Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 October	7 October >

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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett O'Hara (band)[edit]

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

Do not appear to meet WP:BAND, and a search for sources, once false hits referring to the Gone With the Wind character are screened out, elicits only a single writeup [1] in their local McAllen, Texas newspaper... Boogerpatrol (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I also found a Rock Sound review of their album ([2]). --Michig (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'll stick my neck out and cast my opinion. Band was fairly short lived, releasing one album Lost in Existence ...which seems to fall below the notability threshold too! They then seemed to swindle from existence. The one article we have of any substance is in their town newspaper. Most of the subsequent announcements seem to have stemmed from Facebook and MySpace. Until they get established they're probably not notable enough for Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 23:16, 4 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Sionk, I find a bunch of mentions when searching, but I can't seem to find anything groundbreaking in terms of notability. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 23:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Ackert[edit]

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

Jack of all trades, master of none. A list of bit parts in TV shows, and various other claims, none of them by themselves providing notability, and I don't see any cumulative passing of WP:GNG either. It's also a puff piece, of course, as is the subject's IMDB entry. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:53, 20 September 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, KTC (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Consensus I feel he is notable enough for an article. But this is a poorly written article. I know him from his acting not his activist work. Boaxy (talk) 07:35, 1 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough relevant sources. The list of performance roles almost swayed me, but then I noticed that they were chiefly one-time appearances. The citations aren't all that strong either. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 00:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Let's quickly dispense with the business development and science fiction writing. I can find no coverage in reliable sources on those aspects aside from the San Fernando Biz Jounal noted already in the article. He appears to have received the most notice as an actor. It is primarily on his role in Maryam (film). However, the reviews I've been able to access such as [3], [4], and [5] don't provide significant coverage about him. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Echopass[edit]

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

The citations given are PR grade, or they are passing mentions in RS media. They do not do more than confirm a great PR angle. The corporation has not sufficient asserted and verified notability for an article here yet. Fiddle Faddle 16:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:05, 20 September 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, KTC (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I find the coverage in cited reliable sources to be significant. ~KvnG 15:06, 1 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see anything wrong here. It does appear to have a few decent sources. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 23:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite number of sources, most are passing mentions (or 'trivial and incidental' per WP:ORGDEPTH) and many look to result from press releases. I'm just not seeing the notability here.--Korruski^Talk 12:59, 9 October 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 WP:CSD#G5 - creator is a sock. Giant Snowman 13:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem theory[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic WP:OR. Kolbasz (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reads like OR, needs real sources. Citations such as "(citation source of the overview above: Master of Science Mr. Anwari at NVCC Loudoun)" are obviously insufficient. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 23:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR and OSYN. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Asukite and Xxanthippe. -- 101.119.14.213 (talk) 05:05, 7 October 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) 01:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Z. Davis[edit]

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

Only one instance of significant coverage (at least online), [6]. And they seem to have done a similar piece for many people. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 23:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search of Google found social media type sources. Google books nothing. No evident book reviews in reliable sources. Per GNG and AUTHOR. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep - withdrawn by nominator Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of female classical conductors[edit]

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

As there is neither List of male classical conductors nor a more general List of classical conductors, the merits of having this article are at least questinable. In its current shape, it is utterly useless. Even if it was expanded, the list would be unmaintainable, because there are no clear inclusion/exclusion criteria: The term "classical conductor" is not well defined, and not every member of this group is noteworthy. To sum it up, Category:Women conductors (music) is sufficient. FoxyOrange (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. At first glance, I'd say delete, as a list of two entries is not a list. However, the category Category:Women conductors (music) has many entries and that can be used to expand this list (maybe into a table with other info, country, when they were active, etc). The inclusion criteria is clear - any female conductor who is notable. And the argurement for deletion because of the category existing fails WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. Marin Alsop was in the news recently as being the first female conductor of the Last Night of the Proms. Martin451 12:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator. There is no valid reason for deletion, I should have made myself more familiar with WP:CLN. Thanks to User:Lugnuts for telling me.--FoxyOrange (talk) 12:34, 7 October 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 Dan Dare. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mekonta[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional city references to which, when they exist at all, are confirmations of its existence within the fiction but do not establish the location or concept as a separate notable entity. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect back to Dan Dare. The city has no existence outisde that fictional story. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:11, 7 October 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) 01:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David N. Rahni[edit]

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

Contested prod. I can't find enough citations (under either D. N. Rahni or D. Nabirahni) to justify a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and he doesn't seem to pass the other criteria either. Additionally, the article is an autobiography, and its history of being edited by single-purpose accounts suggests that some sockpuppetry may also be involved. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no pass of WP:Prof. Is there anything else? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as person who proposed its deletion. I can't find enough citations, either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 7 October 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) 01:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Death of Hadhrat Jesus(AS), Son of Mary[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not the place for this theological essay. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unreferenced personal essay that pushes a religious point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.The first time I looked at the article, my response was tl;dr (or too confusing, in any case). When I finally read it, I tried to figure out what the article was trying to say. Any references seem to be in support of WP:OR, where the writer is trying to draw conclusions based on quotations. I don't see this as any sort of encyclopedic article.--Larry (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the ALL CAPS is a sure sign this is an essay, not an article, and a soapbox, to boot. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - People at WP periodically misuse the slogan "No Original Research." Actually, everything at Wikipedia that is not a (prohibited) copyright violation is original; and everything includes some facts but not others, weighing sources, etc., which is research. So what does this unfortunate slogan really mean? Well, here it is — this particular piece is a perfect example of what "No Original Research" is actually all about. Delete as an "unsourced personal essay advancing a novel scientific or historical concept." Carrite (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LACline[edit]

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

No independent sources show notability. The only sources are press releases. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A clear case of WP:COI here. The article author previously said "This username and contributions represent the artist and work of L.A. Cline, the old username was associated with her website. This new username is associated with herself and her work as a contributing Portrait Artist." Note also the unblock agreement on User talk:Lacfineart "not use any content for advertising and promotion purposes". AllyD (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searches on Highbeam and Questia turned up nothing; Google only shows press releases and user-submitted content. Fails WP:BASIC, fails WP:ARTIST. AllyD (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think this should be deleted because it has a COI, but down to the lack of sufficient references 193.109.199.71 (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreliable sources and no proof of notability. Clearly WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. --Drm310 (talk) 15:10, 11 October 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) 01:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belizean and Guatemalan International Court of Justice referral referendum, 2013[edit]

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

Article about a referendum that has now been cancelled. No point in retaining a separate article, and the fact that there was a proposed referendum at one point can be mentioned in Belizean-Guatemalan territorial dispute (the majority of the content is about the dispute anyway). Number 5 7 18:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Never materialized. Hekerui (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. –Randor1980^talk^•^{my edits} 12:30, 12 October 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. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Powers[edit]

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

This page has been created for personal vanity. The person listed in this article is not a well known hockey player or celebrity. Within the article you will see fabricated quotes, purely for humor purposes, with fake references attributed to them. References 1-7 are invalid to the content they are supplied to support. Ab4tttis (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable: person exists and the main facts of his career seem to be true, but without any coverage to meet WP:GNG and not successful enough for notability via WP:NHOCKEY. Article was created in 2009 by OReilly7, whose only other contributions are adding a reference to Powers to the page on Marty Reasoner (a more successful player who played alongside Powers for Boston College) and adding Powers as an alumnus to his high school's page. Page is an obvious example of OReilly7 writing a bio of a friend. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – Easily passes WP:NHOCKEY with 209 games played in the ECHL and another 75 in the CHL. We don't throw out articles on notable subjects just because they are poorly written; instead this article should be cleaned up to address the editorial issues raised by the nom. Dolovis (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Dolovis, but fundamentally re-write. The article in its current form is pure nonsense. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 14:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG as I am not seeing non-trivial coverage of the individual. Several routine mentions though. Ultimately, WP:HOCKEY only presumes notability, but it does not guarantee it. Reso lute 23:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing any non-routine coverage of this individual to pass GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comments--there appears to be no significant independent coverage of him.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to those who want to throw away WP:NHOCKEY:

