Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 18 November 20 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Fullmer[edit]

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

As of yet this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. IMDB only lists one role. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:49, 19 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 22:50, 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 merge to Symbiosis Institute of Computer Studies and Research. Go for it! SarahStierch (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GNUnify[edit]

GNUnify (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 event? Most of the sources are blogs or primary ViperSnake151  Talk  22:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:50, 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) 00:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Etchells[edit]

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

Subject is shown to exist but does not appear to be notable. His art has not influenced anything, as far as it can be determined, and he does not appear to be notable as an academic. —Ryulong (琉竜) 22:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep yes the article looks conflicted, artists are difficult to judge but from what I can see from his contributions to the Guardian, and various authored books, he appears to be in the public eye and therefore notable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there a couple ways to approach this prolific artist. Probably the easiest is per WP:CREATIVE "played a major role in co-creating .. collective body of work, that has been the subject of .. independent periodical articles or reviews." Since Forced Entertainment has been around since 1984, it should not be difficult to turn up reviews of their theater productions. The most recent play is Tomorrow’s Parties (October 2013) written and directed by Tim Etchells with reviews in Counterfeit Magazine,The Stage, The Scotsman, The Guardian. This is just one play. BTW I restored the list of plays to the article which were deleted by the nom as "unimportant".[1] He has also written books which are reviewed: Modern Drama, New Theatre Quarterly etc.. he also seems have significant exhibitions, which is important for CREATIVE #4. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Forced Entertainment is not a notable entity. Also, the lists that were added to the article were horribly malformated.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So fix it. Did you even read WP:AfD? Because you don't seem to have considered how to improve the article or to have done any research to establish whether the subject is notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It reads like someone who is deeply involved or invested in the subject has been attempting to spruce up the article to inflate the presence of the subject in his field when he does not appear to meet WP:GNG at first glance, particularly because of the COI reasons.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is in reviewing and denying my Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Forced Entertainment that I believe has brought Tim Etchells to the attention of the nominator. You will find plenty of refs for reviews etc of Forced Entertainment theatre productions in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Forced Entertainment. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily meets WP:CREATIVE. The Broken World has multiple reviews[2][3][4]. Subject of articles in major art magazines[5][6]. And other press and academic coverage of a wide range of ventures[7][8][9][10] including a book by a major London publisher about him and 4 other leading playwrights[11]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - likely to have created at least one notable performance or event, based on the reviews already found. There may still be a job to do making clear links between his artistic input and some of the activities. However, he's received an honorary doctorate and another significant award which, to me, indicates enough notability. Sionk (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An honorary doctorate is a rare enough honor. --Randykitty (talk) 18:14, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Paige Walls[edit]

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

I do not believe this passes the GNG for actresses. Though she has an IMDB entry she is only listed as a minor cast member on Lilo & Stitch credited as "Additional Voice". Both IMDB and Behind The Voice credit this one role as her only role. S.G.(GH) ping! 20:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tear down this Walls article. One voice acting credit <<< enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails GNG. This one looks as prodable as Lili Ishida. --Sam Sailor Sing 07:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails our general notability guidelines. Perhaps in the future after she gets more gigs and more coverage. SarahStierch (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - One small character in the movie who I remember only had brief voice and scene time. There's not even one reference to add to the article. A page for her is better suited at IMDb which is a database, not an enyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 18:06, 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. Closing early per WP:SNOW Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Dodd[edit]

Samantha Dodd (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 for over seven years. No coverage found. I think this one comes down to whether or not appearing as a costumed character in the Tweenies is sufficient reason to have an encylcopedia article. I would say not. Michig (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I'm not seeing any significant work as an actor. It seems that she's able to dance, and has a niche in dressing up for kids shows because she's 4'8". As a BLP we have to protect her privacy, even if it does look like the article was written with a COI. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed: can't find any reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Does not pass our general notability guidelines at this time. Perhaps someday! SarahStierch (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Minor children's actress at best. In fact, I haven't found one appropriate reference for this article or even something close to reliable mentioning her. It does seem she's best known as Jake in Tweenies and we could redirect but I'm thinking it'd be better to delete. Also, it seems a "vandalism" edit was removed back in May but it was actually this, she's retired from acting and now co-owns an acting agency. SwisterTwister talk 18:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously delete -- a series of minor acting parts and now apparently no longer acting at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 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 keep. SarahStierch (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Barnes[edit]

Jennifer Barnes (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)

BLP that has been unsourced for four and a half years. She has the post of Pro-Vice-Chancellor for International Strategy at the University of Cambridge ([12]) but she doesn't seem notable as an academic and I didn't find much in the way of significant independent coverage. I was unable to confirm an original source (several sites appear to be sourced from this article) but this article does look like it was copied from another website. Michig (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - yes, it's unsourced, but you didn't look in the obvious place Who's Who. Confirms she is Pro-Vice Chancellor for International Strategy, and President of Murray Edwards College (New Hall). She's also a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- per Barney. She meets the notability guidelines of WP:PROF. TonyBallioni (talk)
  • Comment I am unsure. Pro-Vice-Chancellor does not seem to be "a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society". As the college is part of Cambridge University, that doesn't seem to qualify either. Neither am I certain that being a Fellow of the RSA constitutes "a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level", given that our article on the RSA states that there are currently 27,000 such Fellows. --Randykitty (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep. Pro Vice-Chancellor does not meet WP:Prof#C6. only VC does. Not much else found by me yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep -- Cambridge University Colleges are not merely halls of residence, and pro-vice-chancellor is a deputy head of the university (under the Vice-Chancellor), the Chancellor being an honorary post. In some cases (such as Downing College, Cambridge, we have a list of masters in the article on the college. That seems to be missing in this case, possibly because it is a women's college (and hence younger) but that should not make a difference. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We need to look at a person's notability in the round. As pointed out, these posts are highly prestigious, more so than being a vice-chancellor at most UK universities. --AJHingston (talk) 18:15, 25 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) 01:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook secret page of universities in Hong Kong[edit]

Facebook secret page of universities in Hong Kong (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)

