Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 November	22 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to White Pony. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elite (song)[edit]

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

My notability tag has been disputed a few times now, so I guess I'll take my issues here. While the song does pass WP:NSONG criteria #2 for winning a Grammy, it seems to suffer from WP:PERMASTUB. As WP:NSONG notes, "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Since the song wasn't released as a single, nor was it promoted in anyway, I don't believe the article could grow much beyond what it is now. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It's a weird case because despite winning a Grammy it was never released as a single[1]. Hence sources will be album reviews[2]. A merge/redirect to White Pony is called for by WP:NSONG unless anyone can find better sources. (As an aside, a lot of things win Grammies every year due to their numerous categories, but not all of them really get much mainstream press, so even if it's a well-known artist, winning a genre Grammy is not itself a guarantee of notability - NSONG says it's only an indicator not a guarantee.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The fact that it won a Grammy does mean it has been noted by peers. I'd say that the song is indeed notable. But in this case, winning a Grammy didn't really generate the sort of coverage for the song that would provide is the material to flesh out the article so a merge is more appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- Notable due to Grammy but not enough coverage for a stand alone article. Merge with White Pony album.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:20, 28 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) 01:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Madhyapara massacre[edit]

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

One of a non-notable and quite possibly POV-driven series of articles created in good faith by one editor; there is a dearth of any sources to be found, especially with the given title; if this indeed occurred, it is not an historically accurate title for the article (possible OR); the only given sources are apparently in Bahun, so source veracity cannot be checked (request for translation by template was removed). GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 00:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are references at the end of the article. It is a good article. Why delete it? 117.227.84.167 (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Four foreign language sources (three of which are dead links) do not indicate notability. (Note:I tried to find replacements for these links, and could not find any.) Search engines can barely find the term. It's just not notable; and is indicative of OR. In addition, there are several other "massacre" articles by the same author which fall into the same category as the one above. The edit summaries of these indicate a complete POV push regarding the troubled time. I will be adding those here if I have the time before the AfD is through. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 19:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes they do. It doesn't matter what language the source is in, so long as it is independently-published, the coverage substantial, and its information presumably trustworthy. Nor is there any requirement that a website remain functional forever — which is why we should be using more permanent forms of sourcing that ephemeral web pages. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If 370 people are killed in a single day just because of their religious affiliation it certainly is a notable incident. We must remember that this incident is not an isolated one. It is a part of the 1971 Bangladesh genocide. Due to link rots, the sources could not be verified I agree. But I have fixed one link rot and added one more source which can be verified. Regarding the title, the term used by Bangladeshi media is মধ্যাপাড়া গণহত্যা which translates to Madhyapara genocide. But the killings of 370 people alone can't constitute a genocide, so I had used the term Madhyapara massacre. Please suggest suitable title. BengaliHindu (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clear keep; a massacre of 370 people for any reason is a historic event, well beyond the filter against mundane coverage of awful events envisioned by WP:NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the sentiment, but what about citation or references? There is nothing on any search I come up with. The sources in the articles are dead links. There is no way to verify that any one even died as described or that this incident even took place. It's similar to the Bicholim deal as far as I can see. If anyone would or could provide ANY reliable source(s), I will gladly withdraw my request. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 19:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly refer to this Bengali article titled ৭১এর গণহত্যার নির্মম দৃষ্টান্ত শরীয়তপুরের মধ্যপাড়া বধ্যভূমি, বিজয় সেখানে আজো পৌছেনি!. There is even a picture of the memorial. BengaliHindu (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant: WP:DEADLINK, WP:NOENG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:39, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Datchet Village F.C.[edit]

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

Amateur football team playing Sunday league football in their local park. Not notable. PROD was removed by an IP with no explanation -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - incredinly low-level, non-notable team. Giant Snowman 21:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could not be less notable realy. Never played in a national competition, so fails NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Amateur football teams aren't really notable. Anyone could make one, actually. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Way below the threshold for WP:FOOTYN Atlas-maker (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ORG. There is some routine coverage of results but nothing that gets remotely close to meeting our notability guidelines. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Obviously NN. It might possibly be worth a sentence or two in the article on Datchet. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:09, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Williams (American football)[edit]