This article meets the standard for inclusion because is does "provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria" as required by WP:NSPORTS. Powers specifically meets criteria #3 of WP:NHOCKEY for having played 209 games in the ECHL. He also won the 2000-01 Central Hockey League award for community service, which might not be a major award, but it does demonstrates that this player attracted league wide attention, and was not just a nobody. He also received stand-out recognition during his college career as Boston College's Most Improved Player of 1997-98. The reason that we have NHOCKEY is because a consensus of editors have decided that an ice hockey player is presumed notable if he has reached certain milestones in his career. This player has reached and surpassed that established criteria. The article is now well sourced to verify this player's professional career and accomplishments. By virtue of NSPORTS, it can be presumed that additional sources exist, which would be located with a proper search of non-internet hard-copy sources. But time is in short supply for all of us editors, which is why the standards of WP:NSPORTS exist. Dolovis (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you are completely unable to satisfy GNG. Reso lute 23:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, in other words what I am saying is that if I had a microfiche reader and access to newspapers and magazines from the period he was active, then GNG could be demonstrated. The presumption of notability has been met, and nothing you have put forth rebuts that presumption. By your argument, virtually all pre-2000 athletes (yes, including many major league, olympic, and other non-disputably notable athletes) would fail GNG. That is why NSPORTS exists. As it is, the references shown within the article are probably enough to statisify GNG, and in any event he explicitly meets the criteria of NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand why it would be necessary for this person to meet the GNG if he already meets NHOCKEY. NSPORTS states "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." The "or" looms large here it would seem to me. Nowhere is it stated that GNG must be met in addition to NHOCKEY. I would bet dollars to donuts we could find NHL and/or Olympic players who meet NHOCKEY while failing GNG, probably quite a few, yet I doubt we could reach consensus to delete any of them. I also fail to see how deleting the page would further the interest of the project as a whole. In any case, there seems to be agreement that he does, in fact, meet the requirements of NHOCKEY. If GNG must be met regardless of NHOCKEY then what is the purpose of NHOCKEY? Rejectwater (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NHOCKEY/NSPORTS only presumes that a player who meets specific criteria has been the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage so as to pass WP:GNG. Since it is based on arbitrary statistics, the criteria simply cannot guarantee that such coverage exists. Its purpose, as Dolovis alludes to, is to create that presumption on the expectation that sources will eventually be found. It does not, however, create blanket immunity from having that presumption challenged. And yes, someone could AFD an NHL player. But given my extensive personal library, including a book that profiles every player in NHL history up to 2003, coupled with the abundance of online sources, newspaper archives that I know exist (as opposed to Dolovis pretending exists), I could show a GNG pass on an NHL player without breaking a sweat. What this AFD is doing, is asking interested editors to show a GNG pass for Andy Powers. That means demonstrating the existence of multiple reliable sources that cover the individual in detail and are independent of the subject (and his employer bios do not count). The truth is, we are not talking about an NHL player here, but one who played in low-level minor leagues. The coverage of this individual - or lack thereof - reflects this. Reso lute 19:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I don't think the size of your library is the issue here. However, in a separate discussion, isaacl has brought to my attention Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ#Q2 which answers the main question I had. "[T]he subject must still eventually meet the general notability guideline." What appears to be at the heart of this discussion is a misunderstanding of how to apply NHOCKEY in determining notability, which is due at least in part to a vital piece of policy being squirreled away in an FAQ. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ#Q2 goes on to state: "For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics" (i.e. the criteria of NHOCKEY which establishes the presumption of notability as decided by a consensus of editors knowledgeable on the topic). Dolovis (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have persons in mind you would like to compare him to? Rejectwater (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other persons to compare him to would be professional ice hockey players who have played 5 years of minor professional hockey in North America. Do you require a list of names, and if so, how many names do you want? Dolovis (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More accurately, it would be a list of players who played similar years of low minor professional hockey around the same time this player did. "Similar characteristics", after all. And like this case, the names you would have to come up with would have to demonstrate GNG passes. I would be most interested to see if you can demonstrate that we can expect most players who appeared in say 4-6 seasons of ECHL or lower hockey, in the internet age, have sufficient RS coverage. Reso lute 20:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I would be interested to see this also. Rejectwater (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the subject played in the 1990s for major cities, I'm certain the teams for which he played were covered by reliable sources, and so there's no need to look for indirect evidence of meeting the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note the first sentence in WP:NSPORTS is as follows: "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." The third paragraph states:

Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

The FAQ simply re-states this again, using different language. isaacl (talk) 23:31, 3 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, Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There should be no reasonable doubt that a player who has played over 200 ECHL games will meet the notability criteria of GNG (he easily passes NHOCKEY), but given that he played in the pre-Internet era, sources are naturally more difficult to locate. Nonetheless, numerous, but brief, references found on-line might be enough to pass GNG: [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] If not, then please USERFY this article in my namespace so I can continue to look for sources per GNG. 17:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolovis (talk • contribs)
1 is his employer bio. 2 is a trivial mention. 3 is a trivial mention. 4 is a trivial mention. 5. a freewebs fansite? Are you kidding me? 6 is a trivial mention. 7 is a trivial mention. 8 is a trivial mention. 9 is a trivial mention. Are you sensing the pattern here, Dolovis? This is all just routine coverage, and very brief mentions. Also, in what universe is a pro career that spanned between 1999 and 2004 "pre-internet era"? And finally, keep in mind that userfication is meant to be a temporary measure. If you get it done this way and nothing happens, I will MfD the userfied version. Reso lute 18:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:NHOCKEY. As pointed out, his playing days predate the world wide web of online sources. For those with Highbeam access, there's plenty of coverage about him. Much of it can be classified as routine sports coverage which would not go towards notability. I did find this article in which Powers is one of a few players featured for Beanpot (ice hockey). This covers him in the context of being on the BC top line. This features him in the context of a playoff game. These types of results from Highbeam lead me to conclude that many more offline sources could be found to satisfy general notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There seems to be mentioning of sources from the "pre internet" era that would justify this article. I've searched the Factiva database, which covers newspapers and some sport literature for this period and found NO mentions of him. Secondly, his career was in the early 2000's, which is not pre web/internet in any case Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have not looked at the sources located by Whpq via Highbeam. This player meets GNG in addition to NHOCKEY with the existence of those aforementioned sources. I would hope the closing admin takes that into account for all Delete votes which claim that Powers doesn't meet GNG. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 18:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NHOCKEY #3. The state of the article at the time of nomiation may well have been deplorable, but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:30, 14 October 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 Jacques Chirac. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Development of the Port of New-Orleans[edit]

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

Maybe you all can do a better job of turning stuff up but the closest thing I have to coverage is this passing mention in The Economist. WP:GNG. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jacques Chirac. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jacques Chirac. I am not clear of the level of the degree to which the dissertation related. However, its only notability is due to its author's subsequent career. A few words in this bio-article is all we need. If this were a substantive article on how the port developed, it might be different, but that would be part of the History of New Orleans. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:39, 7 October 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 Stord. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sagvåg School[edit]

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

Nothing notable about it. Geschichte (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why this shouldn't be merged with Stord, as is standard practice for primary schools and as I suggested when contesting WP:PROD deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Primary schools, other than in unusual circumstances (not extant here), are not sufficiently notable to have wp pages. As to a merge -- there is nothing supported by refs, and therefore nothing to merge ... in the article, in the form it is in and was in when AfD was started. So merge is not appropriate (we don't recreate challenged ref-less text, in violation of wp:v). Even a redirect is of questionable utility, as it simply informs the reader of the name of the island on which the primary school exists, which is of a rather low level of utility.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 7 October 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) 01:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Station (Aliens)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. An editor has suggested that it be merged into the movie article. I would have redirected it, but the movie article doesn't even mention the station. I don't care much, but it doesn't seem to me that it's even sufficiently notable to merge as there would have to be some reliable sources attesting to its notability besides the synopsis at IMDb. Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As one who has heard of Alien(s), but has never seen any of it/them, my opinion is that this isn't worth redirecting or being a stand-alone article. It's a place where someone lives, so far as I can tell. It's not an essential part, unlike the planetoid or the ships. The editors of the technical section don't seem to have considered it important from the crafting point of view, and the editors of the story line here seem to have missed it out, while I noticed one mention at IMDb. I could have missed things. There would need to be more than IMDb as reference anyway. Peridon (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent notability attached to the concept. No need for a merge or a redirect since there is no content to merge and the redirect is highly improbable. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gateway station has a fairly minor role in the film as far as the plot was concerned. It is the place where Ellen Ripley was in hospital, and where she lived and worked before embarking on the Sulaco to go on a bug hunt. As a fictional space station it is very unremarkable (my opinion), and is unlikely to get much third party comment about it.Martin451 12:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was featured in the video games and the books according to the fan wikia. [16] I find no coverage of it in any independent reliable sources though. Best to just have it on the fan wikia. Dream Focus 19:18, 8 October 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) 02:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YerrapuReddy Ravindra Reddy[edit]

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

Notability not confirmed. I have searched in Google web, Google News and followed suggestions mentioned in WP:INDAFD. Article creator has confessed that the subject is his relative. Right now, I feel the article should not stay unless some strong sources are produced. Bbb23 tried to talk, but, their replies were not satisfactory and removed PROD tags multiple times. Tito☸Dutta 14:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 15:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A little more history. I speedy deleted one of the three articles created by the relative, which got me to looking at the others. I thought that Y.Adinarayana Reddy had enough in it to get past an A7, so I didn't tag it. Instead, I BLPPRODed it, stupidly not realizing that the person was no longer alive. That got me into an unnecessary tussle with the creator. I then tried to tag it with normal maintenance templates, but they removed them. However, I felt uncomfortable battling over it given my initial error, so I asked Tito for help. He's much more knowledgeable about the subject matter than I am, anyway. I have not talked to the creator about the nominated article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.My dear friend as u requested i have given you a source at the bottom of the page so please don't remove or put ant timers for it he is a great leader of indian freedom struggle he was also wven awarded tamara patra for his struggle so pls dont hurt our feeling. there are some more social activists like yerrapuReddy Ravindra reddy i am putting them also on wiki so that many people who are searchin for occurance of thair family and law records and psycology students to have projects on them so pls dont even remove yerrapuReddy Ravindra reddy also i will provide sources as fast as possible.okey(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source you put in was in the other article, not this one. This article remains unsourced. And it wasn't much of a source, either, by the way.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources i have put are 3 check out all those for a single page named nani 0 sources u wont care i have put all 3 sources and still will update the sources but also u want to delete that page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessy9009 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be unsourced BLP. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced BLP. Miniapolis 23:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm just beginning to get interested in India, so take my comments for what they're worth. However, I can't find anything that talks about this person -- and the article has no sources to help out.--Larry (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whatever else this article is, it is not a biography of a living person. The subject died 11 years ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction; however, it's still unsourced. All the best, Miniapolis 20:57, 9 October 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 -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Cooper Review[edit]

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

This doesn't appear to me to meet the general notability guideline. The only substantial source for this article is a listing on the website of the Texas Press Association (which similarly lists more than 500 other Texas papers, making this run-of-the-mill). All other sources appear to be primary sources or only passing mentions; even a book-length history of the county ("Images of America: Delta County") gives only half a sentence to the paper. I couldn't independently turn up anything beyond a few passing mentions in Google Books and Google News searches.