More of an essay than an article, none of the provided sources (the reliable ones that is) are actually about this specific subject, the only remotely relevant one being one about a chinese school, nothing to suggest this is actually a notable thing Jac16888 Talk 18:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into anonymous blogging, where it seems to be on topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - first, the article title is a bit of a misnomer. The article is not about "secret pages" on Facebook but about Facebook pages for telling "secrets". Regardless, the proffered sources don't appear to establish the independent notability of the specific concept of secrets pages for Hong Kong universities. I'm not seeing a merger as a solution because there really isn't anything to merge. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 11 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, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 18:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- There is no notable or clear topic here. The only two reliable secondary sources are two articles that appeared in the same newspaper on the same day. Other sources are primary or secondary school websites etc. There is no such topic. A few of the off-topic/coatrack sources could be used at Anonymous blogging but I would not call for a merge here as the sources that could be transferred are not about the topic of this article that is up for AfD.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've decided to change my vote to delete. The topic does not seem notable, and the others have convinced me that there's nothing worth merging. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not the type of thing we need articles for. It appears that reliable sources do not exist anyway pbp 20:06, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply Existing[edit]

Simply Existing (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)

Novel. Self-published, no holdings or significant reviews or coverage. Fails WP:NBOOKS. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unsourced nn self-published novel. --Rhododendrites (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:FreeRangeFrog's original Prod rationale: "No indication that the subject meets the notability guidelines for inclusion. Self-published recent work." Fails all WP:NBOOK criteria. AllyD (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This book just isn't notable. Self-published books can sometimes become notable, but it's very rare that they do. This one isn't one of those rare exceptions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:57, 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 Animorphs. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crayak[edit]

Crayak (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 does not establish notability independent of Animorphs through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not the original nominator, I'd like to also add, as part of this deletion discussion (for the same reason):

All of the above are also "Secondary characters" in the Animorphs series, and all of them suffer the same lack of reliable third party coverage, and thus lack of notablity, that Crayak does. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Animorphs characters. There are many more characters than this. They don't justify standalone articles but can be organized into a single article. Preserve rather than delete. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are actually a half dozen lists of Animorphs characters. They're all terrible (and need to be merged). Merging might be an option for these, yes, but there's very little in each article worth merging. Most of it is cruft. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into List of Animorps characters or delete all. Either is acceptable. If someone wants to create a list, that would be the preferable outcome, but I don't think anyone is obligated to do so (and WP:ATD does not mandate such an action). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:11, 13 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, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 18:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect all into Animorphs. Except for Edriss 562, all these characters are already in lists in the main Animorphs article, so it would just be a matter of merging short summaries there, no new article needed. If the lists grows too big, then it can be broken out into a separate List of Animorphs characters. In any case, while these characters may not be notable (I've not found any in depth secondary sources for Crayak), they are verifiable and per WP:PRESERVE, preserving verifiable information is preferred to deletion. These names are reasonable search terms, so redirects are warranted, too. --Mark viking (talk) 04:29, 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 speedy delete. This is an A7/G11, no need to waste our times debating. Secret account 22:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Karoukin[edit]

Pavel Karoukin (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)

Contested PROD. No coverage in secondary sources, no true assertion of notability other than CV-like material. Fails to meet WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:19, 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. I see nothing to suggest this discussion was unduly influenced by canvassing or any other unsavory goings-on. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elongated human skulls[edit]

Elongated human skulls (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)

Almost rising to the level of WP:NONSENSE, this article is essentially a Fortean romp through fringe ideas that have received zero coverage in mainstream independent sources. jps (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Much of this is, indeed, fringe foreana. Additionally, the main source for all of this is essentially self-published. Pretty much nothing published by Adventures Unlimited Press should be considered reliable for anything, but, here, the book is by Childress, who is also sole proprietor of the publishing house. A particularly generous closure might redirect to artificial cranial deformation instead, which is (although it needs cleaned up of the same junk material), the real article on the topic. I've culled the corresponding passage from Paracas culture; all these references were introduced simultaneously by a drive-by SPA editor back in June 2012. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't object to a redirect, as I noted, but none of Childress's material should be merged to the real topic (and what's there now needs to be edited out). Artificial cranial deformation is a real topic, with sociological and medical implications. Childress writes about ancient alien astronauts and conspiracy theories, and his books appear through his self-owned publishing house. And without Childress, there's simply nothing here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your claim is false. For example, the article in question references the work Peruvian Antiquities which long predates Childress. Warden (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Squeamish Ossifrage's !vote had a knee-jerk quality, I checked and see that the nominator has canvassed here. Tsk. Warden (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, investigation of the bizarre account name of the nominator reveals that this is the editor formerly known as ScienceApologist. Sigh. Warden (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patently false. I was not canvassed (I found this through AFD/T). Unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry are a personal attack; if you want to be disproven at SPI, you're welcome to take me there. Otherwise, I urge you retract your statement, or I'll see you in dispute resolution. My "bizarre username" is a reference to a very famous cryptotext. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bizarre username to which I refer is "QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV". "Squeamish Ossifrage" is comparatively clear and I'm grateful for the entertaining account of its origin. While we're at it, note that Colonel Warden has some precedent too. Warden (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, this article doesn't cite Rivero, it cites Childress citing Rivero (incorrectly). Exercising the proper caution due changing scholarship since the 1850s, nothing is preventing an editor from improving artificial cranial deformation with material from Antigüedades Peruanas (1851) or Peruvian Antiquities (1853, the translated and abridged version, which is available at the Internet Archive). But that doesn't make merging Childress's interpretations of the 19th century source any more acceptable to merge. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):::That is not canvassing. AfDs for fringe stuff should be mentioned at FTN. Accusations of canvassing shouldn't be made on the basis of that notification - if you are concerned, go to ANI, don't just attack an editor here. Don't discuss editors here. And have you actually checked Peruvian Antiquities? Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:36, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old Colours[edit]

Old Colours (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 an obviously notable band. I declined a speedy because they have a mention in The Swindon Advertiser, which mentions one track was picked up by a US syncing company and expected to (my emphasis) appear in a drama series. Unfortunately, the cynic in me suggests this was done because it is more economic to pick up background / incidental music by an unsigned band than having to pay royalties to a signed one. They've also appeared on BBC 6 Music, but so have many many other non-notable bands - again because it's cheaper to put unsigned acts on due to no royalty payments. I can't find any other news or book hits, or anything else in reliable sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not yet notable enough for an article. If they appeared on 6 Music it's because someone there likes them and nothing to do with not paying royalties. --Michig (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seem's non-notable, but I agree that that source excludes speedy-delete. Benboy00 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I cannot find any evidence that this band meets the guidelines for inclusion at WP:BAND or the WP:GNG. — sparklism hey! 11:49, 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 no consensus. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barcelona bid for the 2026 Winter Olympics[edit]

