit longer than the 10 days used for BLPs but the principle seems reasonable. I've notified SarahStierch that I've re-nominated this article, stressing that I'm not trying to single her out here. - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're sweet Sitush! But don't fret, I have no emotional attachment to the article or the subject. :) SarahStierch (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussion at first AfD, which yielded no convincing arguments to keep. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not a notable topic. Giant Snowman 19:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I'm not even convinced it exists. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rúnar Rúnarsson (footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Has not played in WP:FPL. Fenix down (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promsing footballer that most likely will be notable in the future. But as of now, he hasn't represented his country at senior level or played in a fully pro league which means it fails WP:NFOOTY. I am also unable to find any coverage in reliable sources that would make him notable per WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Sources (now) clearly indicate notability, as suggested also by comments below, with thanks to all. Drmies (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VEGAS.com[edit]

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

This meets CSD A7 (in my opinion) but prior AFD makes it ineligble so I am restoring and bringing it here. Spinning Spark 13:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Longstanding highly prominent website. Examples of sources were provided in the last AfD. Another one is this 2003 New York Times article about the website and its business model. [1] The problem is that there's such a large volume of self-promotional material on the web that it drowns out the much smaller, but still substantial supply of bona fide RS sources. The same was true about the former, more detailed version of this page [2]--some substantial info and a lot of advertising content; unfortunately the useful info was cut out along with all the spam. This should get fixed, not deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why is this here again? I suppose the failure of the last nomination to close as a keep like the first is the blame. Yes, this is a promotional web site for a resort destination. So that is going to affect the content. Does that mean it fails A7 of course not. Nominator really should read the facts presented in the last nominations that failed to see what this one should also fail. If you have a problem with the content then fix it! AfD is not intended for article cleanup. Is anyone trying to say that this site fails WP:GNG? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a notable website, as shown by the New York Times coverage linked to above. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know about previous versions, I kind of assumed that the current version was the best version available, and the current version certainly has "no indication of importance" which is the A7 criterion. Spinning Spark 20:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Take a look at the version back in April, 2012, which was far longer and included many references to reliable sources. Yes, it was overly promotional, but instead of pruning judiciously, an editor chopped it to a stub. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current article does not really make any effort to establish notability, but the site is notable. Besides the NYT article above, I was able to locate several other articles on Google News. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. For source examples, see those that I've added to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done, Northamerica1000. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Goel[edit]

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

Mentions that I see about this writer are simply that, brief mentions. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a writer it falls under WP:AUTHOR (aka creative) which says a work they played a part in co-creating is reviewed in multiple reliable sources. He has written the story or screenplay for around 20 films[3] and those films have been reviewed. Some examples where he is directly mentioned in the review: [4][5][6][7][8][9] - though any film review will add to this list. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've seen most of those and now read all of them. They are all brief - no more than a sentence, some just mentioning that he is an author or co-author. None of them actually discuss him. I don't see them as meeting the criteria "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." which I assume is what you are referring to. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews of the movies are just like book reviews, they count as significant coverage of the author's work which is what WP:CREATIVE is about for all creative professions. The people who dream up the story and write the script have a significant creative role in a movie. We have over 400 Indian screenplay authors on Wikipedia (Category:Indian screenwriters). While it would be nice to have in depth biographical piece about this person it is not required, the bar for inclusion is not that high since he only needs reviews of his works (in multiple reliable sources) to pass CREATIVE. The links I provided above were just some that mentioned his name directly but even that is not required, just reviews of his works. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't like book reviews - a film is a joint creative process involving a large number of people, a book is normally a one or maybe two person effort. Many books don't get reviews, most films do. Every BLP in other fields where I've seen AfDs has failed if there hasn't been some in depth discussion of the person. Dougweller (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most major films are reviewed this is true, and creative applies to multiple people in each film who play a significant role.. director, lead actors etc.. so we end up with a lot of film related articles. But, for every film produced in the world there are probably 100+ books, so there are probably more book articles on Wikipedia than film in aggregate. Previous AfD failures are probably because participants are not familiar or comfortable with how CREATIVE works and tend to stick with the generic GNG/BASIC and not venture into the special notability guidelines. Each case is unique of course, if this person only had a few films I would have probably voted Delete but this is a late career writer with dozens of accomplishments. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:CREATIVE for the body and coverage of his notable works. Sources do speak about this screenwriter's works, (IE: "the trump card is its script (Shyam K. Goel, Shiraz Ahmed) that keeps you on tenterhooks till the very end" and "script (Shyam K. Goel) has several loopholes, with several questions left unanswered." It may be a weak stub now, but it serves the project that we allow it to remain and be improved over time and through regular editing. To Dougweller with respects, we do not expect sources praising his works to be primarily about the man himself. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said above, this seems very different to my experience where discussion of the person himself has been required. Looks like it is easier for a script writer to have an article than, say, a Yale professor. Dougweller (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges, Doug. I understand your point, but if that Yale professor's works had wide acclaim, he might qualify under CREATIVE as well. Best, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above discussion/sources. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination GreenCardamon has convinced me, but I will note that at the moment it has virtually no content showing notability, no sources, etc. What I did see in mentions was both praise and criticism, both belong in the article. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BN Publishing[edit]