It also doesn't appear to me to meet the more stringent criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals)--significant impact in its field, major national awards, etc. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Good article that is clearly notable. The paper has been going since 1880, from the old west era right through to the modern era. The article is well written with decent sources. It's a keeper. scope_creep talk 15:59, 06 October 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree that it's well-written, but what sources did you find that discuss the Cooper Review in detail? Maybe you could add them to the article? -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice amount of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, There are several points to make here: The Cooper Review does pass GNG in terms of awards, leadership in the Texas Press Assocation and for its historical interest and claim to fame as the longest operating business in that area of Texas. Most important, I believe the nominator has made an error by using the obscure Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals), which is meant technically for non-media serials (the "regular schedule"), instead of the more appropriate Wikipedia:Notability (media) standard, which is meant for traditional media even if they are considered serials (as all newspapers and magazines will overlap in both areas). The later standard explicitly mentions newspapers and the former does not and refers to academic journals, etc. The latter is a consensus driven and not policy driven standard. Under the latter criteria, one would count the claim to fame above as well as taking into account its place in Texas media. I have no doubt that this is a keeper. Crtew (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some fresh content was added to clarify its position under the media notability guidelines. Crtew (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Crtew, thanks for the revisions to the article; I think they've resolved the situation neatly. I did want to note for the record that I think you're misreading both my nomination and Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals), though. My biggest concern was the lack of secondary sources dealing with this subject in a substantive way--since nobody who's responded here has found a single secondary source that discusses the subject in detail, we seem to at least all half-agree that that's the case. You can read the GNG at WP:GNG--that specific guideline has nothing to do with a publication's age or awards, but a simple question of whether secondary sources exist that discuss the subject in detail.

As for whether Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) applies to newspapers, its first sentence is "This guideline reflects the community's current consensus about the notability of periodicals, including magazines, newspapers, academic journals, and similar periodic publications." If you feel this guideline is incorrect, you might consider revising it or nominating it for deletion, but in the meantime, I don't think it's an "error" to refer to it as a supplement to the GNG.

All that said, I'm okay with using the weaker guideline of Notability Media, and agree that the material you've added meets that guideline. I'm willing to withdraw the nomination per that rationale. Thanks again for your constructive approach--it's really appreciated! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with Cirt's point and saw that those sources point to our notability guidelines. This entry would be a good search for print sources at the local and state level if we have somebody on the ground there. Crtew (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's true Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) mentions newspapers and magazines but it's written for general serials. Wikipedia:Notability (media) might seem weaker but it's more useful for looking at newspapers and magazines as it focuses on those. Crtew (talk) 02:31, 8 October 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) 02:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robyn Higgins[edit]

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

Unfortunately the young lady lacks notability in the Wikipedia sense, despite being immensely notable and important to those who came into contact with her and who loved her. I understand why an article has been placed here, but Wikipedia is not a memorial site. It is with regret that I submit this article for discussion regarding retention or deletion. Fiddle Faddle 13:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject cannot be notable for being a cancer sufferer alone, and is not the only victim of illness who has created a YouTube account or started up a blog or vlog - these are fairly easy to set up. A crucial point might be the number of subscribers, followers or internet "hits" on either her Instagram or YouTube accounts. However, the maximum quoted in the article is 35,000, which, to me, appears unremarkable. Her stated "bonding" with fellow "internet celebrity" Talia Castellano should be discounted 1) as there is no case for a 'reflected notability', and 2) it is questionable whether Castellano's page should exist anyway, in similar fashion to this subject's article. While we should have the utmost sympathy for the subject, there is no discernible notability evident here. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- An article on a child who died aged 11, created a week after her death, from cancer, which she had suffered from for several years. Being active on the Internet is hardly notable. I am naturally sorry fro her family, but she was non-notable, except to her family and friends, who will no doubt miss her. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A sad death, but a terminal illness plus access to the Internet does not equate to notability. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. WWGB (talk) 09:52, 7 October 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) 02:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Balažovič[edit]

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

An article about a young football player from the Czech Republic, created as David Balda by Agentbalda (talk · contribs). Balažovič played for CZ U-16 and U-17 junior teams and he tested with Leicester City F.C., but I can't find any source confirming that this player meets the notability requirements for football players or general notability guideline. Previously prodded, the prod tag removed without explanation or improvements to the page. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_7178840,00.html - CR Reprezentace http://nv.fotbal.cz/reprezentace/statistiky/viewstat3.asp?name=BalazovicDavid - Fc Leicester

tudiz naprosto nerozumim zadosti o smazani prispevku. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentbalda (talk • contribs) 16:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - playing 2 U17 matches 6 years ago does not confer notability. C 679 15:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has not played in an FPl nor for senior international team. Is he even playing any more? Fenix down (talk) 08:45, 9 October 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) 02:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Savage Land races[edit]

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

This is an overly in-depth list of plot details without real world information from reliable, third party sources to establish overall notability for the topic. TTN (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. I think it's fancruft/listcruft gone mad. The article is a blotch. Very little encyclopedic knowledge, and only really interested to a tiny minority of folk. It certainly doesn't fully satisfy WP:CNG. It should be trimmed/merged into Savage_Land. scope_creep talk 16:10, 06 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment if this article indeed does have "Very little encyclopedic knowledge" then you admitting it has encyclopedia knowledge, and deletion is off the table. It should be fixed, not deleted. Mathewignash (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think scope_creep is using "very little" as a polite euphemism for "none". Reyk _YO! 21:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Savage Land. BOZ (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Components of a list do not be independently notable to make up a notable list. bd2412 T 15:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent notability for the list or any of its component items. Wikipedia is not a repository for trivia. There must be a Marvel wiki somewhere that would love to have this; too bad the people who made this didn't make it there. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- In-universe plot summary and excessive trivia. Most of the items have no sources, and those that do are to the work of fiction itself. A merge is not really an option because Savage Land already has too much sourceless in-universe plot summary and would not be improved by more. Someone recently described merging this kind of thing as "shovelling shit from one corner of the stable to another"- a very apt comparison. Reyk _YO! 21:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 7 October 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 move to Anti-Administration party. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Administration Party[edit]

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

The references mentioned do not refer much to an "Anti-Administration Party" per se, but rather Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and those who supported them and who later formed Democratic/Republican societies and then the Republican Party after the Washington Administration. Holdek (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per discussion below. Holdek (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Standard recent sources do indeed use the term" "These factions had been known as the Anti-Administration Party" says Kenneth F. Warren (2008). Encyclopedia of U.S. Campaigns, Elections, and Electoral Behavior. SAGE Publications. p. 176.. 2) "The Jefferson case study in chapter 3 discusses how Jefferson desired the presidency and how he and his allies built an “anti-administration” party." says Lara M. Brown (2010). Jockeying for the American Presidency: The Political Opportunism of Aspirants. Cambria Press. p. 34. and p 22; 3) "Madison and Jefferson were at the center of a “rising anti-Administration party" says William F. Connelly Jr. (2010). James Madison Rules America: The Constitutional Origins of Congressional Partisanship. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 198.; 4) "Thus the anti-administration party, a legislative party in the sense that its members consciously worked together," says Kenneth R. Bowling (1968). Politics in the First Congress, 1789-1791. U of Wisconsin.; 5) the term was used by Orrin G Libby back in 1913: "This may well be considered to mark the end of Jefferson's initial essay at the organization of an anti-administration party." in Libby, Orin G. (1913). Quarterly Journal - University of North Dakota. p. 302. And for the record Holdek is wrong about the "Democratic/Republican societies" (they were an entirely different matter a couple years later.) Rjensen (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Anti-Administration party - the proper-noun capitals suggest this was a formal political party whereas the lede (and sources) suggest it was an informal grouping/coalition. There seems to be enough sources to substantiate an article but we shouldn't be suggesting it was a formal political if it wasn't. Stalwart111 13:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be fine with a renaming of the article to remove the proper nouns and to edit the non-lede sections where appropriate so not as to give the impression that this was an organized political party as opposed to an informal faction. Holdek (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yesI agree we should rename with "party" instead of "Party" Rjensen (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holdek, if that would resolve your concerns, do you want to withdraw this nomination so that can be done (renaming while it is the subject of an AFD isn't a great idea). Or do you have other notability concerns? Stalwart111 07:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I will withdraw my nomination. Holdek (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Dr. Jensen's argument above. I also think Stalwart is correct about the matter of capitalization of the P in party and would recommend the closing administrator make this change, if kept. Carrite (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close - has been withdrawn on the basis of a rename being enacted to address nominator concerns. Stalwart111 22:42, 12 October 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) 02:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Administration Party (United States)[edit]