Barcelona bid for the 2026 Winter Olympics (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 page should be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:PROMO. Until this edit, the article was named Barcelona bid for the 2022 Winter Olympics; it was then moved, but the content remained the same. This is obviously a major problem, as neither title is correct: Barcelona did not bid for the 2022 Olympics, and it is not clear at all if there will be something like a "Barcelona 2026" bid. According to this discussion, consensus seems to be to only write articles about Olympic bids once these are official. FoxyOrange (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:31, 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 merge to Sinden (surname). Go for it! SarahStierch (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sinden family[edit]

Sinden family (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)

Unreferenced as a "family" - does not meet WP:GNG and could be merged to the Sinden or Sinden (surname) article. Please note I have NO connection to these people, save a common surname. -- Rob Sinden (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of it is mentioned on Donald Sinden; the exception is Topsy Sinden but nobody seems to know her exact relation to Donald Sinden. I only found one page calling her a "forebear".[13] If we can't even establish their relationship, it seems a bit much to claim they're a family. Unsure about redirect/delete/merge/etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have added the only other sourced detail I can find in Donald Sinden's autobiography, (Laughter In The Second Act Donald Sinden, Hodder & Stoughton 1985 page 9), showing that Topsy Sinden and her brother Bert are his distant cousins, which he discovered "when researching his family's genealogy". Manxwoman (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sinden (surname). Typically relations are noted on dab pages through indenting or commenting. "Family" specific articles need more sourcing about the family as a whole, and that is usually hard (e.g. the Kennedy family). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sinden (surname). Sir Donald and his two sons can be adequately linked via their respective articles. We do not encourage family articles, particularly one like this which is nothing but a list of names. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:02, 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 redirect to David Beckham#Personal life. Closing early per WP:SNOW Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Beckham[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Brooklyn Beckham (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)

Two previous AFDs resulted in this being redirect to his famous father's article - and nothing has changed. He still fails WP:GNG, he still fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and he still fails WP:NOTINHERITED. He would not be getting any coverage if his parents were super-duper famous, and the coverage he has got is not significant enough to show any independent notability whatsoever. GiantSnowman 13:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirect per GiantSnowman. Article claims he was playing for Tottenham Hotspur at the age of 4. He has moved between multiple club, been released from QPR, failed a trial and Manchester United and has ended up at Fulham. At the moment this article seems wishful thinking. D but with no prejudice against recreation should he meet WP:NFOOTBALL in the future.Martin451 13:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous AFDs always seemed to end with redirect to Becks père and I see no reason for this one to be any different. Keresaspa (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and protect - per previous AFDs, a lack of significant coverage independent of the subject's parents and a failure to meet WP:NFOOTY for now. Certainly no objection to recreation but I think that should now be a matter of a formal request from an editor in good standing at WP:DRV. Stalwart111 00:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - per GS, WP:NOTINHERITED is the key issue here, nothing that he has "achieved" would be worthy of GNG without his famous parents. Fenix down (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. – PeeJay 11:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and protect. Completely agree with Stalwart111's assessment above. Finnegas (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and protect. still NN. I am not suggesting that any of this is not true. He may well have moved from club to club as this father moved, but only in children's and junior youth teams. If he achieves something in his own right, the article can be restored, but not before. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:56, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Burnaby Citizens' Association[edit]

Burnaby Citizens' Association (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)

Just a local organization that a number of the good people Burnaby, British Columbia belong to. Doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH or any number of other policies or guidelines. Shirt58 (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - fails GNG & CORPDEPTH. --Rhododendrites (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no suggestion they have done anything to differentiate themselves from the many other citizens' associations in BC or elsewhere in the world. Stalwart111 00:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Wand[edit]

Philip Wand (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)

BLP that has been unsourced since 2006. No significant coverage found. Michig (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLPPROD. Article does not provide any sources to back up claims of WP:notability.Martin451 12:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I searched. The claim that he wrote BT-Enfocast which was widely used in the UK could be notable if BT-Enfocast was reviewed (per WP:CREATIVE #3), but unable to find anything. Also searched for ("Philip Wand" "Dear Wandy") but very little has been said about Wand independent of Wand. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not think being a columnist in a fan-mag or trade rag constitutes notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:19, 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 redirect to Starship Troopers. This seems to be the favored redirect target, but it can be changed obviously. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Klendathu[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Klendathu (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 clearly fail WP:GNG: article about fictional concept referenced to primary sources only. Old 2005 discussion reached no consensus, but 8 years later I think we know better what is (and isn't) encyclopedic. PS. This content may be useful for http://starshiptroopers.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page ; upon deletion they may want to be notified and receive a copy of this article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect to Starship Troopers. Nothing special about the planet. It's just a setting, and doesn't even have a major role in the novel. I have done my time with the Wikipedia Service and am therefore entitled to lvote. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Starship Troopers. There are enough marginal sources out there to merit redirect, but not that talk about it to the extent necessary to pass GNG. --Rhododendrites (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge, but to Bug (Starship Troopers). The problem with merging to just S.T. is that there's not just the book, but the films, etc. I agree with condensing the material to a reasonable extent DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge, Starship Troopers. To politely disagree with DGG, and while his suggestion has merit, Bug (Starship Troopers) article is unsourced and itself up for deletion. I believe the topic of Klendathu is mentioned in enough reliable sources[14][15] to merit inclusion and sourcing at the parent topic if not quite enough for a separate article. After all, this one does not have the same level of independent notability as does Vulcan (Star Trek). Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:42, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Rosenfeld[edit]

Daniel Rosenfeld (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)

BLP that has been unsourced for over 9 years. I found no significant coverage of him. Michig (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Fails WP:AUTHOR. I can't find any sources or reviews. Books appear to be self-published (publisher is Rosenfeld Book Pub)[16][17]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Colapeninsula, books are obscure and self published. Article has existed since 2004, good find. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:44, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Reid[edit]

Michelle Reid (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)

BLP that has been unsourced for over 6 years. She appears to be prolific but also appears not to have received any coverage. Michig (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have had a look for sources, and the only ones seem to be her self published bio, and those of her publisher and a third party bio. She seems to fail WP:Author. Also one (now removed) fact in her bio seems to be wrong as her name must be fairly common.Martin451 13:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Her most popular book by user holdings is approximately The Bellini Bride aka The Brazilian's Blackmailed Bride.[18] I found one "review".[19] It doesn't bode well for the rest of the books. Probably not every Harlequin romance writer is notable by Wikipedia standards. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:38, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Priscelina Patajo-Legasto[edit]