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

The article makes no assertion of notability. Nathan Williams was an undrafted free agent who was released before playing a single snap of professional football. That's not enough to satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON and there isn't sufficient non-routine coverage or accomplishment to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. There are dozens of such prospective NFL players every year and they aren't notable for being on the preseason team. Further, as an article about a player not in the news (because he's not playing) it's not being updated. At the time I encountered the article on October 30 it still claimed he played for Miami, even though he'd been released over two months ago. In sum, it's a non-notable stub with no prospect of expansion. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep according to this simple web search there appear to be many, many newsworthy articles mentioning the subject. At this volume of content there is clear interest in the individual and clearly passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOOGLEHITS specifically lists that argument as one to avoid. Any player for a Division I football team is going to show up in Google News results. It signifies nothing. Before nominating Williams I consulted his Ohio State profile. Despite being a puff piece it recorded no school records by him, nor no national awards. Before nominating this I also, anticipating that you would make this very post, trawled through the first five pages of Google News hits. It's all trivial mention in game coverage. None of these articles are about him as an individual. Mackensen (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're misunderstanding. WP:GOOGLEHITS refers to simply saying that there are "X number" of Google hits and therefore it is notable. What I've stated is that a simple google search has yielded a good number of news websites covering the subject. That's different. One says "lots of hits on anything" another says "lots of coverage in legitimate sources" -- oh, and WP:N does not require that the subject of a news article be the same as the subject of a Wikipedia article to establish notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing more than routine coverage an NCAA athlete would receive as Mackensen mentioned above. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NGRIDIRON and NCOLLATH. Coverage is just routine sports reporting.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Coverage is simply routine information. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment coverage is far and away above routine sports coverage of basic box scores. See essay WP:NOTROUTINE for more details.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's info out there that isn't in the article, which is rather surprising as this person got a fair bit of coverage as a freshman for a shoplifting charge. So that plus in-depth coverage such as this article tips it into WP:GNG passage. Tarc (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Routine coverage of a Division 1 collegiate player. Not sufficient for a GNG pass, in my estimation, nor are criteria for the low bar for pro athletes met. Carrite (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tarc. I wouldn't say he passes WP:NGRIDIRON, but with the shoplifting thing and the routine coverage I'd say he squeaks by the general notability guideline. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think a shoplifting charge is regular routine coverage, and everything else is general coverage, fails WP:GNG (more coverage than most but still fails) and WP:ATHLETE. We need to stop with that heavy inclusionism of keeping borderline notable BLPs. Secret ^account 14:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Shoplifting is very common and many places cover the names of people who are charged and convicted with crimes. Bottom line is his athletic career and it doesn't warrant notability WP:ATHLETE PeteBaltar (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tarc. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:54, 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) 01:21, 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 // 21:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete We wouldn't bother with an article on a shoplifter were he not already notable, and as far as sports are concerned this guy just didn't cut it. Mangoe (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH, and hasn't received enough coverage to pass the general notability guideline. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:15, 30 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) 01:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Coleman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG I can find no reliable sources, she has had a small number of very minor parts so far. Theroadislong (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Not so sure she fails GNG. This upcoming Big Stone Gap film seems to be at least somewhat significant, and as it comes closer to release, I'll bet that some reliable sources will arise. Until then, I'd say we could dispose of the fluffy prose and perhaps leave it as a filmography table. The article may have been created a bit prematurely, but I don't see this as a substantial reason for deletion. Jon (aka Blurred203) holler 21:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep for weak keep reasons mentioned above.24.0.133.234 (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while she may become notable, there's no indication that she is. (And I don't think a single supporting role will suffice, no matter who stars in the movie - unless she wins a "best supporting actor" Oscar or the like.) No prejudice against re-creation when there actually is significant coverage of her in reliable sources. Huon (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The possibility of her becoming notable in the future is not a valid reason for keeping the article now. Fails all three criteria of WP:NACTOR. - Mr X 00:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG and NACTOR. Maybe she'll make a big splash in Big Stone Gap, but my WP:CRYSTALBALL is in the shop for repairs. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage about her. Her body of work has no indication of notability now. Any notability for the future is purely speculative. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 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 merge to Features of the Marvel Universe.. Go for it. SarahStierch (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mutant Response Division[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics 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) 17:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is poorly done but it looks like it still starting along. I would recommend giving it a chance to breath by editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilyharris (talk • contribs) 18:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. Not independently notable. All I see are trivial mentions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:04, 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 merge to Features of the Marvel Universe. go for it! SarahStierch (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Project Wideawake[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics 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) 17:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. My first impulse is to just delete this, as it's nothing but in-universe plot details. Still, Features already has a link to it. It can't hurt to merge a sentence or two. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:37, 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. Feel free to renominate if you wish. SarahStierch (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