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

No references have been included for over five years. The references mentioned on the talk page do not refer much to a "Pro-Administration Party" per se, but rather Alexander Hamilton and those who supported him and who later formed the Federalist Party after the Washington Administration. Holdek (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support while there was a group called the "Anti-Administration Party", almost no one then or now calls Hamilton's group the "pro-Administration party" . But see Michael Kazin; et al. (2011). The Concise Princeton Encyclopedia of American Political History. Princeton U.P. p. 242. Rjensen (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source you site says that there was an, "Emerging pro-administration party known as the Federalists." Holdek (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unlike the anti-Administration party, I'm not seeing much by way of sources that would suggest such a name for that group of people was/is common-use enough to be notable. Stalwart111 14:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Deleting will redline references in lists. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is actually a dictionary definition, sort of like "The War Party" or "The Anti-War Party" is used to describe political entities. The political entities should all have encyclopedic coverage, the catch phrase should not. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 12 October 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 Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Environmentalist (magazine)[edit]

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

WP:GNG. Not seeing anything that is not a primary source. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. Seems an obvious course of action for a two-line article on that institute's magazine. --Michig (talk) 10:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. I was unable to find multiple in-depth reliable sources for the magazine and was unable to find it in selective indexes. It seems to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. There seems to be a Springer journal with a similar name, this one is published by IEMA. Nonetheless, this magazine's existence and mission are verifiable at the IEMA website and as the mouthpiece for the IEMA, it belongs that article. --Mark viking (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect as others have said. This is clearly a bulletin/newsletter, not a substantial academic journal. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:01, 7 October 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) 02:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha Grand Prix results[edit]

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

WP:NOTSTATS violation. A similar list to this, related to MotoGP, was deleted by AfD a month or two ago (can't remember the exact title). This is just a list of results for cars that used Yamaha engines; as such, they are not "Yamaha Grand Prix results". In fact, the title is also misleading; when I first saw it, I thought this was going to refer to MotoGP, not Formula One, as that is where Yamaha enter as a constructor. Article is unreferenced, has been tagged as failing GNG since March, and is orphaned. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a table supporting a short paragraph in the Yamaha Motor Company article but does not work as a standalone article. A merge would certainly unbalance the article. On the face of it the table suggests a pretty woeful record in the sport, but without analysis that might be wholly misleading as there could be many more reasons for retirement than engine failure. It is conceivable that Yamaha's venture into car racing would be a suitable topic in its own right but not under this title. --AJHingston (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[17] is a pretty good analysis of the Yamaha F1 saga, although it is obviously neglecting the tail end of 1996 and the whole of 1997. The Yamahas were never strong engines; initially they were reliable enough, but lacking in power, and then they destroyed the reliability looking for more power. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly a story here. In its way, your remarks tell us far more than either the brief para in the main article or the table here. An analysis of the results (eg, in what proportion of starts did the engine blow up?) rather than the raw data would be quite useful in something covering the venture, because this is not a case where the results can safely speak for themselves. There are lots of reasons for a DNF. And of course it lacks the wider perspective of the Formula. --AJHingston (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed a story; one day, if I feel like it, I may write an article on "Yamaha in Formula One". :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 18 September 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 26 September 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:27, 6 October 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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Tempesta[edit]

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

Non-notable musician; no reliable sources that I can find discuss this person in the first place, let alone in some depth. That there's a Schecter named for him isn't all that special: Schecter does quite a bit of that, and at $900 incl. case it's not all that exclusive. I'd changed this into a redirect, but perhaps a visiting metalhead can point out where to redirect this to. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found this Guitar Player profile [18] and will research further. — Brianhe (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good start. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 18 September 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 12:58, 25 September 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:25, 6 October 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 prejudice towards merging. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black flight[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism, seemingly coined to facilitate original research and synthesis boiling down to a tu quoque argument; also used to house arguments which pretend that white flight was done for benign reasons and did not have a racist component. Orange Mike | Talk 23:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a very strong recommendation of a rewrite. Although I agree with Orangemike's analysis of this article, the term is attested back to at least 1975, according to Google News, and the term seems to have notability independent of the POV/OR/NEO use in this article. These systemic issues will require this article to be rewritten from scratch, but I think a credible article could be written on this topic. Incubation is also acceptable, as it might result in more attention than slapping half a dozen cleanup templates on a mainspace article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 19 September 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) 01:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a neologism as there are no new words here (unlike the recent FA throffer). The topic is the subject of several books and so is notable. Warden (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "White Flight" is a bit of journalistic doggerel to describe the same phenomenon here — the outmigration of jobs and middle- to upper-income families from American urban centers. I suspect that the correct answer here is a retitling of White Flight and a merge of Black Flight, with redirects left from each of those neologisms. Now, what's the "correct" title for this socioeconomic phenomenon? That I don't know. I suggest that if this puzzle can't be solved, leaving this "Black Flight" information intact is a far preferable solution than deletion. But I think that's a second, lesser option to solving the puzzle. Is there a sociologist in the house? Carrite (talk) 15:26, 25 September 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Tenjho Tenge characters#F. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Madoka Mawari[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Tenjho Tenge 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) 20:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - needs other sources Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tenjho Tenge characters#F there is a brief summary of the character on the character page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 29 September 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, Rcsprinter (post) @ 19:12, 1 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect but make a copy available to be moved to wikia. James^x12345 15:49, 6 October 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013 Great Plains blizzard[edit]

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

This article seems to fail WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE. While October snowstorms are not extremely common, they are definitely not unheard of. The deaths related to the storm were all from a single traffic accident, and other than breaking a few local snowfall records (which are not notable on their own and not notable here in the aggregate, as I have not found anything indicting widespread record-breaking) here was nothing unique about this system. The article is merely a two-sentence stub with an infobox that does not indicate how this storm was anything more special than a typical snow-storm. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree with the notion to delete this article. While yes, it is true that October snowstorms are not uncommon across the United States, ones of this magnitude are. Totals are measured by the feet in much of southwestern South Dakota; winds gusted to near hurricane force. Dozens of residents were stranded on the road, thousands upon thousands remain without power to this day. In addition, this same storm complex spawned a tornado outbreak farther west. A tornado passed through Wayne, Nebraska, and was rated an EF4, one of a handful of such caliber in October. Yesterday, flash flooding became an issue across Kentucky. Over a dozen water rescues were necessary and hundreds needed assistance. As for the shape of article, I'm truly sorry. I created this article but haven't had a good deal of time to sit down and edit yet. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per criteria of nom. Praemonitus (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: since the name Atlas is mentioned in the article, I want to leave these two prior AFDs here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012-13 United States winter storm season, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012-13 U.S. winter storm season, relating to Weather Channel-named storms. Chris857 (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, it snowed close to 3 feet deep and the wind blew hard in the north central US, and it got a bit of coverage in one news cycle. Pretty routine and run of the mill. We do not create articles every time some record for the earliest/latest snowstorm occurs somewhere. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE. Edison (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (2.5 feet Noreaster on the east coast would be an article no matter time of year. And they are not that rare.) Are there weather notability guidelines or essays? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Inks.LWC . An uncommon but not rare event; of only passing interest outside of the affected area.--Larry (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TA. Honestly, plenty of TC articles are less notable than this. 2.5 snow is reasonably significant. At least give it a chance to grow, if it's a blank template liek it is now in a month, I'd consider deleting. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the same storm that hit Oregon earlier last week and is moving across the country. ‘Atmospheric River’ Smashes Records in Pacific Northwest. If the article is kept it should be as a single storm covering all impacts not just the Great Plains. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move Given the flooding and the small tornado outbreak, I might consider that this is more than just a blizzard article. Any of these effects on their own would likely not be notable, but on a whole, as an effect of the system, it might be worth something. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One area on Wkipedia where articles will be sourced and improved and maintained. This AfD wastes time, imo. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Keep or Move to October 2013 North American blizzard and tornado outbreak – Holding TAWX to his word that he'll expand the article. This is a historic blizzard for the region, with accumulations reaching a record-breaking 58 inches in South Dakota (if I remember correctly, this is greatest single-storm total for the state during any month). While the blizzard is the most prominent feature of the storm system, on the other side there were the destructive tornadoes that warrant mention (hence the optional move). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking perhaps October 2013 North American storm complex due to the flooding. TornadoLGS (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cyclonebiskit. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 16:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At this point, I think it would be best to withdraw the AfD nomination. When I nominated the article, it was not my understanding that TropicalAnalystwx13 intended to turn this article into an article on the whole system, rather than just keeping it about the winter storm (as the name implied). As a winter storm, I absolutely stand by my original statements: the snowstorm was not worthy of an article. In the aggregate as a system, looking at it from the snowstorm and thunderstorms it produced, I think it is noteworthy. I agree with TornadoLGS and think a good name for it would be October 2013 North American storm complex. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worthy of an article until it gets coverage in sources that are independent of the subject — including chronologically independent. We can break the requirement for independent sources with extraordinary events (imagine a repeat of September 11, for example), but a blizzard that's not even in the headlines in Ohio (where I am right now, with newspapers) is not the kind of extraordinary event that warrants an article right now. Wait until it gets coverage in books or academic journals, or until news sources speak of it in the past tense rather than speaking of it as news. Nyttend (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wincent77 (talk) 05:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See The Blizzard that Never Was – and its Aftermath on Cattle and Ranchers for commentary regarding coverage. The article should reflect the record-breaking impact on South Dakota. Great cattle-killing blizzards such as the Great blizzard of 1886, which we also have no article for are significant in the Great Plains, see The Winter of 1886 - 87 in Montana. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Now The Wall Street Journal and Grist Las Angeles Times. I think this can be closed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree the cattle incident has moved it into notable territory (though not for the cows alone). I still believe the storm system should be looked at as a whole since it also caused record breaking weather elsewhere in the country, not just the Great Plains. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – But that doesn't mean as is. It needs a whole lot of expansion. United States Man (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant and heavy early-season snowstorm. Article just needs to be expanded. Dough 48 72 03:32, 14 October 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 Thursday (mixtape). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Zone (song)[edit]