Priscelina Patajo-Legasto (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 fails notability for academics. NoyPiOka (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tiny cites on GS. I can't see anything else. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - All I'm seeing is links to her work, but no significant coverage. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:04, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baser Amer[edit]

Baser Amer (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 fails notability for basketball figures. NoyPiOka (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NBASKETBALL and GNG. Alex discussion ★ 09:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NHOOPS and WP:NCOLLATH. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He only plays at the college level at the moment, which isn't a claim to notability. He can have his own article if he goes pro, though. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This player will play his last college season next year and will inevitably go pro. Also, he had played before in the U-16 and U-18 teams before. –HTD 01:39, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Word Research Center[edit]

Word Research Center (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 institution, completely uncensored, advert-like and unencylopedic. Alex discussion ★ 08:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable in any respect that I can find and no claim to notability in the article. --Jprg1966 (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as proposed prior to AfD. Non notable institution. JNW (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This appears to be an Indian Bible school or seminary. Such organisations may be notable, but searching shows that this one is not. -- 101.119.15.37 (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (with some regret) Delete -- We have no article DIVINE BIBLE UNIVERSITY. This looks like an extension programme started by one of its academics. It might be notable, but without sources, I cannot tell. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 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 speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion." (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 13:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rossana Llenado[edit]

Rossana Llenado (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 violates notability. This is a clear case of self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity. NoyPiOka (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I proposed the article for speedy deletion for obvious advertising, and self promotion. Alex discussion ★ 09:02, 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) 00:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Hill (artist)[edit]

Nate Hill (artist) (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)

Did this guy do anything noteworthy? All that is linked is his terribly unprofessional webpage. And this seems like a publicity stunt. He was behind White Power Milk a few years ago, which almost gendered a blip of publicity, but not really enough. We don't need a page for every wannabe performance artist. 96.251.85.48 (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Completing nomination for IP, I have no opinion. Ansh666 05:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:18, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Gregory (footballer)[edit]

Lee Gregory (footballer) (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)

Mr. Gregory has never played League football, nor has he received significant coverage, meaning that the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Being wtched by football league clubs and has been very prolific at Non-League level. With the Conference Premier becoming an ever more professional league it is surely worth an inclusion? Skrill Premier is being covered by most Sports related news companies, and he was featured on Eurosport with regards to a transfer to MK Dons.User:Shayman77 15:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The Football Conference is not fully pro which means he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. More importantly he hasn't received significant coverage which means he also fails WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, standard non-notable non-league footballer. Fenix down (talk) 10:56, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NoHomers.net[edit]

AfDs for this article:
NoHomers.net (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 pass the General Notability Guidelines. No significant coverage in sources that are independent of the subject. Orangeroof (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gets a few mentions in The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History and this CNN article, but they only state that it's the most popular Simpsons fansite. The article itself relies almost exclusively on primary sources. I don't know. I can see how a keep argument could be made, but I'd prefer to see a source unambiguously writing about the site itself and its history rather than simply quoting an administrator for a soundbite. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that since it's been acknowledged substantially in several Simpsons episode commentaries that it should probably be kept. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woah, I don't even remember writing this. In any case the vote makes no sense, so I've struck it and will deliver a better vote later. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to The No Homers Club, as that is the name of the website, not its url.
Some random sources that I have collected together (which may or may not justify the article's existence on their own) include:
  1. The reaction from fans on Nohomers.net, the leading Simpsons fan site(read by many Simpsons staffers), has been extreme disappointment.,
  2. "Some more offbeat groups include the Monty Python Society and the No-Homers Club, "our resident Simpsons group."",
  3. [28],
  4. [29],
  5. They are treated as an authority - a credible source - on this topic,
  6. [30],
  7. [31],
  8. [32],
  9. [33],
  10. [34],
  11. [35],
  12. [36],
  13. [37],
  14. [38],
  15. [39],
  16. [40],
  17. [41],
  18. Exclusive interviews with Simpsons folk,
  19. [42],
  20. [43],
  21. [44],
  22. [45],
  23. [46],
  24. [47],
  25. [48],
  26. [49],
  27. [50],
  28. [51],
  29. [52],
  30. [53],
  31. plus I'm sure there's a bunch of stuff in the Simpsons episode commentary on the DVDs - most of the episode articles would not have a chance in hell of becoming GA/FA if it werent for those DVD's. It's also worth pointing out that even if a source is taken from the nohomers.et website, they have done official interviews with various members of The Simpsons staff, and so those sources would then become third party.--Coin945 (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through each source. Aside from some not even being reliable (there's a Prezi link in there) most don't look very substantial. I don't think lots of fleeting mentions is enough to pass WP:GNG. Also, an interview conducted on NoHomers is not a third party source. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was, if a third party is interviewed on NoHomers.net, and talks about NoHomers.net during the interview, then that counts as a third party. By the way JOOI I never claimed to have solved the puzzle of the missing notability with those sources above. I just did a quick Google prod-and-poke to find everything that seems to be available on the subject. Online that is. And using my chosen search terms that is.--Coin945 (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But yeah, I think #31 is gonna be our best bet.--Coin945 (talk) 06:25, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Corvin[edit]

Chad Corvin (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)

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. Into the Rift (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bot caused an edit conflict on the afd log. Into the Rift (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Into the Rift (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NMMA and GNG with no top tier fights or non-routine coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Retired MMA fighter with no top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 04:40, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Cooke[edit]

Neil Cooke (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)

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. Into the Rift (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Into the Rift (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:41, 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 redirect to The_Warriors_(film)#Cast. SarahStierch (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Tyler (actor)[edit]

Brian Tyler (actor) (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 actor. Has one screen credit, which despite being a hella cool movie, doesn't take him past the threshold for notability under either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. The only prong of NACTOR he might meet is "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following". The Warriors certainly has a cult following but that following does not devolve onto every member of the cast. In the few sources that mention Tyler in passing, mostly "where are they now" stories for the cast as a whole, he has stated that he has never been recognized from his role. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume because of the martial arts aspect? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:39, 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.