European Academy of Diplomacy[edit]

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

I am no seeing how this is passing Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I am not seeing that this NGO has generated any significant coverage in reliable media. It's biggest claim to fame is that it has notable members, but I don't think that's enough - it's not doing anything to be notable. PS. Article was originally created by European Academy of Diplomacy (talk · contribs), so it's clear the intent was promotional. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 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, v/r - T P 03:06, 14 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, Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

they need to cite the sources. it looks impressive as a list and may have merit but it needs the links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilyharris (talk • contribs) 18:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An organization's notability is determined by what others say about the organization, and not by what it says about itself. I am concerned that sources covering this organization may exist in another language, but to be on English Wikipedia some sources have to be identified and I am not readily seeing them in English. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:39, 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) 01:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Toms[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. No charting, major awards, notable releases. The two releases listed in the discography are not what is claimed. "The Audition Window" is credited to Carl Lenthe [3], not Lenthe and Toms. "Con Amore: A Celebration of Italian Opera" is by M. Dee Stewart and Fabio Sampo [4], not Toms. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:29, 14 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, Randykitty (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill instrumentalist. Not a named artist on the recordings, though he does apparently play on them (along with other musicians). No indication of significant media coverage, importance in his field, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is an allegation of notability under WP:MUSICBIO - that he's toured extensively in the United States. However, all the news articles indicate local stardom in the Sarasota area only. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Keith[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Lacks third party coverage. Michig (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the only press coverage I could find, and even then it is marginal. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EagleRider[edit]

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

Non-notable company. There are lots of press releases out there, and there are about a dozen news articles about motorcycle touring or motorcycle rental, and in passing they will say, "Several companies offer motorcycle rentals, such as Company A, Company B, and EagleRider". That is not the sustained, in-depth coverage where EagleRider is the actual subject of the article required by WP:COMPANY. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They are the world's largets motorbike rental company as confirmed by the Wall Street Journal (this one is not significant coverage). In terms of signficant coverage, there is a profile in this book, coverage in the Denver Post, and for those with Highbeam access, there is a Chicago Sun-Times article. It's hard to find this stuff as they are prolific publishers of press releases but these sources are enough to demonstrate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Whpq. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:33, 20 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, Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm surprise that this was relisted, since the consensus above appeared to have been conclusive. Either way it was covered in reliable sources so it's a pass. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:37, 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) 01:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Bott[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Unsuccessful mayoral candidate who has received little or no coverage outside of routine campaign press, per Google News search. Should be deleted or redirected to an appropriate page. First nominated was halted as election campaign was in progress, and there was reason to believe the subject's coverage and notability might have in the process of increasing. However, this hasn't proven to have been the case and he received only %15 of the vote in a citywide election. Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failed politician. Only of local interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I do not believe this individual meets the notability requirements. He has campaigned for election and received some coverage related to that event but otherwise has not received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:08, 23 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 due to copyright status, as the concerns of the list passing the threshold of originality and being eligible for copyright due to creativity in deciding on the list members (selection) and their ranks (arrangement), as well as list presentation, are valid. That being said, I fully accept that any copyvio was entirely unintentional, as this is a grey and difficult area of copyright. If anyone would like a list of the red links only from the list for help in creating a to-do list, I'll be happy to provide those upon request. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Forbes Global 2000 companies[edit]