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

Lack of WP:Notability. I can't find any coverage. Each of the 324 Google hits either mentions it merely as the publisher of a book that's the focus, or else it's found in something like "$32bn publishing". —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Publisher with small back-catalog of cheap mostly PD reprints. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Clark[edit]

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

I looked him up on the Internet, but could not come up with any reliable sources to verify notability. The only external link in the article is to his own website. Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: No indication of importance. Meets CSD:A7. Kolbasz (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article as it stands hardly rises above CSD A3: One sentence and his website link. But I am finding nothing beyond his website on multiple searches (Google, Questia, Highbeam, etc). Fails WP:ARTIST. AllyD (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article started out as a blatant advert and hasn't improved. --Michig (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The article in fact started out with a rather mundane life story, which was removed: the history refers to removing vandalism, but I suspect it was actually removing WP:OR or perhaps the whole creation was vandalism. The present stub provides no evidence of notability. Unless the article is improved during the AFD period, we should delete it. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It started out like this. It was vandalised by adding someone else's supposed life story. --Michig (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Secret ^account 16:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Murdock[edit]

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

Barely notable designer. This is part of a suite of probably paid advocacy articles by the same self declared representative of Kelly Baugher, creating a whole slew of WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT articles surrounding Ms Baugher, who is not notable, with quasi-notable and barely notable people. As with the others, fails WP:GNG. Fiddle Faddle 09:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably worthy of CSD#7 but since it is already here...JodyB_talk 16:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted. (Non-admin closure.) Alex^{discussion ★} 10:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UNIVERSITY Mandume YA Ndemufayo[edit]

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

Unacceptable WP:PROMO style, and content is probably copied from their website. Alex^{discussion ★} 07:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional and unencyclopedic in current form. 220 of ^Borg 08:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The place seems to exist, at least online, but only 7 hits on Google? Other than that this is one of the more ~~most~~ incomprehensible pages, esp. the lead, that I have seen in 4 years editing Wikipedia. I thought it might be a Google translation of website but http://www.umn-angola.org is still under construction. 220 of ^Borg 08:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recharge (magazine)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines - ie link to main info is by the company paid to launch/promote in 2013 ie http://garciamedia.com/blog/articles/precharge_the_renewable_energy_journal_gets_renewed_p quote: It is the third project launch for Garcia Media in 2013.

Other links were from primary sources, or blogs of employees. Remainder are a non-notable industry awards, and an association with a former CEO of a notable organisation, European Wind Energy Association, plus mentions of publications (single issue?) made for trade fairs -( NB have remove all primary and associated sources except garcia media info)

I couldn't find anything to show this new magazine is notable, though a web search is complicated by its common name. Prof.Haddock (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 05:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 07:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Randykitty (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hansel Munoz[edit]