Clarence Jey[edit]

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. While there was previously no strong consensus either way, the last few commenters push consensus toward deletion. Also keep in mind that bios of living people require... different action then, say, articles on songs or records. Killiondude (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Jey (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)

Under sourced vanity article Nerdopolis (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed formatting. I've never seen "Unexpected use of template {{1}}" before and have no idea how you botched this. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion: Clarence Jey is a notable artist whose fame does not only rest with "Friday" and ARK Music Factory, but his artistic career stretchs long before "Friday" and also long after it, eventually establishing his own company and label. Great number of artistic collaborations are documented, many with Grammy-winning acts. Almost all facts are substantiated with references from external sources. As for "vanity article" comments, I have edited out some of the unnecessary concentration "Grammy winning this or that" etc that gave such an impression... leaving the individuals he did produce or work with more or less intact. In general quite a notable artist that deserves a page. werldwayd (talk) 13:34, 29 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Very) Weak Keep. This is the kind of article where ordinarily I would suggest merging or deletion due to WP:NOTINHERITED; but in this case it would appear that WP:COMPOSER recommends we keep the article, as a songwriter who 'has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition' is apparently considered notable, and like it or not, Friday is definitely a notable song. The article does need to be improved though, to make it less promotional; removing most of the puffery would make it more obvious that he's only ever written one notable song. Robofish (talk) 23:05, 5 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. References are either not RS, or only mention the name in passing. Sources definitely do not support the level of detail that currently exists in the article. Smacks of OR, and likely COI editing. LK (talk) 10:38, 11 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, – Juliancolton | Talk 03:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I really hate to relist for a third time, but this is a very borderline case IMO, and I'm concerned that had it been closed as "no consensus" it would have slipped through the net, with no further attention. Feedback needed on this discussion. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is a clear lack of independent and substantive coverage under GNG. Sources not connected to Jey or his company mention Jey only in passing as the talent behind Black's (in)famous "Friday" video. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, insufficiently sourced article.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:05, 26 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pad site[edit]

Pad site (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)

Deprodded. Search for sourcing found nothing that could develop this beyond a WP:DICDEF, and the fact that it's been completely untouched for seven years should prove how non-notable it is. I failed to find any useful sourcing to flesh this out. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gene93k provides a starting list of references; others exist. There's periodic discussion of the topic in the issues of Franchise Times, although I'm limited in my access to that at the moment. Probably in other industry sources, also. Ideally, with a little digging, some history of the concept might even emerge from sources discussing the history of strip mall development. This won't ever be a very large article, most likely, but that's never been a requirement. Nor does article improvement have a deadline; it's unfortunate that this has gone for so long without anyone tending to it, but that's not a deletion reason. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I thought TPH specialised in retail topics and yet, even here, he comes up short. Here's a Dummies book on the subject, for example. Warden (talk) 20:09, 11 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, – Juliancolton | Talk 02:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I'm not in favour of keeping, at least as a standalone article.--Michig (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:28, 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) 00:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IOS file sharing[edit]