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

Looks to me as copyvio from Forbes as this is the list itself, not an article about. The Banner talk 13:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we are not Forbes' backup server. bd2412 T 14:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response I was concerned about the copyright issue, but my non-lawyerly impression was that in a country without database copyright it should be permitted. I know we hold many lists of sports statistics and other award winners. I actually asked to confirm this at [[5]] though, and someone called it a "corner case" because there is a list of albums which is considered creative. In this case, the ranks are generated by an average of rankings within four different financial categories - revenue, profits, assets, and market valuation - but those figures do reflect some editorial choice by Forbes, for example, to lump together figures for half a dozen companies that are based in two countries. I am not looking to violate copyright - I just want to include every scrap of information I can without doing so. So if people end up deciding that taking out the rank column fixes that, I can do that, etc. However, I should make it clear that this is not merely a "backup server" for Forbes: the point of putting up the list in the first place was to have a resource we could use to checklist through all these companies and systematically fill in the holes in our coverage, until the entire 2000 are represented with some confidence. (I actually got into the 400s before I found a redlink I couldn't quickly disambiguate!) Finally, the list is also usable for Lua scripts, so as a less-favored option (provided copyright is OK) I'd at least prefer to keep it at some place like Module talk:Forbes Global 2000/data so that I can use it to write a Lua module that accepts a company name and returns one of the six pieces of information about it that the list indexes. The original function that led me to this idea would also be handled by the module: to return a random sequence of major companies for people to edit if they want to ensure systematic and neutral coverage. Wnt (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In the United States, this would definitely be a copyright violation, since Forbes does exercise some editorial judgment in coming up with its rules for generating this compilation. A project-space list of just the relatively few red links would be fine. bd2412 T 18:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what I expected to hear. I've decided then to remove the table content temporarily - I'm not yet conceding the AfD at this point, but I'll need someone explaining a way to keep a meaningful amount of this content. Wnt (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete Whereas the US is understood generally not to have database copyright, I think that belief is based on interpreting Feist. The problem here is that, whereas Feist dealt with a phone book that (1) included numbers within a geographical area, and (2) was sorted alphabetically by last name, here we have a very large list of ranked companies, where the metrics used to establish the rankings are at least novel, if not outright original. I believe this language is relevant:
The key to resolving the tension lies in understanding why facts are not copyrightable. The sine qua non of copyright is originality. To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author. Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity. To be sure, the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, “no matter how crude, humble or obvious” it might be. Originality does not signify novelty; a work may be original even though it closely resembles other works so long as the similarity is fortuitous, not the result of copying. To illustrate, assume that two poets, each ignorant of the other, compose identical poems. Neither work is novel, yet both are original and, hence, copyrightable.
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345-46 (1991) (citations omitted). So, I think, it's very likely the list, without more, is subject to copyright, and probably not acceptable for inclusion under a fair use argument, as we might accept for a quotation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:17, 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) 01:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of musical societies in Sydney[edit]

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

this is a list of completely non notable amateur groups except one. As per WP:NOTDIR. I doubt most of the groups could pass WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the only blue link is in fact a redirect. LibStar (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article has nothing but useless information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russianarmy13 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – this website directory is not required on WP, per LibStar.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:55, 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) 01:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SCADALAB Project[edit]

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

Non-notable short-term EU-funded project. All the references appear to be by parties with a financial interest in the project. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteconcur. some sort of self promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilyharris (talk • contribs) 18:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON Lack of independent substantial coverage in RS. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:18, 27 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) 01:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Political messages of Dr. Seuss[edit]