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

Seems to be self-promotion. Couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nor notable actor, per WP:NACTOR, also I couldn't find external sources whatsoever linked to the subject. Alex^{discussion ★} 08:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - I can't find an original print for the Miami Herald article but even without it, I can tell he is not notable. Multiple searches including Google News found nothing for the Menudo shows and being a finalist out of 15 to join Menudo is not really noteworthy for an encyclopedia. I haven't found anything on the web yet for his planned EP. Basically, he hasn't had a noticeable big break in the industry. As always, no prejudice towards a future article if the time comes. SwisterTwister talk 21:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Russell (advisor)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and Gnews of substance. The references are for articles he has written and the film appears to be a vanity piece lacking independence. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book is unreviewed, nn author. The two TV show appearances are not enough to establish notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JxEE Lab[edit]

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

Spam.
Unreferenced.
No references exist.
Single-purpose account creator is User:Ioana.munteanu; a woman by the same name is "Business Analyst at JxEE Lab".
Case closed? - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no significance whatsoever WP:CSD#A7. Alex^{discussion ★} 07:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage found in multiple searches (Google, Highbeam, Questia) to indicate that this firm meets WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 10:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (T • C • B) 08:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adithya Srinivasan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NMUSIC. I originally PROD'd it for this reason, but it was de-PROD'd by the author (an SPA). Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but expand. The article is a stub currently but two of the references show what I would call significant coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, obviously notable per WP:MUSBIO as there's a significant independent media coverage, although pretty short but that's not a reason for deletion. Alex^{discussion ★} 08:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as G11

Dana M. Haggard[edit]

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

Non-notable artist that fails WP:MUSIC. None of the sources are third-party, and the article appears to have been created by the artist herself. The record label is used by beginning artists to publish albums, and the CMT link appears to be more of a social media link than anything else.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are non-notable songs/pages created by a non-notable artist

TonyBallioni (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only 26 Google results, many of which are on social media or are either this page or other pages created by TheDanaM. [10] Jinkinson talk to me 04:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note In interests of full disclosure there is a second article of "Look Over Me" that is identical to the one nominated here except without the period after the M. I nominated it for speedy deletion per CSD A10. ( See Look Over Me (Dana M Haggard song)) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating Dana M Haggard (album) for deletion in addition to the ones above. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, self promotion, no web coverage. Alex^{discussion ★} 08:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all five per nom. Sam Sailor ^Sing 15:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Alex. GregJackP Boomer! 00:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G11 and violating WP:SOAP Unambiguous advertising or promotion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DeKoven Street (Chicago)[edit]

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

Article is about a small, single block street that is used primarily used as a parking lot for the Chicago Firefighting Academy, the only structure on the street. Other than being the starting point of the Great Chicago Fire, there is no evidence of this street meeting WP:NTSR and Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Streets#Guidelines. Yes, it is mentioned in several books and newspaper articles, but they are all in reference to the fire. This seems to be a case of WP:NOTINHERITED as the street is only known due to the fire and just because it is named after a notable figure doesn't mean it is notable itself (if there was a small residential street named "John Adams Place" or "Benjamin Franklin Way," I highly doubt we would have articles on them). 24.146.209.22 (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nomination for the IP user, and am neutral. Ansh6 6 6 03:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be enough sourcing to justify an article. The fact that was the site of the start of the fire and is now obscure is interesting in itself. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSINTERESTING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Next thing you know people are gonna be hauling off Mrs. O'Leary's Cow. The Great Chicago Fire is a legendary part of 19th Century American history and this street as the epicenter of the fire meets any reasonable standard of importance. Not accidentally, the street is now the site of the Chicago Firefighting Academy. In short: it's a tourist attraction. Carrite (talk) 07:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:ITSNOTABLE. We don't go by "importance" for this sort of subject, we go by "notability". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Kitfoxxe and Carrite. Fitnr 18:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Great Chicago Fire. Notability is not inherited from either the fire starting there or the academy being located there, and beyond "the fire started on..." and "the Academy is located on..." the notability of this street is neligible. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Carrite. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Great Chicago Fire per Bushranger. This is a case of WP:NOTINHERITED since no one would know that this street even exists had the fire never happened. What is really so important about a a single-block parking lot? And I don't think it being the location of Firefighting Academy has anything to do with the fire. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per User:Burnhamandroot Having written a paper about the Great Chicago Fire years ago when I was in school, I have points I’d like to make regarding this topic that I hope will be useful to this discussion: First of all, I believe that the article should be allowed to stand on its own because the City of Chicago itself finds the street notable. If you look at old maps of the area, you’ll see that DeKoven Street was at the time it was laid out six times longer than it is today, extending at that time all the way from Halsted St. to Stewart (itself having been vacated at this location). The only portion of the street that remains is this section of it, which, for obviously historical reasons, has been allowed to remain. As a matter of fact, the city designated the site a Chicago Landmark in 1971, honoring it with a brass plaque and a large sculpture as the site of the origin of the Great Chicago Fire. The Chicago Fire Academy sits on the site today, and “The address by design is the same as where legend has it that Mollie [actually Catherine] O’Leary’s cow kicked over the lantern that started the great Chicago fire of 1871.” ^[1]. Mrs. O’Leary’s address of 137 DeKoven Street was converted to the current 558 when addresses in Chicago were unified in 1906, and the location of Mrs. O’Leary’s cottage is marked in the academy’s lobby. It should be pointed out that the origin of the fire is certain according to contemporary accounts, although the legend of the cow is likely not accurate. Regarding the question of outside sources on the subject, the Tribune itself has made nearly 300 references to the street since the fire, and finding references to it in books devoted to the history of the city are numerous. In my view, conditions in 1871 on DeKoven Street played a significant role in the fire’s ability to get a running start, and this article would be a good place to explore that question. At the very least, a picture of Mrs. O’Leary’s house would help immensely to make the point.