IOS file sharing (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 reads more like a user guide to a very specific feature that iOS has, and falls under WP:NOTGUIDE. –Dream out loud (talk) 05:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Notable topic, but the execution of the article is all a violation of WP:NOT's prohibition against how-to guides. Steven Walling • talk 09:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 11 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, – Juliancolton | Talk 02:45, 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaka Paranormal Society[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dhaka Paranormal Society (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 paranormal society lacking ghits and gnews of substance. References are a trivial "club" review and a primary reference. Lacks secondary references. Fails WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent story Dhaka Tribune story notes that it was written "in the spirit of Halloween...". Not quite the serious in depth coverage WP:ORG requires. And the Dhaka Tribune Independent seems to be some sort of "club review" listing rather than actual news coverage. LuckyLouie (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article from The Independent seems indepth coverage to me, I'm not sure if anything written in the occasion of Halloween has anything to do with the notability. While, The Dhaka Tribune article seems even more significant where the group was interviewed by the media agency.--Zayeem (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am satisfied with the Dhaka Tribune article alone as a source meeting WP:RS. It could be better integrated into the article to help the article more definitively satisfy WP:N, but I feel that notability is already established. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a single reference is trivial coverage. reddogsix (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good luck to this group realizing their expressed goal of getting their own TV show, but I can't find legitimate examples of serious, in depth coverage by multiple, independent sources to justify a stand alone article at this time. LuckyLouie (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm also satisfied with the references given. Dhaka Tribune and The Independent are big news companies in Dhaka. It says "in the spirit of Halloween" but just because the article was published on Halloween does not mean that it is not of the serious type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.234.193.242 (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC) — 180.234.193.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - a single reference is trivial coverage. reddogsix (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two sources are rarely enough to Keep an article. GNG says "multiple" but that doesn't mean "two", it means enough to prove notability which is a factor of how strong the sources are, in quality and quantity of coverage. The first source is brief and reads like a Press Release with no critical investigation ("Head on over to their Facebook page"). The second source is an interview which is a PRIMARY source. While it does contain some editorial content, not much considering we are only dealing with two sources in total. The group is about 15 months old, it's out of this world there are two sources already - very good work. But it needs a lot more to pass Wikipedia notability guidelines. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am very satisfied with the authenticity of this article. After searching online I have found that Dhaka Paranormal Society is the very first paranormal investigating team coming out of Bangladesh. Also the Dhaka Tribune article states that the founder Rafee Tamjid studied about the paranormal in Hawaii, and after doing a quick facebook check I have also found out that the University Mr. Tamjid attended does really offer an adult education class about paranormal activities. Regarding the two sources, for those of you who don't know much about Bangladesh need to know that there are mainly three big and popular English newspapers in Bangladesh. Those being The Daily Star, The Dhaka Tribune, and The Independent. Dhaka Paranormal Society have been given coverage by both The Dhaka Tribune and The Independent, that is two out of the big three. As Green Cardamom said earlier the group is only 15 months old, thus having two sources is amazing work, and that too the sources being from two of the big three English Newspapers. Therefore, I can say without any doubt that Dhaka Paranormal Society meets the standards to be on Wikipedia alone just on that fact. It is also the very first paranormal investigative group coming out of Bangladesh. PS. Reddogsix, you always vote to get pages deleted from wikipedia. I don't know why you tend to do that, I have yet to see you support a page to stay on wikipedia. I would request you to change your mind after the information I have given above. Thank you. FYI- I'm a Bangladeshi citizen working in journalism and media. Thus my understanding of Bangladesh media is quite high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockymavia9999 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC) — Rockymavia9999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment- You have provided nothing in your comment that supports your "keep" opinion. Rather than offer conjecture, I suggest you show how this article meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion and cite the Wikipedia guideline that supports your conclusion. Once again, there is nothing but trivial coverage of this organization - hardly enough to support inclusion. You question why I support the elimination of articles, the answer has no bearing on whether or not this article survives this AfD. Perhaps a you should ask the question, why is it close to 100% the vast majority of the articles I propose for deletion are deleted. Care to take a guess? reddogsix (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You actually have about 78% of the past 255 AfDs according to the stats (includes "no consensus results").. which is above normal. Admins typically won't get involved unless it falls below 40 to 50 percent. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Reddogsix, I have clearly stated how the sources provided meet the wikipedia criteria for inclusion. There are numerous other pages on Wikipedia that only give facebook, youtube, and blogs as references, whereas this article provides two of the big three English newspapers in Bangladesh as sources. Also you need to stop flattering yourself. You report at least 40 pages a day for deletion and your acceptance rate is nowhere near 100 percent. It is around maybe 40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockymavia9999 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stick to a rules-based discussion, review WP:CIVIL. Such personal attacks usually backfire and result in unintended consequences to the goal you seek. BTW out of curiosity I checked the AfD stats tool and the claim of 40 a day, and 40% acceptance, are both wildly inaccurate - not that it matters - if you want to report a problem take it to WP:ANI. --Green Cardamom (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Reddogsix, I will report you for vandalism of a wikipedia page if you go ahead and change the references to links. You have no right to do that. You have already done it twice, and I have fixed it twice. Deleting both the references and changing them to links will automatically delete this page. If you think that two valuable newspaper articles don't count as references, then you need to find the correct definition of references. Also then you should go ahead and delete every wikipedia article, as all articles give newspaper articles are references. Just because you want this page deleted, does not mean you will vandalize this page and spread wrong propaganda. I will report you if this happens once more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockymavia9999 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have answered your comment on your talk page. I suggest we continue this discussion there rather than muck up the AfD with unrelated comments. reddogsix (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No we will continue this discussion here because everyone needs to see what you are doing. If you thought these references are links then you should have stated that on the very first day. Once you realized that your arguments were not being supported on this page, you went ahead and changed the references to links just to make an unfair move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockymavia9999 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The two references do indeed show significant media coverage. This group is just starting out as it is new, but the references are certainly strong enough for approval of a Wikipedia page. Some more references would be nice, but for a group that is based in Bangladesh, the Dhaka Tribune and The Independent are very strong references . Reddogsix- I have read your edits, I don't like controversy, but I have to say this...what made you say that these newspaper articles aren't references but links? We are online, every single reference is a website link, and you stating that newspaper articles aren't references is pure insanity. All through highschool, college, med school, and now through post grad I and all of my classmates have used newspaper articles as references. You edit makes no sense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saif808 (talk • contribs) — Saif808 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete - The two sources contained within the article are not sufficient to confer notability. The Dhaka Tribune source is good quality but is a local publication and does not provide evidence of significance beyond the regional level. The Independent source may be from a more convincing publishing body but it appears it was published in a sub-publication or magazine. Multiple quality sources are required to confer notability and for this subject they simply don't exist. The DPS may become notable in the future, but it is not at present. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 18:13, 18 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, – Juliancolton | Talk 02:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't normally keep local societies, and this one is o dubious importance even among them. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will still vote to keep this page. A few user's voting for a delete have commented that this is a local society. That is not the case. Dhaka Paranormal Socitey is based out of Dhaka (capital of Bangladesh) but they investigate all over Bangladesh. Calling DPS a local society is like calling TAPS a local paranormal society. Rockymavia9999 (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)— Rockymavia9999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete The topic does not pass WP:GNG because it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. It is highly questionable that the Dhaka Tribune is a reliable source. I am familiar with Dhaka and Bangladesh (having lived in the country), and the publications there. - tucoxn\talk 00:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Tocuxn....you say you have lived in Bangladesh. How long was your stay? If you had lived in Bangladesh for a considerable amount of time, then you would know that the Dhaka Tribune is the second largest English daily newspaper currently in Bangladesh. The Dhaka Tribune wikipedia page is unfortunately not updated. I know facebook likes does not count as votes but currently Dhaka Tribune has over 107k likes on its page. It launched last April and has already gained a lot of popularity. Thus calling the Dhaka Tribune an unreliable source makes no sense. Next time please refrain from giving false information that is your own opinion. I am a Bangladeshi citizen and have been working in the journalism field in Bangladesh over 10 years. I didn't want to state this before but currently I am working for the Daily Star, which is the largest English Daily in Dhaka. Visiting a country and living there and working in the journalism field is very different. So please give facts, don't state your opinion.Rockymavia9999 (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC) — Rockymavia9999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - Lets be clear the Dhaka Tribune link is a primary reference. The issue is the article lacks secondary references. The secondary coverage for the organization is trivial - only 11 Google hits. I would suggest concentrating on finding and adding more secondary references. Adding more secondary references will help insure the article's success in the AfD. reddogsix (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I stand by my "delete" position and my statement that the interview in the Dhaka Tribune is an unreliable source for proving notability in a Wikipedia article. It is an interview and therefore a primary source (see identifying and using primary and secondary sources). When I lived in Bangladesh, the publication was not in circulation: it only recently began publishing in April 2013, less than one year ago. Considering its short publication time, it has not yet built a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The number of "likes" it has on its facebook page is not a good measure of how reliable it is as a publication. Returning to the interview article in question, it is not a third-party source, one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered; in fact, it is an interview of three of the members listed in the wikipedia article, and as such, it is entirely dependent on the subject being covered. Reliable third-party sources are what Wikipedia articles should be based on: "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." @Rockymavia9999, In the future, I (and other editors) would appreciate not receiving insults that insinuate the provision of false information, or lying. At Wikipedia, what you did is called not assuming good faith. You also did this when you questioned the amount of time that I lived in Bangladesh. I choose not to divulge the amount of time I lived there this as it is personal identifying information. - tucoxn\talk 22:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- @Tucoxn Here you are again stating that Dhaka Tribune is not a reliable source just because it is a new publication. Just because of a short publication time, you cannot say that the source is not reliable. Show me sources or articles that prove your justification that Dhaka Tribune is not reliable. You will not find a single one. In fact, Dhaka Tribune is the most unbiased and accurate newspaper in Dhaka. What you stated is completely your own opinion. If you give me proof then I will support your opinion until then it is just that, YOUR OPINION. If you feel insulted, then please don't state your opinion. Give me one article that disrepute's Dhaka Tribune and I will publicly apologize to you myself. Also the period you lived in Bangladesh does matter. As I stated I have been a journalist in Dhaka for 10 years. I'm sure my knowledge of the Dhaka print media is much higher then yours.Rockymavia9999 (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC) — Rockymavia9999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - Once more in hopes this finally gets through to everyone - the Dhaka Tribune link is a primary reference. The issue is the article lacks secondary references to support notability. The secondary coverage for the organization is trivial - only 11 Google hits. Again, I would suggest concentrating on finding and adding more secondary references. Adding more secondary references will help insure the article's success in the AfD. reddogsix (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Taking a look at the article I only see two references - one from Dhaka Tribune, the other from The Independent. While these may be major news agencies, the publisher of a reference does not give the source inherent depth of coverage, which is one of the things we look for in citations and sources. See WP:ORGDEPTH – the Dhaka Tribune's interview falls over the criterion for quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, while the Independent's club review falls under routine restaurant reviews (they're both routines reviews). A web search would indicate a lack of verifiable, independent, reliable sources. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 22:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Simply non-notable. The group has not got sufficient coverage in the media, etc. Fails WP:N. Faizan 13:59, 26 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. Closing early per WP:SNOW. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Greendale Panthers season[edit]