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

Rational at WP:HD by Bobnorwal ". I think it's very out of place and doesn't serve much of a purpose. It was written as part of a college assignment. It definitely needs to be dealt with." --Mdann52talk to me! 08:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this doesn't belong as a stand-alone article. It's kind of the author to share, but most of the material is already in Wikipedia. Dr. Seuss's main article goes into some depth on his views. The individual articles on the books already offer interpretations, particularly for the more political books like The Butter Battle Book, so there's little if any merging required. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment indicates that some merging would be required. Deletion would obviously disrupt this. Please explain how your !vote is consistent with our editing policy. Warden (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I suggest is to paste the text of this article into his main article as a section. Then combine that section with the existing political views section of that article. Then no information will be lost. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Little if any merging required" does not mean that merging is required. It means that if any merging is needed, it will be minimal. This is because most content is duplicated. Have you found anything in the article that is not elsewhere on Wikipedia? --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal merging is still merging and then our attribution policy requires us to keep the edit history but deletion would destroy this. See WP:MAD. Warden (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable - see The Political Dr Seuss, for example. And the page contains much good educational material. Let us heed the word of The Lorax, "UNLESS"... Warden (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic is notable but not needed. Seuss's progressive views are a big part of who he was and why he wrote his books. This information is already found in his own article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is rather a good article and unusually well referenced for this sort of thing. I can't see the off-line references but the article's provenance[6] inspires confidence. There is more information here than could reasonably be included at Dr. Seuss. The suggestion at WP:Help Desk seems primarily to be to split the commentary on the various books into the several articles but unfortunately this aspect was not mentioned in the nomination here. Splitting up might work but would end up preventing deletion on grounds of losing attribution (though a redirect to Dr. Seuss would suffice). However, the topic as a whole very clearly meets the notability guidelines. This book extensively discusses Geisel's political satire and there is plenty more overall discussion of the topic.[7][8][9][10]. Thincat (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject to possible subsequent merge(s). I don't think anyone disagrees that the topic is significant to Seuss, and that sources exist that discuss the topic in detail. I don't see any reason to remove the substantial editing history of this article. Whether to merge it, and where, can be worked out through normal editorial processes. (My own initial view is that the material that's currently in this article could probably be accommodated in the main article, but more is out there that could expand it into something bigger. I also note that we already have a short article about the book Dr. Seuss Goes to War, which would profit from some expansion to establish its notability.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - what a good, well-written article to find here. It is clearly notable. As for merging, there is a good, brief section correctly written in summary style, with a 'main' link to this article as there should be, for a more detailed treatment, which is provided. Merging would be completely wrong in this context. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's a very nicely written, well-researched school paper, but the fact remains that it is exactly that: a research paper. Mangoe (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that is a well written article and contains a number of citations. I believe it could be improved and has already been improved from when this was proposed. XFEM Skier (talk) 06:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG through plenty of citations, big enough that it can't be merged anywhere per WP:SIZE without losing a lot of content. Detailed does not equal cruft. Jclemens (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People counting citations are missing the point. It's still an essay, not a proper article. Mangoe (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Making the article less essaylike is a matter for normal editing. The subject is clearly demonstrated to be notable, and the fact that it could be better written is not cause for deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles are expected to be in the format of a prose essay. What WP:NOTESSAY discourages are "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinion of experts)." The article in question does not seem to state or convey the personal feelings of its author(s) and so it's fine. Warden (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your eagerness to quote a policy linkage that happens to share a name, you have missed the point. This is not an encyclopedia article; it's a term paper, well-referenced perhaps, but not the sort of text when should be constructing. Of course the main article needs to mention the inclusion of political messages, and then each of the articles on the books needs to talk about that book's political message if it has one. But constructing an article which collects the latter together simply as a string of subsections is redundant. I could see some point to an article on the politics of Dr. Seuss, assuming it can dodge WP:OR. But an article which simply strings together cut-down parts of the other articles is simply a maintenance sink. It's always going to be worse than reading the articles on the books, or a section on Geisel's politics in his article. Mangoe (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a topic covered in the scholarly literature (as the footnotes showing attest). Passes GNG as a subject dealt with substantially in multiple independently-published sources of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Warden and Carrite. If whole shelves of books are published about a topic, then it's notable. Even term papers have become articles. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 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. Speedily deleted and salted. Jujutacular (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manic(wrestler)[edit]

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

Not a notable wrestler. A search failed to find enough relevant information regarding him. None of the "wrestling companies" he's worked appear to be notable either. Borderline promotional as well. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and salt. Fake. This will be the third time deleted. Wrestler on the "independent circuit" with no refs. There are already two wrestlers named Manik and Manic. The poster is photoshoped (original). This "Manic" has never been with "Big Time Wrestling" or any other outfits. Bgwhite (talk) 09:03, 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. Will undelete if there's a suitable merge target. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Union Aerospace Corporation[edit]

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

Referenced only to primary sources, no discussion of cultural impact, clearly fails WP:GNG. Prior deletion discussion was held 5 years ago, with 3 votes for deletion and 2 for keep ("because it's important"...). The article has not improved since then (even one editor who voted keep noted it needs better sources). I think it's time to say goodbye to this piece of fancruft. CC prior AfD participants: User:S@bre, User:Xihr User:Judgesurreal777, , User:Fee Fi Foe Fum, User:XX55XX, User:MBisanz and User:DGG _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no press coverage (or other reliable sources), no secondary sources, it isn't important. Alex^{discussion ★} 15:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage in proper sources can be provided. TTN (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - The problem with articles like this is that there's no proper place to merge to. It's important enough in the plot of some of the works to be a major antagonist. The only two solution I can think of are to either keep the article separate, or make a Doom Universe article like we do for some comic books. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:DGG: There's an easy solution: move content to http://doom.wikia.com/ . If the concept is not notable, it cannot stay on Wikipedia. I wouldn't mind if Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) was more welcoming of this type of content, but as long as it isn't, I do not see how we can justify exception for fancruft like this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found a few sources discussing it: several mentions in this book, which discusses how UAC fits into the "evil corporation" trope (one paragraph on page 226 and another paragraph on page 227); a Top Ten list on VG Chartz (but VG Chartz is on the verboten list at WP:VG/RS); another Top Ten list on Dorkly, but I never heard of Dorkly before (apparently it's CollegeHumor rebranded for gamers); and, finally, an article at TG Daily, which I also never heard of before. The book doesn't has some commentary spread out over those two pages, but it's a bit sparse. The two Top Ten lists come from sites of debatable reliability, but maybe they're OK for something this trivial. And, finally, the TG Daily article is written by an English professor who moonlights as a video game contributor at obscure web sites. Not an impressive article, especially for a college professor, but it's got two useable paragraphs of analysis at the end. I'd appreciate any comments on these sources, as I'm feeling a bit iffy about each of them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Doom universe. Above listed sources still seem a bit iffy but there's been no objection to them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fictional in-universe entity which has not exerted either significant cultural impact nor been the subject of multiple instances of substantial coverage in independently-published sources. Wikia is thattaway ----> (Jimmy Wales thanks you for your business and hopes you are pleased.) Carrite (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per David G. above, if the creator wants this userfied so that information here may be integrated into a future Doom universe article, I have no objection, nor should anyone. Carrite (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem merging this stuff into a "Universe" article. I probably should have mentioned that. Fixed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:16, 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. Speedily deleted by Deb. (Non-admin closure.) Alex^{discussion ★} 15:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny felten[edit]