References[edit]

^ "Dedicate new fire academy in rite today". Chicago Tribune: b6. May 15, 1961.

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ProgPower USA[edit]

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

does not meet WP:GNG and there is not categfor a festival. Possibly WP:EVENT. The sources I could find were simply mentions of bands attending the festival or set-lists of bands at the festival. No significant coverage of the festival itself. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is significant coverage of the festival, such as THIS from Billboard magazine. This is a poorly sourced article, to be sure, but the duration of the event (more than a decade) and its place of importance to a specific musical sub-genre (prog rock) adds value to this piece, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 05:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. That discusses several festivals and ProgPower USA is only mentioned in paragraph 4. Maybe I'm missing it, but that's not significant coverage and it's only one. Still fails. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ProgPower USA is an internationally attended annual festival matched with international coverage, as the festival appears in numerous print media. Photographic examples of historical print media (dating back to its inception!) festival coverage can be seen here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenhartley (talk • contribs) 22:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Online 2013 festival coverage:

Mark Gromen, Bravewords.com - festival review

Frank Serafine, Metal Underground - Friday review

Carl Frederick, Metal Underground - Unearthing the Metal Underground

Blabbermouth - 2014 roster announcement

Blabbermouth - Ashes of Ares article

Frank Serafine, Metal Underground - Saturday review

Metal Injection photo gallery

Skullsnbones photo coverage of Armored Saint

Carl Frederick, Metal Underground - Thursday review

Frank Serafine, Metal Underground - Wolverine interview

Erika War, Rock Notes Webzine - quick fest review. (first timer perspective)

Bruce Kirkpatrick, thank you to Circus Maximus

Peavey provides backline

Matt Vicente, Lady Obscure

Frank Serafine, Metal Underground - interview w/ MYRATH

Frank Serafine, Metal Underground Ashes of Ares

Robert Kitay, 100% Rock Magazine festival review

Frank Serafine, Metal Underground Divinity Compromised

Additional press coverage of the festival:

http://theageofmetal.com/2012/09/ronnie-atkins-of-pretty-maids-talked-to-the-age-of-metal-at-progpower-usa-xiii/

http://theageofmetal.com/2012/09/diego-cafolla-of-kingcrow-checked-in-with-the-age-of-metal-at-progpower-usa-xiii/

http://theageofmetal.com/2012/09/georg-thomas-clementine-of-serenity-checked-in-with-the-age-of-metal-from-progpower-usa-xiii/

http://theageofmetal.com/2012/08/glenn-harveston-promoter-of-progpower-usa-checked-in-with-the-age-of-metal/