2011 Greendale Panthers season (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)

Contested PROD. Unremarkable high school football team stat page, unsourced. WP is not a free webhost for sports statistics. See also similar, so far uncontested PRODs for Cudahy Packers Losing Streak, , 2010 Greendale Panthers season, 2012 Cudahy Packers season and AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Greendale Panthers season. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:21, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nutter McClennen & Fish[edit]

Nutter McClennen & Fish (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 contains only PROMO and Original Research. There is no salvageable content on the page. CorporateM (Talk) 14:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 11 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, – Juliancolton | Talk 02:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable for its history, and probably notable for its current activities although that will take more digging to separate the reliable sources from the promotional chaff. I've added a few sources, and more on-line and off-line sources are available as shown by GBooks and Google searches. The promotional stuff can be cleaned up as we have done with many other articles about notable law firms. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arxiloxos. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:03, 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 keep. No agreement for deletion. Note that this doesn't rule out potential merging. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal cake[edit]

Crystal cake (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 cites no reliable sources, and a cursory search of the interwebs yields little to nothing that could be used. If this is a real thing, then author could start by merging with Chinese desserts or Chinese bakery products. TheBlueCanoe 14:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge merge with Mooncake; I think the Chinese for crystal cake is '水晶饼' and yields many more results. The chinese Mooncake article references a particular brand of Crystal cakes, so merging this into Mooncake may make most sense but don't delete the redirect. I also found Snow skin mooncake which may or may not be the same thing. @Benlisquare: asking a Chinese speaker to chime in and assist here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's plenty of google hits, though I'm not entirely sure exactly how "famous" this dessert actually is, since that's a rather subjective measurement. One thing to mention, though, is that the Chinese Wikipedia mentions "水晶饼" within the lead paragraph of zh:月饼 (Mooncake). I don't think there's any relevance with the Hong Kong-origin Snow skin mooncake though, since the Chinese Wikipedia claims that this particular cake comes from Shaanxi Province, and a quick google search shows that this cake is associated with the city of Weinan. The current problem with the article is that it doesn't have any reliable sources to demonstrate notability. For now, it could be redirected to Chinese desserts or Mooncake, and when there is enough sourced information, the content can be split out again. That is, unless, someone manages to save the article prior to the AfD closure by expanding/improving it. --benlisquareT•C•E 20:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind adding a RS to state that (1) Crystal cake is a sort of moon cake and (2) It is from Weihan? - even if it's in Chinese? We can use this RS when we then merge it within the Mooncake article. I changed my !vote to Merge above, but we just need one source that describes what these things are.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's a RS that I've stumbled across that describes it in a bit of detail, but it doesn't specifically use the term "mooncake". Translation: "Crystal cake is a kind of pastry dessert; because the stuffing has a shiny appearance, it is referred to as "crystal" cake. The cake is made with plentiful stuffing, a moist texture, contoured stuctures, does not feel greasy despite being quite oily, and a deep sweet taste, in addition to having a strong rose and tangerine fragrance... The most famous crystal cakes were made by De Maogong of Xi'an city as a tribute towards the late Empress Cixi, and is a special food of Shaanxi Province known nationwide. During festive holidays, large numbers of people buy these cakes, not only to eat, but to also send boxes to friends and relatives as gifts." --benlisquareT•C•E 17:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another article, this time from Sina.com (major Chinese-language news and entertainment portal, think similar to Yahoo.com or MSN.com), which discusses the origins of the cake. Again, there is zero mention of "mooncake". Translation: "A famous dessert of Shaanxi, the crystal cake is said to have a thousand year history. Legend goes that crystal cake was born in the city of Weinan during the Northern Song Dynasty, and is related to prime minister Kou Zhun. During the third year of the Jingde Era (I honestly have no idea what this is in the Gregorian calendar, the old Chinese year system is like Greek to me), as Kou Zhun returned to his home, he visited a temple along the way, which was in the midst of contructing a pagoda tower. He donated silver coins to the temple master, and so a monk and a group of local people... welcomed him with a pastry cake.". --benlisquareT•C•E 17:55, 19 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, – Juliancolton | Talk 02:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Either this is something incredibly uncommon, or it is normally referred to by a different name in English. Mangoe (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy Keep - Clearly passes WP:GNG per coverage in Chinese-language news sources. Source examples include (with article titles acquired from Google Translate, websites linked below are translated into English using Google Translate):
See this link for more sources, which abound. Also, thanks to User:Obiwankenobi above for providing the Chinese-language text. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously no Chinese language source is adequate for the claim that it is called "crystal cake" in English! Mangoe (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mangoe: Please review WP:GNG, where it states: "Sources do not have to be available online and do not have to be in English." Northamerica1000(talk) 11:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. It's obvious that a source that does not use English words is not a source at all for what anything is called in English. The guideline doesn't require anyone to accept an irrelevant source. Mangoe (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this is an AFD, not a rename discussion, so you are confusing this with what to call the article, instead of 'is this topic of note' - in cases where we don't have an obvious English name a straight translation is sufficient.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Obiwankenobi here. Also, the sources I provided are relevant, reliable sources. See also: WP:N. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mangoe, I think you are confused as to what reliable sources are for. If you have concerns with the article title, feel free to start a RfC or requested move. This AfD deals with whether or not the article content is notable enough to warrant deletion. --benlisquareT•C•E 17:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources need to be be reliable "for" the purposes of justifying the statements made in the article, and in our system, chief of those statements is what the subject of the article is called! And if you are giving the article an English name, then you need a source which gives it that English name. If none of the sources uses that name, or indeed, any name at all that is used in English sources, then there is no basis for any article in English. We are not here to make up a name for it! Come up with any source which establishes some name used in English for the thing, and it can have an article. If you can't, then you're just making it up. I cannot suggest renaming the article because there's nothing to rename it to, and I cannot accept it having its existing name because there's no evidence that this name is correct. the only remaining alternative is deletion. Mangoe (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. Move the article to Shuijingbing (水晶饼) or Shuijing cake, problem solved. No qualms there, I'd hope? This name is justified by reliable sources, and the standard norm on Wikipedia is to use the Hanyu Pinyin romanization system (per WP:NC-ZH and WP:MOS-ZH) when rendering Chinese characters into the Roman alphabet. I strongly disagree with your statement "there is no basis for any article in English", because there is no Wikipedia policy which rectifies what you have said, and such a statement is also dangerously Anglocentric and further worsens the state of systemic bias on Wikipedia. There are many articles on Wikipedia relating to foreign concepts which have zero English-language reliable sources, because WP:NONENG specifically permits the use of non-English reliable sources in the event that English sources are unavailable or lacking in information, and that there are no policies which prohibit the existence of these articles. --benlisquareT•C•E 17:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, otherwise merge - there are enough reliable sources to establish notability. Currently very little article content is available; either this page can be kept as a stub, and eventually expanded whenever someone is bold enough to do so, or it can be merged into Chinese desserts until the content grows large enough to warrant splitting off into a separate article again. I'll leave that decision up to the rest of the community. --benlisquareT•C•E 18:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes GNG and is distinct. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:22, 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 redirect to The_Official_Star_Wars_Fan_Film_Awards#2006. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Milk (film)[edit]