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

Redirect has been reverted by the article author. Article does nothing to indicate the song meets WP:NSONGS, due to insignificant coverage in reliable sources, and failure to chart. He/she fails to understand that just because a song has a music video, does not make it worthy for an encyclopedia article. STATic message me! 21:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep or Merge into the mixtape article. A Google search did find plenty of sources talking about the video and song, though I don't know if that'll be enough. 和DITOR E tails 00:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support a merge/redirect to the mixtape article. STATic message me! 07:44, 6 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) 01:55, 27 September 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, KTC (talk) 07:33, 6 October 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) 03:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trackstar[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD by Crmmike, who has made no edits outside of this subject. As far as I'm concerned, I called it "Pure WP:MUSICBIO failing garbage." and I stand by that remark. Laun chba ller 13:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on WP:PROD. Refer to WP:Civil and try to see the other side of the argument. I removed the deletion notice on the article because it was a red link, but it seems it has been relisted (or it was a glitch). The way you are patronizing Crmmike (and me) makes it seem like you have a personal problem with the artist at hand. You're better off doing your best to improve the article rather than trying to delete it. My only problem with the article is that half of the refrences are from this uprox blog thing and the discography should be a bit cleaner than mixtape fodder. I doubt anyone else is going to get into the discussion (AfD or article), I'm just a passerby who saw the red link and fixed it. 98.226.28.166 (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 20 September 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) 02:02, 27 September 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, KTC (talk) 07:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local radio DJ; I could not find evidence of notability. Granted it's hard to search because of his common-word name and lack of a real name. I found one or two local mentions in the St. Louis area but he does not seem to have the kind of notability required for a Wikipedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 10 October 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) 03:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis or Transformation[edit]

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

Non-encyclopedic essay. My be a copyvio of Human Systems Management: Integrating Knowledge, Management & Systems., but I can't locate the book through digital means to check. Ish dar ian 12:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 20 September 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) 02:04, 27 September 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, KTC (talk) 07:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book exists, Google Books has a bio/bibliotex page bu no sample pages,etc. I think this is whole CopyVio page, but can't prove it. It reads like WP:OR at the moment, with a single source, which is also suspect as it's about Etruscan architecture, which may be linked into the article context somehow, but may not be linked. It doesn't have much in the way of entry context. It looks as though it's been copied from the book, with entry/exit summaries between paragraph's to link each logical section. The author has another article, which reads similarly, but has a raft of sources, and decent initial context. However, this is a young article and it may be updated in the future scope_creep talk 17:25, 06 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Quick[edit]

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

Child actress does not appear to meet notability guidelines for acting professionals, and I do not think she quite meets the general notability guideline. There is a CBC news article and a few local papers describing some volunteer efforts she was involved with, but I just think it is too soon for an article on this individual. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She doesn't yet meet WP:NACTOR and the press coverage isn't very substantial or in-depth (and arguably falls under WP:ONEEVENT as it's about her organising flood relief). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 27 September 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, KTC (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. Perhaps in a few years. scope_creep talk 17:34, 06 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete Does not meet notability requirement for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:12, 8 October 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) 03:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theatrical run of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2[edit]

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

per WP:INDISCRIMINATE: Excessive listing of statistics. We don't need box office grosses for every single territory - looking at the talk page, and the edit summary for prod removal, I think there is some consensus to trim and merge. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Excessive statistics, as proposal - writing it as text rather than a statistics table doesn't get around that rule. List of highest-grossing films and similar articles contains the most important information, and basic details on the film's performance could be included in a short table in the main article on the film (there's no need to give the grosses of other films it outperformed there, or the grosses in every country). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 27 September 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, KTC (talk) 07:30, 6 October 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket Statementstein[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There is one OK source, the Tablet Magazine one. Others are a blog where the band talks about themselves and trivial mention. Nothing satisfying WP:MUSIC. A search found no better sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. At least two notable members, thus satisfying WP:BAND.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the trouble with that is that (beyond the fact that eg Mike Wagner (musician) doesn't even mention the band at all) there is circular notability going on, where the musicians are notable because of having been in two notable bands, one of which is this one, which is notable because those musicians were in it. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The band does have 4 blue linked musicians but how many are independently notable?

Yishai Romanoff. Seems to only be notable as a member of two notable bands, this one included. So not notable independent of this band.

Dennis Donaghy. Same as above and also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Donaghy

Paul Alpert. Seems to only be notable as a member of three notable bands. His notability is entirely dependent on his bands, not really independently notable.

WP:MUSIC#6 is meant to be for inheriting notability from someone who has inherited it from someone else. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:44, 30 September 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, KTC (talk) 07:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has no evidence for notability except for the "members are individually notable" criterion. However, as demonstrated above, these individuals are not really notable, but rather can only be considered notable by the '"member of several notable bands" criterion. These are circular claims of notability. LK (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with above, circular notability is no notability at all. 78.105.23.161 (talk) 07:48, 7 October 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) 03:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Breezy Baldwin[edit]

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

Sources don't seem very strong. Can't say if subject is notable enough. Page looks to be a bit of an advertisement. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 14:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 27 September 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, KTC (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 8 October 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) 03:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Egan[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPERSON or WP:GNG. ^Myname^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) (formerly Insulam Simia) 17:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 27 September 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, KTC (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability requirements for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:02, 9 October 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) 03:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SHEilds[edit]

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

Another editor previously placed a WP:PROD with the rationale "No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. Unremarkable company.". A couple of references were then added, but they are effectively passing mentions. Neither they nor anything I can locate amount to the level of coverage required for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources just aren't there. - MrOllie (talk) 02:27, 28 September 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, KTC (talk) 07:19, 6 October 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) 03:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mette Laursen[edit]

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

I have been unable to find sufficient references to establish notability for this person. It is possible that there are news sources not visible to me; if sufficient evidence of notability can be found by others, I'll happily withdraw this nomination. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is also an AfC submission for this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mette Laursen. It represents an earlier stage of the article, before I added some references, and has not been resubmitted, but it should be noted that it also exists. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:06, 20 September 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, KTC (talk) 21:36, 27 September 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, KTC (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Candleabracadabra (talk). Certainly doesn't pass WP:GNG nor WP:BIO. scope_creep talk 18:11, 06 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Swaney[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Google search turns up only a handful of passing references in secondary sources. No significant coverage. Should be deleted or redirected to an appropriate page. Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:07, 20 September 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, KTC (talk) 21:38, 27 September 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, KTC (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:58, 6 October 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 Arizona Green Party. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Ellquist[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Unsuccessful political candidate. Google search turns up only a handful of passing references in secondary sources. No significant coverage. 2 previous afd's have resulted in No consensus. Should be deleted or redirected to an appropriate page. Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:06, 20 September 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, KTC (talk) 21:37, 27 September 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, KTC (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Arizona Green Party which mentions the subject. Lacks WP:POLITICIAN individual biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 08:45, 6 October 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) 03:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doreen Wasike[edit]

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

Article full of puffery and promo about a pageant. But ms. Wasike scores just 494 hits op Google, including Wikipedia and social media. No proof of notability found, so fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 01:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, there's two reliable secondary sources. AllAfrica is presumably a small mention since the article is not about her. WestFM is better, but they helpfully tell us the article has only been viewed about 840 times, which is not a great sign of notability, looks like a local paper. I can't find much else. But even then there is the problem of one-event since winning this single contest appears all she is notable for. Finally, is winning a beauty contest on its own sufficient for notability.. probably not unless it was a very high profile contest, in which case WP:GNG would easily pass. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,Their has been alot of print material on Ms Wasike and her role locally does this not count?If it doesnt kindly it is better to have the page off as the tag of 'subject to deletion' compromises her current role in society and current works.deefaith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deefaith (talk • contribs)

Comment - Offline newspaper articles would be acceptable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:54, 2 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, KTC (talk) 21:49, 27 September 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, KTC (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She does not pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 8 October 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) 02:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Stouck[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR, majority of sources are of poor reliability (Amazon, etc.). I am not seeing any significant coverage in independent, mainstream sources here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's too new to show up in the Google News archive results, but note that there was also this review of his work, published just last week in Maclean's, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another published author who I think easily passes WP:BIO,WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Sources are solid, but the article are full of weasel words, possibly Copyvio's which suggests substantial parts of the article need rewritten or removed. I've done a search and it's fully Copyvio, straight from Amazon. It needs to be removed. scope_creep talk 18:34, 06 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3. Most of the current sources need to be deleted as unreliable primary-source and book-seller links. However there are many other reliable book reviews. Reviews include: ABC Bookworld (multiple), Canadian Literature, Western American Literature, The Journal of English and German .., Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature, South Atlantic Review, BC Studies: British Columbian Quarterly, The Bull Calf. Further this source from the American Literary Realism says "David Stouck's widely influential book, Willa Cather's Imagination (1975).." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Green Cardamom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:44, 12 October 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jin Jung Kwan Hapkido[edit]