http://arizonametal.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/progpower-usa-xi-atlanta-ga-sep-10-112010/

http://www.theartofprog.com/?page_id=10

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/crimson-glory-comments-on-progpower-usa-festival-performance/

http://www.notesfromtheotherside.com/

http://floorjansen.com/blog/with-mayan-at-progpower-usa

Photo coverage:

http://www.artistxposure.com/tag/progpower-usa-x/

http://www.artistxposure.com/tag/progpower-usa-xi/

http://www.artistxposure.com/tag/progpower-usa-xii/

http://www.artistxposure.com/tag/progpower-usa-xiii/

http://www.artistxposure.com/tag/progpower-usa-xiv/

http://www.artistxposure.com/tag/progpowerusa-xiv/

http://esa.ahola.net/Live/ProgPowerUSA

http://www.stephenschmidtphoto.com/Galleries/ProgPowerUSA

http://www.atlantamusicguide.com/2013/09/12/picture-book-progpower-usa-xiv-center-stage/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.193.133 (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenhartley (talk • contribs) 00:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenhartley (talk • contribs) 23:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making my point. No coverage in reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable sources" are debatable, sir. These are valid, credible in the metal genre. The festival does not cater to mainstream media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenhartley (talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you happen to note above? https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150135072652943.304983.88398722942&type=3 If these magazines aren't reliable sources up to Wiki standards, please delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenhartley (talk • contribs) 00:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that, but lots of festivals have Facebook pages. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lots of festivals have Facebook pages, but not many of them can claim a decade of existence. ProgPower is one of the few, if not the only festival of this kind in the US. Due to the difference of media, you aren't going to see much in the way of discussion or advertising as you might with a festival like Wacken ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wacken_Open_Air ). With that in mind, I want to know what you are considering a reliable source, in this case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakchylde (talk • contribs) 01:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That which is described at WP:RS is what I consider to describe a reliable source.

Oddly enough, that's what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source too.

And lots of decades-old festivals do have Facebook pages. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Established festival with international coverage by domain-specific reliable sources (as shown by User:Jenhartley above). Kolbasz (talk) 13:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz the discussion is not whether or not the ProgPower USA festival has a facebook page, but rather said facebook page contains a photo album in which photographs appear of numerous print media (from around the world) with articles covering the ProgPower USA festival either on the cover or within. We plan to cite these sources on the wiki page revision. Jenhartley (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's different. It looks to me like many of the articles are not substantial though. Most of them are photos of bands that performed at the festival. One appears to be a self-published band biography and, well. I'd like to see the sources up close. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reliable sources we plan to cite within our revision include, but are not limited to:

Wagner, Jeff. Mean Deviation (book): Four Decades of Progressive Heavy Metal. Brooklyn: Bazillion Points Books, 2010. Print. Excerpt

Ollila, Mape. "Once Upon a Nightwish: The Official Biography 1996 - 2006". Torpinkyl, Finland: Deggael Communications Ltd., 2007. Print. Excerpt

Reesman, Bryan. "A Ride With Dream Theater's John Petrucci." Grammy.com, 09 September 2013. Web. 15 November 2013. Excerpt

Jenhartley (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are these mentions of extensive coverage? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reliable sources we plan to cite within our revision include, but are not limited to:

De Campos, Vanessa. "ProgPower USA IX Atlanta, 26th September 2008." Fireworks. March/April 2009: 77-78. Print. Issue 35 PHOTO

Gromen, Mark. "Onstage ProgPower VII." Metal Maniacs. February 2007: 108-109. Print. PHOTO

Devani, Sarjoo. "ProgPower USA VII." Explicitly Intense. 2006: 46-47. Print. PHOTO

Johnsen, Matt. "ProgPower 2.0." Metal Maniacs. August 2002: 96-98. Print. PHOTO

Johnsen, Matt. "ProgPower Fest IV." Metal Maniacs. March 2004: 85-88. Print. PHOTO

Popke, Michael. "A Progressively Metallic Power Play: ProgPower USA V Unfolds with Plenty of Surprises and Establishes itself as one of the World's Elite Music Festivals." Progression Magazine. Spring 2005: 71-74. Print. PHOTO

Johnsen, Matt. "ProgPower USA III." Metal Maniacs. September 2003: 99-101. Print.