Blue Milk (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)

Non-notable fan film. There are no independent reliable sources that establish the film is notable. Fails WP:GNG. The film won an official fan award at a convention but the award itself is not notable and does not serve to establish the notability of the film. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fails WP:NFILM. I did not uncover anything about this film. blue milk is a common search term though, so I may have missed out. Looks like an interesting film, but WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a keep reason. Beerest355 Talk 23:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(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, – Juliancolton | Talk 01:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The_Official_Star_Wars_Fan_Film_Awards#2006. The film has received one review from FilmThreat and if we had one more then I'd say that the two reviews paired with the award might be enough to keep. However we don't have that and while I would say that the award would contribute towards notability, it doesn't seem to be overwhelmingly notable enough to give absolute notability. On a side note, if we can find 1-2 more reviews (from places other than FilmThreat) for things that the director has done in general, we might be able to justify an article for the director and redirect everything there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 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 List of Tiny Toon Adventures characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Babs and Buster Bunny[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Babs and Buster Bunny (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 does not establish notability independent of Tiny Toon Adventures through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details and original research better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As these are characters in a major animated cartoon series I don't how deletion is appropriate. A merge, perhaps. But given their prominent role and popularity in American culture I think a Keep is clearly the most appropriate outcome. Candleabracadabra (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the List of Tiny Toons Characters page. These two do not have a prominent role in American Culture. Worth keeping but not on a separate article. B Hastings (talk) 18:16, 13 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, – Juliancolton | Talk 01:38, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthelion (band)[edit]

Anthelion (band) (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 music band that was originally bot-tagged for copyvio, and tagged as such plus A7 by me because it made no assertion of importance whatsoever. The speedy tag was removed, the editor seems to not be able to communicate in English judging by a comment they left in my talk page. As such, I'd rather bring this to AFD for consensus than continue templating them. I cannot find any material that would put this over WP:BAND, however I will note that they are Taiwanese and as such I might be glossing over sources I simply can't read. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Valid A7. The tag was removed out-of-process by the article's creator. An article at this title was previously deleted A7 as well, so this could conceivably also be G4 recreated content (but as a non-admin, I can't confirm that). Regardless, valid speedy candidate. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - I think it could actually pass as G4 considering it was deleted twice in 2008 and 2010 and this is the third time so we may want to consider a year long salt. Also, I'll go ahead and add the Regarding news coverage, my first Google News search actually two here (both Taiwanese newspapers in English but brief mentions), one mentioning they are a local band and the other that they played at a concert. I much like the nominator can't read Chinese but I think this probably gives you an idea that they're not notable. No prejudice towards a future article if recreated here or translated. SwisterTwister talk 18:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed your tag. Remember that only previously AFDed articles qualify for G4. Previous speedy deletions (or PRODs) cannot be used as rationale for a G4 speedy. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I realized that, sorry. Either way, this article will be on the potential relisting log tomorrow or Tuesday, I guess we'll see if it gets deleted before then or by next week. SwisterTwister talk 18:38, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A2100[edit]

A2100 (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 current article does not contain any proper secondary sources, thus there is no salvageable content to keep that passes WP:V and No Original Research. Unless someone takes an interest in starting a properly-sourced page. CorporateM (Talk) 22:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, Deletion is not cleanup. --W. D. Graham 15:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how this is "clearly notable", but I'm not sure how to vote on this. A simple google search provides dozens of "articles" on it, which I put in scare quotes, because they're all basically reprints of the same press release from Lockheed Martin. Is there significant coverage beyond the propagation of these press releases? Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—I added a second reference. It's got enough notability to pass the GNG. Unfortunately, both reliable sources require subscriptions, but I have access to them both, and I can confirm they back up the statements that are using them as sources. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 00:03, 13 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, – Juliancolton | Talk 01:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but move to Lockheed Martin A2100 satellite to clarify article subject. Livitup's sources appear to be good and now the subject can be said to meet GNG. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:38, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_November_19&oldid=1142630910"