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

A series of articles created by User:JJK Hapkido about his martial arts school. Borderline promotional, referenced mainly to websites of the school itself. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Michael Rhoades and Kim Myung Yong. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three as they currently stand they clearly fail WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Agree with requestor. Further, all are sourced mostly from article's subject and are generally poorly written and formatted articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulfurboy (talk • contribs) 07:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I spent some time doing a clean up but clearly all three need better references. I have a feeling that with a bit of effort Kim Myung Yong might make it but the other two wont.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Right now I don't see significant independent coverage for any of them. Papaursa (talk) 19:57, 12 October 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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National stereotypes[edit]

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

This article already has a history of deletion. It was deleted in 2006 - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National stereotypes.
It was created again in 2013, this time most of the external links listed in the article are media coverage of a book titled Atlas of Prejudice written/designed by Yanko Tsvetkov. An article about the book should be created, titled Atlas of Prejudice, instead.--DancingPhilosopher (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List of anti-cultural, anti-national, and anti-ethnic terms. This could be a spin-off from the stereotype-article is this had a WP:UNDUE-problem with national stereotypes. But since that isn't the problem, I do not see why we should keep this (sloppy) article. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National stereotypes are not necessarily hostile. For example, the English are commonly characterised as wearing bowler hats, drinking tea and eating roast beef. The national avatars such as John Bull may be regarded with affection and respect. Warden (talk) 12:08, 28 September 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) 03:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is highly notable — here is a selection of sources:

National Stereotypes in Perspective
National Stereotypes: Correct Images and Distorted Images
National Stereotypes: an Educational Challenge
Pride and Prejudice: national stereotypes in 19th and 20th century Europe east to west
National Stereotypes in English Renaissance Literature
National Character: A Psycho-Social Perspective

and many more. The current draft is a small start on this large topic but our editing policy is to nuture it. Stamping on it would be censorship. Warden (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Stereotype. Simply a coatrack for offensive content.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is notable, even if the current article is on a grade school level. Using scholarly sources, which are easily finable on Google Books, for example, this could be rewritten and expanded. I do support removal of promotional links to a book; it sadly appears that the creator is primarily interested in advertising his/her work rather than contributing to an encyclopedia. Sigh. Alternatively, since after a second look the book may be notable, rename and merge would be as valid, considering that the content is heavily focused on this particular work. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:38, 6 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) 02:41, 6 October 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) 03:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T.L. Young[edit]

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

Another of a series of articles on people associated with the films of Gregory Hatanaka. I can find no significant independent RS on this figure. Fails WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability per WP:GNG -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:18, 28 September 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) 02:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the article stands, nothing asserts notability, no refs, elinks are IMDB and a dependent site. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass the notability standards of WP:AUTHOR (freelance writing and one self-published book) or WP:PERFORMER (involvement with a few non-notable films). Nothing significant found at Google News Archive. --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 11 October 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) 03:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Grayem[edit]

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

Per WP:CREATIVE: Non-notable book and film writing. Non-notable acting. No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We could redirect the article to one of the Chuck Norris movies but I don't know which and it probably wouldn't matter because they were small roles (aside from writing the story I suppose). Google News archives found results relevant to both Chuck Norris and his company but none of them seem to be sufficient to build a good article. Another search provided republished press releases for the company. The San Fernando Valley Buisness Journal and Santa Clarita Valley Business Journal are good but small mentions and thus also not much to build a good article even for the company instead of Tim Grayem. SwisterTwister talk 01:35, 3 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) 02:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as doesn't come close to meeting criteria of WP:CREATIVE. Coretheapple (talk) 16:04, 9 October 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) 02:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kimera (fictional species)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional species. Has been tagged for reference improvement for close to four years but those improvements can never happen because the independent reliable sources to establish notability do not exist. Expired PROD removed. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some content into an article Species of Earth: Final Conflict, along with:

Atavus

Kimera (fictional species)

Jaridian (Currently under PROD)

Taelon (Currently under PROD)

Taelon Commonality

Some of the content could be transwiki'd into http://earthfinalconflict.wikia.com/ if anyone can be bothered. Zangar (talk) 06:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the same problem, that none of these species are notable and no sources exist to support them, would apply to the hypothetical list. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these species are not notable to warrant a page of their own, but an article regarding all species maybe notable enough (I must admit I don't have knowledge of this series) and an editor maybe able to find references to support species as a whole, such as with Races of StarCraft. Whichever way, they don't need a dedicated page to themselves. Zangar (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would support such a list provided that there were reliable sources that substantively addressed the concept of E:FC aliens from an out-of-universe perspective. Unfortunately the only source I could find that even touches on the concept is self-published. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:32, 1 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) 02:23, 6 October 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 The Web (series). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lightstorm[edit]

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

I am a big fan of Hamiltion, but unlike his books, which are likely all notable, his short stories do not seem to be. Not unless they won an award or otherwise generated coverage, and this one does not seem to provide any indication of this, clearly failing WP:N. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Merge to The Web (series) per below. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:40, 26 September 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, —SpacemanSpiff 14:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Web (series). That article merely has a list of stories, which could usefully be expanded by adding soemthing about their content. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 4 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Web (series). Lightstorm is a reasonable search term so a redirect to The Web (series) is warranted. Merging the one short sentence of story description will not unbalance the target article, and will perhaps encourage short descriptions for the other stories. The sources [19], [20] could serve as verifications of the description. --Mark viking (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only question is whether to redirect. I don;t think we usually redirect short story titles unless it's a very famous author, or the story itself is so well known as to be almost notable. I don;t see evidence for this. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with Mark viking (talk). It's an ideal solution. scope_creep talk 19:11, 06 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chan Peng Joon[edit]

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

Subject is not notable, fails WP:GNG - no significant coverage. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I did find a few interviews about him (including one from a website called The Maverick Paper), but they appear to be from unreliable sources. I'm willing to change my !vote however if at least one interview is deemed to be notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:45, 5 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 6 October 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) 03:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Reza Bahrami[edit]

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

Iranian molecular biologist, editor-in-chief of a non-notable journal (Journal of Cell and Molecular Research). Web of Science lists 50 publications for "Bahrami AR", that have been cited 752 times (h-index = 10). Most of those citations are to articles on which Bahrami is only a minor author (e.g., 4th of 8 authors). Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:PROF. Randykitty (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h-index of 13 not enough for this highly cited field. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I'm not finding anything in the way of sources here. Perhaps the article creator knows of something? -- 101.119.14.67 (talk) 11:26, 30 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete We should not go by h factor alone. A person who has published 3 papers with 200 citations and 10 with 13 has a h factor of 13; so does someone who has published 13 papers, each receiving 13 citations--but their scientific notability is very different. In his case, the highest papers 3 listed with him as coworker, have 254, 192 and 154 citations. Such work would be notable if her were the principal researcher, but it seems from the article he is not. (The Google scholar page, fwiw, may be confusing two different people, one in stem cell research and one in plant biology. This shows the need for analysis of GS raw data, rather than taking it at face value. ) DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 6 October 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.

Gaston Javier Algard[edit]

The result of this discussion was Delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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, no prejudice against recreation if notability (presumably, as an academic) can be demonstrated.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Evans[edit]

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

Article doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability for authors under the creative professionals criteria for inclusion. Having two novels published with a small press, that is itself not notable, and a nonfiction personal memoir type book published with another small press, is not normatively notable in the publishing industry. Though this stub indicates she was 'nominated' for awards, she has never won or even placed in any notable literary contest or won any notable literary award. This article is similar to the article for Chelle Cordero, another author by the same small press publisher. Upon seeing both author stubs, it becomes evident, at least to me, that these authors were probably entered into Wikipedia by their publisher in an effort to promote them. With the proliferation of indie authors and small presses that come and go on the internet, Wikipedia should strive to maintain its high standards for vetting articles for inclusion, lest all published authors with small presses deem notability for Wikipedia entries.

Upon researching the publisher itself after seeing these stub bios, it's easy enough to see that this small press publisher is also coming under some scrutiny recently with accusations by multiple authors of unpaid royalties, fraud, breech of contract, copyright infringement and other accusations. While one cannot say if there is any merit to these claims, multiple authors have left the company recently. Perhaps an article about the publisher and these issues is warranted? Even with the accusations, I'm not sure if the publisher and its alleged actions are notable enough for inclusion. I'll leave that far more experienced Wikipedians than I.