Hicks, Taylor. "ProgPower USA." Rock N Roll. December 2012: 50-51. Print.

These 8 magazine print articles contain live reviews/coverage of the ProgPower USA festival. Jenhartley (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above significant coverage. Many souces, even if niche publications, appear to be anyway reliable. Cavarrone 06:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mozid Mahmud[edit]

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

Doesn't appear notable. The only relevant Google hit for most of his awards is this page, and searching for his name yields only user-generated content. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Bengali-language writer who is notable in Bengal. It would be onerous to require foreign sources (eg. United States, Japanese or Russian). Rather, multiple reliable Bengali-language sources cover this Bengal topic.

অভিনয়ে কবি মজিদ মাহমুদ, Dainik Destiny (Bengali newspaper)
"Poet Mahjid Mahmud" (Google translate), Bengala News 24 (Bengali news outlet)
মজিদ মাহমুদ (Google translate), BD News (Bengali news outlet)
মাছরাঙ্গার আয়োজনে কবি মজিদ মাহমুদ 2, TV discussion about Mahmud, and subsequent interview
অভিনয়ে কবি মজিদ মাহমুদ (Google translate), priyo.com (Bengali news outlet)
একটি সময়কালের মধ্যদিয়ে নিজেকে দেখেছি: মজিদ মাহমুদ (Google translate), BD Today 24 (Bengali news outlet)

I also found sources by Mozid Mahmud published in reliable sources (newspapers, journals), but did not include them here due to PRIMARY, but they add to the evidence he is someone known and published in Bengal. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - though my knowledge of Bengali is near-zero, I'm happy to accept those sources say what GC says they say. I would imagine if the nom knew about those non-English sources he might not have nominated this. Stalwart111 12:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Tan Boon Sin and Tan Chee Heong[edit]

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

Delete per WP:Event. A tragic double murder, but WP:NOTNEWS applies, wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. There are also WP:BLP issues, references backing up the alleged perpetrators other alleged crimes have expired on the website. Martin451 01:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Run-of-the-mill crime. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Routine murder case of no lasting significance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Core.onion[edit]

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

Deprodded by user who said, "Don't speedy delete! Core.onion was one of the important entry points to the Tor .onion network. Let's investigate more about notability." Importance not asserted beyond vague terms such as "long standing". No secondary sourcing found, just passing mentions in books that only verify that it exists, but give no other info whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:WEBCRIT, specifically point one. Searches for "Core.onion" do not yield "multiple non-trivial published works" about the subject. Seattle (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reason there is not an abundance of search results is that this is a Tor website, not a clearnet website. --dionyziz (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. You haven't said anything about why this particular site is notable. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough reliable sources that cover the site substantially. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of results out there in searches of books and academic sources. — Cirt (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any reliable sources (academic or otherwise) that discuss the subject in any detail. Fails WP:WEBCRIT. - Mr X 16:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. A frivolous nomination, easily rebutted by the discussion participants and by express guidelines. postdlf (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gambian politicians[edit]

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

we already have categories for politicians. And lists like this (imagine if we created for United States) would be forever excessively long LibStar (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NOTDUP, categories, list articles and navigation boxes are complementary. Also per NOTDUP, "Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lists and categories are not mutually exclusive. If lists get too long they can be split. --Michig (talk) 08:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In future the list could be improved with notes and references on the various people. It is a very suitable topic. It does not matter what would happen with a list of US politicians. Thincat (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As already mentioned, lists and categories are complementary, not mutually exclusive. Should we call this a WP:SNOW, or continue the discussion? Novusuna ^talk 11:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has various lists of American politicians[11], so I don't know what the proposer is complaining about. List of Irish politicians was kept in an AfD 2 years ago[12]; List of South African politicians was kept in 2009. Useful for listing entries on politicians in a country suffering from systemic bias. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Dedicate new fire academy in rite today". Chicago Tribune: b6. May 15, 1961.

[1]