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

Not notable poker player, fails WP:BASIC. Alex^{discussion ★} 06:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Support deletion, no good references, no clear claim of notability per WP:BIO. Ping me if any arguments are presented to the contrary, and I'll consider them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Lagrange 613 08:13, 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 speedy delete. Deleted as G11. Creator spamublocked. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ProStudioApp[edit]

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

Delete, Scores no google hits to show notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable sources that could support the article. Has a legit website to show valid points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeatloafLovah (talk • contribs) 06:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article added more reference recently to their article Reputable Sites — Preceding unsigned comment added by Createlex (talk • contribs) 06:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not reliable and does not show notability.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The usual product advertisement spam, clearly failing WP:PRODUCT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what an interesting little hive of WP:COI and WP:PROMO this is! The products CreateLex and ProStudioApp were created by a particular individual (who shall remain nameless per WP:OUTING, though he's done a pretty good job of outing himself). User:Createlex here on WP has created two articles - one for this individual and one for ProStudioApp (neither of which seems particularly notable). User:MeatloafLovah tried to create an article about this individual whose most recent tweet (his Twitter profile being the first thing that comes up when you do a basic search for sources) was to promote... ProStudioApp (check who re-tweeted that and - shock horror! - the same name comes up again and again). You literally can't get through the first page of basic search results without tripping over the mass of COI tentacles. I don't think any of these editors are here to build an encyclopedia. Stalwart111 08:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable; an advert. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is just a promotion; no indication of notability. Johnuniq (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability asserted, but no citation for this assertion has been provided. Article as it stands is purely promotional with no references showing notability. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no citations, no notability CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, no reliable sources, pure promotion. Alex^{discussion ★} 15:57, 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) 01:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dusan Zarubica[edit]

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

Strike 1: being "Economic Counselor at the Serbian Embassy in Romania" does not earn you a spot in an encyclopedia.
Strike 2: your sources are atrocious.
Strike 3: your only contribution to Wikipedia is this article, and you pick the username Dusanzarubica.
"You are the Weakest Link, goodbye!" - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strike 1: articles about "Economic counselor" is common on Wikipedia http://www.en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=economic+counsellor&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1
Strike 2: sources are relevant confirmation of the data in the article in accordance with the Wikipedia "Neutral point of view" policy
Strike 3: the article will be expended in the future

Note: the above rebuttal was written by User:Dusanzarubica but for some reason not signed or auto-signed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG searching the web I couldn't find anything that had 'Dusan Zarubica' as a main topic of material, fails WP:POLITICIAN as insignificant political figure, and also obvious conflict of interest as it's possibly an autobiography, WP:SELFPROMOTION. Alex^{discussion ★} 08:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not very notable at all. 23 editor (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Summer Olympics closing ceremony[edit]