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85674 http://feelingthefiction.blogspot.com/2013/08/why-i-left-vanilla-heart-publishing_20.html And where one author is possibly pursuing criminal charges: http://feelingthefiction.blogspot.com/2013/09/criminal-charges.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LilahHard (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ (see below) -- Routledge is not in any way a small press, but a major figure in academic writing. That's not in itself enough to put it over the top for keep for me (the nominator seems to be correct about the other presses). What would make a decision either way for me is how many books get nominated in each category for the LA Times book award? If it's essentially a runner up status (like an academy award nomination), I think that there's enough here to keep, because it is a sufficiently notable award that even runner up would be enough. If it's more like the Pulitzer Prize, where anyone can be nominated, then I think the subject is just below the notability line unless more information is uncovered. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

move to Weak Delete per arguments of Green Cardamom -- I'd still argue that with the Routledge pub, a win of the LA award would be enough, but the low holdings for the poetry books and with no verification of the significance of the nomination for the LA award, I don't see enough. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to confirm the book was nominated for the LA award, much less in what capacity (short? long? submitted?). The LA award is not hugely important on its own, much less a nomination only. If it won best poetry, that would be significant, but then we need multiple awards to pass AUTHOR. I can't find much in the way of reviews. Furthermore her books are very rare, Like All We Love is only held in two libraries (one being her own university). LibraryThing with 1.7 million members records only 2 people with Like All We Love, Negotiating the Self has three members, these are very low numbers by LT standard. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reluctantly agree that the subject's novels and poetry do not seem to show notability, though it looks more than possible that without the relative lack of popular attention to (and consequent systemic bias against) poetry, the poetry would be notable. The awards record falls a little short - for instance, she seems to have been nominated for the Lambda Awards but not shortlisted. However, while her name makes searching difficult, there is some chance that she meets WP:PROF - GScholar shows no fewer than 94 cites for Negotiating the Self and lower but still significant rates for some other books and articles probably coauthored by her rather than another K. Evans. And her apparent research areas (LGBT studies, education, creative writing) are not ones where citation rates tend to be high. Finally, I find it very difficult to assume good faith about this nomination. The nominator's entire editing history consists of three deletion nominations, all of them of authors or books published by Vanilla Heart Publishing, who the nominator implies have written the articles - a suggestion that can immediately be rejected by looking at the articles' histories. And this one (unlike the others) shows no obvious signs of having been edited by the subject either. In all other respects, Vanilla Heart's reputation as a publisher has no bearing on whether or not this article should be kept. PWilkinson (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PWilkinson -- thank you for bringing up these important points -- I am keeping my revised comment (though changed to "Weak delete" which is what I intended in the first revision). I agree that there is a bias against poetry publication in general; something that Wikipedia unfortunately, is not the right forum to address. But the second systematic bias, against poets having articles on WP is something that we can address, and I have tried to weigh in, with what little knowledge I do have of poetry presses and poetry awards, to try to work against that bias (I've been the primary "keep" proponent of two poetry bios that looked to be heading for delete this year but were instead kept). There is also bias against LGBT studies on WP, which needs to be addressed; and the nominator's potential bias needs to be taken into account. However, the holdings for "Negotiating" (240 libraries) seems to be just below the cut-off for meeting WP:PROF (or a writing notability criteria) in itself. My thought is that the author will almost certainly do enough work soon to be enough to be a clear keep and hope to help argue for the keep when it happens, but at present only the Routledge book seems to argue for keeping and a single work that is at the borderline of notability does not seem enough. It's really tough -- there's a review in JSTOR and 8 citations there (several others are for other publications called "Negotiating the Self"); I just think there needs to be a bit more -- the LA Award nomination if it could be shown to be notable would be enough. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:50, 30 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That the article starts out "a prize winning author" when she has not won any prizes is not reassuring. Being nominated for a prize is not the same as winning a prize , and, save for such exceptions as the Booker shortlist, does not confer notability., considering publication of her novels, which have essentially no library holdings. There is no evidence her poetry is included in anthologies. Her books on teaching, Negotiating the self : identity, sexuality, and emotion in learning to teach, & Pathways through writing blocks in the academic environmenthas respectable library holdings, but I don't think enough to show notability as an academic. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete New author, completely non notable. The reference points to a faculty page. Can't find much else to establish sources. scope_creep talk 19:37, 06 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete after considering arguments above. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:34, 7 October 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 DigitalRev_TV#Alamby_Leung_.282011-present.29. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alamby Leung[edit]

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

Not Notable per WP:GNG Brainclub (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to DigitalRev TV where DigitalRev_TV#Alamby_Leung_.282011-present.29 already exists. Not enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG for standalone article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:43, 30 September 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) 01:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete DigitalRev TV already has an entry for this. Expand it as appropriate. Certainly doesn't need a separate article, which contains almost zero information. scope_creep talk 19:41, 06 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep This person is notable as a growing famous photographer. (User:H.Brian Griffin ^talk^|^contribs 16:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

You may be right. Are there any reliable sources to support the opinion that this person is notable, per WP:GNG and/or WP:ARTIST? The three sources in the article are not very reliable see WP:RS (2 blog posts and a press release). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notable how? WP:GNG is quite clear. In this case we have two blog post mentions, and not even the major subject. One press release with her name as contact. No way this meets WP:GNG. -- [[User:Brainclub]Brainclub] (talk) 7:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete and salted by RHaworth. Peridon (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss thiss[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}} or {{subst:canvassed|username}}

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

Recreation of previously deleted article, with only a minor difference in name. The previous AfD, which resulted in deletion and salting of the name was: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiss Thiss. And from what I can see it's no more notable now than it was a few months ago. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've declined G4 speedy as there are differences, including references that weren't there in the earlier version Swiss Thiss. One at Stern is a dead link - there may be a fault there. I don't know PresseAnzeiger.de, but we can forget the YouTube and Twitter links. Peridon (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing on Stern about Swiss Thiss. Searches on stern.de on all possible variations of the name return nothing, so either Stern deleted the article, even from their archive, or it never existed. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged the Stern ref in the article with {{Dead link}}, I also removed a (possibly deliberately) misleading reference that had absolutely nothing to do with Swiss Thiss (thiss.ethz.ch, where THISS stands for "Technische Hochschulen und Innovationen – Start-ups und Spin-offs", a research project at the "Swiss Federal Institute of Technology" in Zürich that ended in 2004, five years before Swiss This was established...). Meaning that all that is left is Youtube, Twitter and a mention of dubious value in PresseAnzeiger. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 17:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can strike the two references that lead to PresseAnzeiger too, they're the company's own press-releases, not third-party references. Here's a Google-translation of a page where PresseAnzeiger present themselves: "PresseAnzeiger - successful online PR and press work! You can publish your press release for free here.". Meaning that all that is left is Youtube and Twitter. And the impression that the references to Stern, thiss-ethz.ch and PresseAnzeiger were added as a deliberate attempt to mislead people. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 30 September 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) 01:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree This article doesn't display a reasonable level of notability. Its lack of content in general speaks to this for me. A notable company would have a fair amount to list but a lack of products or anything remarkable keeps me from requesting a user to expand on this company. For its lack of content and ability to make me want to know more I deem this to be unremarkable and not an encyclopedia article. cliffsteinman -- Discuss 06:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt this name variant as per the March 2013 AfD conclusion and the research above failing to find the latest version providing better evidence of meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:34, 6 October 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zachariah Eastin[edit]

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

Non-notable genealogical entry, sourced to self-published family narratives. See WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Cindy(talk) 15:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Brigadier-General is a general rank and is not insignificant. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I guess I should have been more thorough here. The notability guidelines for military personnel can be found at WP:MILMOS/N. The subject did not serve as a general in the Regular Army (directly following the Continental Army), but rather served as major and/or colonel from 1813-1815. (Depending on which narrative is supported, he either enlisted as a major or colonel. The article also states that he "must have" also held a lower rank of captain, but I'm unable to find a source.) The article at brigadier general does not actually reflect the equivalent of the modern rank by the same name in the US during this time period. The subject also never commanded a division or larger (or their equivalent) during combat. At the same time, a search for reliable sources to establish notability in accordance with the notability guidelines at WP:MILMOS/N came up empty. Note that these guidelines additionally state that a "person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable". Best regards, Cindy(talk) 00:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The guideline is WP:SOLDIER. While that has its problems, it does note that general rank officers should be included. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Yes, WP:SOLDIER is the shortcut to the same content. However, it doesn't state that general rank officers should be included {or that the rank indicates notability). It says that if there is a rank of general, then there will almost always have sufficient coverage. It also goes on to say that a "person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable". In this case, threshold for meeting the GNG has not been met, due to the lack of significant reliable and independent sources. All the sources offered are mere genealogical, family narratives. Cindy(talk) 19:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom. While WP:MILMOS/N is an essay not guideline it does provide a starting point to consider. Further the sources are very sparse on GNG grounds. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstaining for now. Due to SOLIDER #3 this will come down to determining if the sourcing is reliable and significant coverage. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found the attached source for consideration in keeping this article: http://archive.org/stream/historyofhenders00star#page/754/mode/2up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeastin (talk • contribs) 00:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added link to article. "History of Henderson County" is so long and detailed it basically covers everyone who ever lived in Henderson County (an exaggeration but not much). Not a great sign of notability to be in the book, but the book does verify aspects of his career. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doesn't matter what command he held or didn't hold. Brigadier-general is sufficient for inclusion per WP:SOLDIER, a widely-accepted standard for military biographical articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Garrard go to the section called "religious leadership" and "political career" you will see a great deal of info on his father Augustine Eastin. In the article James_Garrard - "Governor of Kentucky," it states, "Before the final convention in 1792, a committee composed of Garrard, Ambrose Dudley, and Augustine Eastin reported to the Elkhorn Baptist Association in favor of forbidding slavery in the constitution then being drafted for the new state.[5] Slavery was a major issue in the 1792 convention that finalized the document." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeastin (talk • contribs) 03:35, 2 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) 01:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a number of sources available. The article needs partially re-written, the source are knackered, and in the wrong font, and it needs wikified. Apart from that. It's clearly notable material. scope_creep talk 20:42, 06 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep. Passes WP:SOLDIER as a flag rank officer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentEastin wasn't Regular Army according to Heitman's Register. What's the bar for volunteer/state militia rank? Intothatdarkness 19:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't make any difference. A general is a general. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really...but I know how wiki reality works. Carry on. Intothatdarkness 15:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, really! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 9 October 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) 02:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Paul Petroskey[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Lack of notability. Please see the discussion on the article's Talk page at Talk:Weird Paul Petroskey#Notability. (The category could be either Media and music or Biographical; I chose the latter.) HairyWombat 17:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what kind of retard thinks Wierd Paul isn't notable. that is Hate Crime on Pittsburgh PA to say such a thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.137.137 (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This does nothing to address the concerns about notability. Simply saying "I like it" is not a valid justification. --Drm310 (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Paul has been a creative musician for decades. The Happy Flowers have covered his music. He has had a cd released on legendary indie label Homestead Records, and been the subject of a documentary film. He is a pioneer in the use of home video cameras, and his work has been seen by many on YouTube. I cite that Weird Paul has fulfilled the notability guidelines posted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles -- and specifically citing items 1, 5, 6, and 7 as qualifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.48.161.10 (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 5 is a passing mention and can't be considered a valid source. The others, however, may have enough merit to establish notability. --Drm310 (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't think that this article should be deleted. This guy is a very credible (ultra) lo-fi artist, plus probably the first vlogger in history. It's pretty awkward to have an article about lo-fi music and not include Weird Paul! User:Guest 00:01, 1 November 2013 (GMT +2) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.225.108 (talk)
Your personal assertion of notability is not sufficient. Notability is proven as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the article subject. --Drm310 (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dedicated diehard. homestead records and an documentary film... he's underground, but not unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.32.35 (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Paul has been a lofi artist for over a quarter century. He was a vlogger long before anyone knew what that meant. People I know have traveled across the country to watch him play. His commitment to his hairstyle alone makes him a notable figure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.2.13 (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that Weird Paul Petroskey meets the guidelines for notability and that his page should not be deleted. He has been recording music since 1984 and is known throughout Pittsburgh and has heard from fans throughout the world for his contributions to the lo-fi genre of music. He's been interviewed by the Pittsburgh Post Gazette and as noted above, is the subject of "A Lo Fidelity Documentary." To remove this page would be a discredit to fans of lo fi music everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.189.230 (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Paul is an internationally known Vlogger who has had a long career touring the United States in support of independent music releases. He went viral last year on YouTube with his 1984 MCDONALDS BREAKFAST REVIEW and has thus been invited to be included in the Horsebridge Short Film Festival in Whitstable, Kent, United Kingdom.86.143.204.129 (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)John Huffman, The Horsebridge Arts and Community Centre, http://horsebridge-centre.org.uk/[reply]

If I have a wikipedia entry, Paul certainly should. And I do. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._Hall) So he should. I would cite him as an influence and a peer. - John S. Hall — Preceding unsigned comment added by John S. Hall (talk • contribs) 19:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see "What about article x?". The existence of one article does not in itself justify the existence of another. --Drm310 (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The sources seem valid and the depth of coverage seems just enough to pass the benchmark of WP:PEOPLE - barely. I must note, however, that am troubled by the appearance of a slew of IP editors, in what has the appearance of a canvassed attempt to influence the debate with a variety of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Drm310 (talk) 13:03, 2 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) 01:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Most of the coverage is local and if it was just local, I'd say delete. However he has received some coverage in other sources such as Vice and The Retroist that push it to a weak keep for me. On a side note, I cleaned the article up since it was more akin to a fan page than an encyclopedic entry. I removed the HuffPo article since it wasn't really a RS and the video wasn't such an accomplishment that we could really show that it was something that would keep the article. I also want to let people know that this isn't decided on a vote and that any "keep" arguments must, must, must follow guidelines and show notability per WP:BAND. You can see examples of what doesn't count as a valid argument at WP:NOT. Also as a side note, the documentary itself isn't necessarily a thing that would show notability, as it hasn't really gotten a lot of coverage in and of itself. It was a selection at some film festivals, but never seems to have gotten any notice aside from the Pittsburgh area papers, which is an issue. What it all boils down to in the end is coverage. There is the possibility of coverage that isn't on the Internet, so if anyone coming in has the ability to dig for offline sources, please do so. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Lo Fidelity - Hi Anxiety and 25 Lo Fi Years seem to be two albums released on labels significantly independent and notable enough to satisfy criteria #5 on WP:BAND. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:45, 7 October 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) 03:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shaqarava[edit]

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

Delete - Non-notable fictional organ found in several equally non-notable fictional species. There are no independent reliable sources that demonstrate that this fictional organ is in any way notable. Expired PROD for the fictional organ removed. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 30 September 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) 01:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see any value in keeping this article. I don't think the organ/weapon/communicator is notable in any manner. A possible way to save it, is to trim and merge the contents into the main Earth: Final Conflict article. Perhaps a small weapons/etc section. scope_creep talk 20:58, 06 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to List of El Chavo episodes. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 15:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

El cumpleaños de Don Ramón[edit]

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

Unremarkable television episode. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you want - I understand that for English-speaking people, El Chavo means nothing but it's the most famous Mexican series translated into multiple languages and still on air nowadays in Latin America. I think it's more suitable for the Spanish Wikipedia. Rezashirazz (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The show is notable, and we have an article on it - El Chavo del Ocho - this is not about the show, but an individual episode of the show which provides no sources to show notability. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 30 September 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) 01:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of El Chavo episodes. The show is clearly notable and having a list of episodes seems appropriate, but I'm not seeing much to suggest this was a particularly notable episode (and the article's claim that it is one of the best of the series is unsourced). If there's a source for that claim then it might be a different story. Stalwart111 06:54, 6 October 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dehla Chattha[edit]

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

Unsourced and fails notability guidelines —Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 22:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

tentative Keep It does not fail the notability guideline because all villages are notable . But it is necessary for the information to be verified by some sort of source, even a non-independent official web site. and some editing to remove the list of local dignitaries is clearly needed. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- This village is still non-notable. No sources cover ‘Dehla Chattha’ village. According to WP:GNG:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.^[1]

And here the issue is that no source covers the subject, so it fails the very first requirement for being notable. And as to verifiability, agreed with DGG.—Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 19:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This place appears on Google Maps. I've added the coordinates to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 23 September 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) 21:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Phil Bridger noted, this village appears on Google Maps and Google has a reputation for fact checking when it comes to their maps. Thus the village existence is verifiable and per WP:NPLACE, articles on villages that are verifiable are generally kept. --Mark viking (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if material added to the article is completely unsourced?—Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 13:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not completely unsourced, but is sourced by the coordinates link to Google Maps. I would add that Google Maps, although usually correct, has been known to include incorrect information. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wazirabad Tehsil the parent subdivision of this village as I couldn't find any encyclopedic information in reliable sources except that this place exists. -- SMS ^Talk 17:28, 4 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) 01:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per Wikipedia's remit as a gazzeteer under the five pillars, a populated place that can be verified to exist is notable. The article needs a good scrubbing and stubbing but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:04, 14 October 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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rashtrottahana Parishat[edit]

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

Local social service organization with no notability. Refs 1 & 2 are mere listings, Ref 3 is local. DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure that an organisation that appears to operate across a state with a population only just short of that of the United Kingdom - and half as large again as that of California - should really be dismissed as "local". And there are a fair number of available sources, though I have not spotted any substantial ones - the article title, by the way, is wrong or at least not the standard spelling of the organisation's name - the usual spelling seems to be Rashtrotthana Parishat (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Also, as with many Indian topics, not all reliable sources are likely to be in English. Having said that, though, I am not at all sure of how much notability it has independently of its parent organisation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. PWilkinson (talk) 22:50, 27 September 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) 21:29, 29 September 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) 01:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:BARE, based on ref 3. This appears to be a large NGO in a large jurisdiction. I'd like to see additional sourcing. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vipul Roy[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Known solely for joining the cast of a comedy. WP:TOOSOON applies. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 23 September 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) 21:38, 29 September 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) 01:32, 6 October 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. St Anselm (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Bell (pilgrim)[edit]

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

Reads as puff piece. Highly unsourced, with only source linking to an unavailable video. IrishStephen (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. How on earth did this manage to last three years here? It looks autobiographical, too. St Anselm (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Rock School. It really, REALLY pained me to decline the speedy because he's pretty blatantly non-notable. However the association with the reality show gave him just enough notability to barely squeak by a speedy deletion as far as WP:A7 goes. I can't really see where he would fit any of the speedy guidelines. Maybe, maybe WP:G11, but I'm unsure of that as well. Part of me wishes I would just give this a speedy death via A7, but in good faith I can't delete it as having no assertion to notability and then redirect it to a reality show's article. I've tagged it as a speedy as a promotional article, so if it dies a death that way then so be it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 6 October 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 create redirects to the appropriate series. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Femigon[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Ultraman 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) 17:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These characters are non-notable and appear only in a very limited number of episodes. Having articles for every one-shot/three-shot antagonist does nothing to enhance encyclopedic knowledge of this series. This obsessive, in-universe catalog of minor characters belongs on Wikia. WP:ATD allows for the deletion of non-notable, unencyclopedic articles, and these are both. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete per NinjaRobotPirate, no significant coverage from independent secondary sources, fails WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:35, 4 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, Miniapolis 00:20, 6 October 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.

^ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.) is plainly trivial.

[1] Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.) is plainly trivial.

[1]