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

Way too long and contains a lot of copyright violations, possibly even the vast majority of it, but I didn't check all of it. I redirected it to the relevant section in the 2000 Olympics, but creator reverted. Another editor reverted the creator, but the creator reverted that editor. Yet another editor reverted the creator, but the creator reverted again. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I removed all the copyvio and all the images except one tagged for copyvio deletion. There's basically nothing left. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am proposing redirecting, not deleting. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me that the problems are best dealt with by good editing. The opening and closing ceremonies have a huge international audience and an enduring cultural significance if only because comparisons are inevitably made between them later. More than a brief mention in the main article for each Games would give undue emphasis, and the content should be dealt with separately just as the sporting activities themselves are given their own articles. --AJHingston (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We do have separate articles about a number of other Olympics closing ceremonies, see Category:Olympics closing ceremonies and Template:Olympic Games closing ceremonies. This particular article is a bit of a mess at the moment, lacking wikilinks and reliable independent sources, but I have little doubt a decent article could be written if someone wants to do it. In the meantime I'm inclined to see this as an editing issue rather than one for AfD: the topic is almost certainly notable, but editors could decide, in the exercise of editorial discretion and using our normal processes for editorial discussion, to merge this back into the main article until there's enough valid content to justify a separate article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge I agree with the others that this is an editing issue. In the current state, it should be redirected and merged. It has been a redirect for awhile. If it is improved, then keep. Bgwhite (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability and wealth of sources are clear. Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are exactly zero sources... I don't think you read the article. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I wasn't clear. I meant there are plenty of sources available to be used.Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. Well I am talking specifically about this article in its current form right now which has almost zero content. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article in its present state is not as nominated. There is nothing to stop information in copyright material being summarised and rewritten in encyclopaedic style - see the page history for material and sources removed. Finding pictures that can be used will be more difficult, but that is true for most articles and does not prevent the creation of a satisfactory article. --AJHingston (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. An article being in a poor state is not a valid reason for deletion. Article probably needs to be gutted and rebooted. Hack (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not proposing deletion, I am proposing redirecting to the section in the main article that has actual content. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have nominated the article for deletion without explicitly proposing a redirect - I'm not sure how we're supposed to read your mind. Hack (talk) 07:06, 27 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-deletion (G11). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parley (software)[edit]

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

Unsourced article about apparently non-notable software. Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. - Mr X 04:35, 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) 01:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TinyLightbulbs[edit]

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

This article was tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising, and I declined because I didn't feel entirely satisfied that is the case. Article was created over a year ago via AfC. The topic does seem to have some marginal legitimate coverage in sources, located via a quick Google search. I don't have a strong opinion either way; I just wanted to draw a bit more attention to the article before any action is taken. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep the entity passes WP:GNG per several independent publications: [11] [12] [13] [14]. Alex^{discussion ★} 06:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per below. Alex^{discussion ★} 19:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I placedthe speedy) The publicity is just that. Your Ref 1 above in the huffington Post and Ref 3 in Turnstyle are identical==with the same author--he published it in both. Looking at the bottom, he wrote it first for turnstyle,)", a digital information service surfacing emerging stories" & republished it in the HP. Re f2 is an academic review, not about the cute gadgets the company sells, but about literally tiny lightbulbs, and so is irrelevant. Ref 4 is insubstantial from THW . Of the refs in the article, 1 * 2 are trivial, 3 is an interview from twintangibles (Anglo-Italian Advisory service whose core business is promoting startups, 4 is the same insubstantial interview from THW as above, 5. is the company';s own site, 6 is a database for finding products where the company p puts in advertising pages.for the listing: apparently a collection of press releases. . So we are left with the Huntington Post reprint interview of the founder, where they let him say what he please, and 95% of it's text is just that , without any attempt at actual journalism besides feeding him the connecting sentences.

Looking now at our article, The first paragraph display in the typical promotional editing style how a personal need led to the creation of the company (this is a favorite trick of g one batch of paid editors, but that doesn't mean the w writer of this is among them--he may be innocently copying their style. There's an emphasis on just howe and when the commission is paid. There's a curious absence of information about what they actually sell -- typical for companies whose ingenious model is more important than actual product. And there's links to 3 very well known crowd funding systems, to make sure we see some well known names. And the first ref is the Alexa rank. Most editors of these type of article know enough by now not to put it in the actual article. And there's no studiously informal picture of the principals in the firm. So I suppose things are improving DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry DGG, I should have notified you sooner. My apologies. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Also, wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. - tucoxn\^talk 23:09, 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) 01:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mireniamu era (daikaiju eiga)[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shōwa era (daikaiju eiga) - This has no sources, I can't find any sources, and this appears be original research. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if no sources can be provided. If there is something at least proving that it is a valid term, redirecting to something is also viable. TTN (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced original research. --DAJF (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is discussed in Godzilla (franchise)#Series history and there's no need for a separate article. Not proposing a redirect because it seems an unlikely search term. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cut and pasting my vote because most of the article is cut-and-paste. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:19, 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) 01:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heisei era (daikaiju eiga)[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shōwa era (daikaiju eiga) - This has no sources, I can't find any sources, and this appears be original research. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if no sources can be provided. If there is something at least proving that it is a valid term, redirecting to something is also viable. TTN (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced original research. --DAJF (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is discussed in Godzilla (franchise)#Series history and there's no need for a separate article. Not proposing a redirect because it seems an unlikely search term. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2004[edit]

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

Also including the following similar lists:

I would think this falls under WP:IINFO, when a mere summary of the hits of each year can in some cases be found at 2004 in music and the like and should be sufficient. It's just a regurgitation of info from numerous issues of Billboard that is nearly impossible to adequately source (the date the song entered the top 10, the date it peaked, the chart position it peaked at, the number of weeks it was in the top 10, whether it re-entered the top 10 and whether it carried over from one year to the next). All that just to inform readers these songs reached the top on the Hot 100. Perhaps merge just the song titles/artist names to "[year] in music" or "[year] in American music" articles, as appropriate, if not already set up that way (sourcing would be easier too). There are already lists of #1s, and this is somewhat of arbitrary cutoff (top 20, top 40 anyone?). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to definitely say to keep these as someone who spends a large amount of time researching music charts and debating them. These articles give a lot of useful information in a way that's concise and easy to find. All deleting them will accomplish is making that information harder to find. Not only that, but I also just find this information interesting. And no, anyone in the music industry can tell you that number 10 isn't an arbitrary cutoff at all. Having a single reach the top ten is a massive milestone for an artist and the top ten of the chart is important because it gets songs coverage in Billboard and other magazines - the position is important because the media surrounding it has made it that way. Deleting these articles is just going to make everyone's life a lot more difficult. And frankly, I'd rather there be a lot of correct information without good citations than nothing at all (I'll also say that I've fact-checked the majority of these and they're right). politoed89/austin 05:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These provide information on a notable topic, viz the Billboard charts, as well as links which are useful for navigation. I'd oppose a merge to the year in music article on the basis that these tend to already be quite large. We can argue whether it's better to have top 10, top 20, or top 40, but top ten is a notable concept, and debates about content aren't reason for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list provides some very good information about some of the popular songs that came throughout the year. I know for a fact that a lot of people use this list to refer and listen to new songs because I am one of them. So I definitely strongly oppose the decision to delete it.

NiR_insanity 15:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Colapeninsula. These lists are verifiable and provide clear navigational and organizational value, with little downside.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I see the above users utilizing mostly ILIKEIT rationales that I don't find very convincing. Frankly, I understand the nominator's concern over IINFO. My basis for keep is only based on the fact that pretty much all of the songs in these lists are notable (if not all), and lists have a good claim for staying if all the content can be verified as notable, I would think. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use an ILIKEIT argument. My arguments are policy-based: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Navigation, notability (the media regularly reports artists' chart positions), article size against merging. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair—like I said, notability of these songs in particular makes them stronger candidates for keep. But most of the arguments here seem to be of the ILIKEIT variety (it's useful, I spent lots of time on it, it doesn't hurt anybody), IMHO. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course top 10 positions can be verified (so can top 11, top 20, top 40, top 100), but rarely are these sources found outside of Billboard itself (note the sources in the later lists). If these are to be kept they should show one thing: were they a top ten hit or not? "Weeks in top 10" cannot be sourced adequately (quite impossible actually), date reached peak - verifiable but meaningless. Then all the continuations from previous and subsequent years. What reached the top 10 during a given year, which is what 2013 in music and the like do a much better job of. I agree that there is way too much WP:ILIKEIT in these arguments. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I love these articles, shame some people want to delete them. Really? They're important to chartsters, but the thing is there's a weird void between 1960 and 1994 that nobody has bothered to fill in, incorrect peak dates, and the rowspan on dates only appears on the 2010-present articles. This is pretty useful to me, to find new top-ten updates every week, but the thing is that there is just no style. TheBatteryMill (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)— TheBatteryMill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Please keep them. They can be verified for each one dating back to the 50's. For example type in, http://www.billboard.com/charts/2001-03-24/hot-100 to verify the top-tens. It's simple. PLEASE don't delete and also add the top-tens for all of the years. It's easy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.12.152.67 (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I'd like to go through in the coming weeks and complete these lists; I plan to get started tomorrow morning on verifying 1958 to 1960. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 00:55, 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.