Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 September	4 September >

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 speedy deletion (G11, A10). Non-admin closure. AllyD (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faraz Khan[edit]

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

Non-notable entertainer. Previously CSD'd (2x) for A7, G11. Appears autobiographical. GregJackP Boomer! 23:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A substantially identical article is also at AfD as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faraz Khan (Faraz Chohan). Merge discussions? • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 4 September 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 Hellion (band). Mark Arsten (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Cannon (bassist)[edit]

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

So, this was here before in late 2009, and was closed with a result to incubate. In nearly four years of languishing there it has been expanded, but the sources have not really improved much, if at all and it has not been edited at all in several months. I have moved it back to mainspace as incubation is not supposed to be permanent but I am re-nominating it as well since the improvements are pretty marginal. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hellion (band) as his longest running band, at least until they're AfDed as non-notable, or delete. I'm not seeing evidence of notability of this musician. If he was in 2 notable bands he'd usually be notable by WP:MUSICBIO, but he was only a temporary member of Steel Prophet, and Hellion (band) are of marginal notability (the rule about being a member of 2 notable bands surely doesn't apply to everybody who ever played on any release/at any live show, and isn't a guarantee of notability anyway). There's a lot of not-very-relevant material in the article, e.g. info about other members of Brat Prince; that doesn't say anything about Cannon's notability. The cited sources are not reliable and in-depth. I don't know if MusicMight is a reliable source but it really only confirms his membership of the bands. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hellion (band) and put a {{for}} note in Glenn Cannon so people can find what they're looking for. Nobody types "(bassist)" into a search box. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:00, 4 September 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 per WP:SK#1. Nominator withdrew, and no delete !votes are present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nematjan Zakirov[edit]

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

Article does not meet the Notability guidelines, and also showcases no genuine biographical sources. Although not a reason for deletion, the amount of content is also of concern. Carwile2 (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Article clearly does meet consensus guidelines WP:NFOOTY. NFT reference is perfectly reliable to confirm that he has played international football in full FIFA recognised internationals, so not sure what the comment showcases no genuine biographical sources means either. Additionally, this and this referenced articles tie with the referenced career history indicate he was a member of a team in the top Bulgarian league for at least two seasons. They are recognised as a fully professional league now, and am willing to be proven wrong here, but I am working under the assumption that they were FPl then too, so that would be an additional NFOOTY criterion pass. Length of article is irrelevant, the article needs improving because of this not deleting. Fenix down (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If nominator would accept some friendly advice, they'd be wise to hold off on proposing anything else for deletion until they've had a proper read of WP:BEFORE, which is an outline of what to check before nominating something for deletion. It has a table of links to the various subject-specific notability guidelines. The one for sports and athletes is WP:NSPORT, and the association football section says that the notability of players "who have represented their country in any FIFA sanctioned senior international match ... is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria". And the one thing this article says clearly, with a source, is that Mr Zakirov is a former international footballer. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a Kyrgyzstan international, he obviously meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - nominator didn't follow WP:BEFORE (I easily found a detailed article about Zakirov in KP and RSSSF has a number of mentions of his national team appearances as a player and coach) and the article easily passes WP:NFOOTBALL. I've added two sources, and this article should easily pass WP:GNG as well. Jogurney (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With additional sources, this easily passes GNG. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - poor nomination, clearly notable as an international footballer meeting WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I wish to withdraw my own nomination. I did not read the WP:NFOOTBALL guidelines, and had no awareness of the rules. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 21:05, 4 September 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) 18:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Busch[edit]

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

non-notable college football coach. Merely a position coach: not a head coach, not an assistant coach, not an offensive/defensive coordinator. No argument for notability under Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Fails WP:GNG as well (lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject) GrapedApe (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Jhortman (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage and there's nothing inherently notable about assistant coaches.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:46, 5 September 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) 18:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Kauha'aha'a[edit]

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

non-notable college football coach. Merely a position coach: not a head coach, not an assistant coach, not an offensive/defensive coordinator. No argument for notability under Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Fails WP:GNG as well (lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject).. GrapedApe (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Jhortman (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assistant coaches are not automatically notable and I don't see anything that raises above the typical assistant.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:02, 5 September 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) 18:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Canada[edit]

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

non-notable college football coach. Merely a position coach: not a head coach, not an assistant coach. No argument for notability under Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Fails WP:GNG as well (lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject).. GrapedApe (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Jhortman (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assistant coaches are not automatically notable and I don't see anything that raises above the typical assistant. Article certainly fails WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:00, 5 September 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) 18:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Strickland[edit]

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

non-notable college football coach. Merely a position coach: not a head coach, not an assistant coach, not an offensive/defensive coordinator. No argument for notability under Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Fails WP:GNG as well (lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject). GrapedApe (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not yet - not the significant coverage needed for an assistant college coach. Royal broil 04:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Jhortman (talk) 15:28, 5 September 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 (non admin closure) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Girls guns and glory[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:NM; Boston Music Awards do not count as major awards.~~ Nomination Withdrawn; new sources found. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 21:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of the coverage appears to be in local sources (e.g., [1][2][3][4]; the latter of which is quite lengthy and behind a paywall). But I also found some pieces which discuss the band in The Daily Telegraph [5], PopMatters [6], and American Songwriter [7]. Gong show 18:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I seemed to have missed those. In that case, I will be withdrawing this nomination. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 21:53, 4 September 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. --BDD (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Paramedic[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Multiple albums on a non-notable label. No charting. No national tours. No notable members. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. May be a case of a non-notable band that's trying hard. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The band appears to have been around for a while but no charting and no significant coverage pretty much clenches it. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of reliable sources/coverage (I tried searching both generally and on the big music websites). Even the Sputnik review is a user review and hence not reliable. Not yet notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried searching (using "The Paramedic" combined with either their album name or one of their lead singers' names) a library database of newspaper and magazine articles but was not able to find anything to help support WP:N notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:12, 10 September 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. --BDD (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joel jeffs[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. Apparently known most significantly for a failed venture, but even that is only supported by a self-released press release. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and has no reliable sources. Reads like a promotional piece with nothing of encyclopedic value. freshacconci talk to me 01:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly CSD G11/A7. The article text was originally submitted at AfC by one WP:SPA editing account ([8], rightly declined with a detailed rationale, and has now been copied to article space by another WP:SPA editing account. The article is riddled with claims and statements that need WP:BLP references, but even if they were, when it comes down to it there is nothing here that indicates encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (not speedy though). Non-notable businessman affiliated with a host of non-notable businesses. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:00, 4 September 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 per G11 by Jimfbleak. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Hart Pty Ltd[edit]

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

No references. To keep, article must include reliable sources independent of the subject, both to establish subject's notability and for verifiability. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 4 September 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 Animaniacs episodes#ep10. --BDD (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King Yakko[edit]

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

This single-sentence article doesn't give us any deeper an understanding of the subject than the episode synopsis at [[9]] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Animaniacs. This is very little here as of right now, not enough for an wikipedia article on its own. I'm sure there's much more to be put here, but some editor should do that, if possible, before this discussion is closed as delete or redirect. 和DITOR E tails 00:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Animaniacs episodes#ep10 which is probably a better target than the parent article. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Animaniacs episodes#ep10. Redirect to Animaniacs would also be acceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:21, 5 September 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. --BDD (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese-ordered English[edit]

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

Article not supported by any sources other than one primary source, with the sole other source cited being tangential and not mentioning the topic at all.

Neither Google Books nor Google News nor Google Scholar yield relevant information, and the only Google Web Search results are either this article itself, or directly citing this article as their sole source.

In light of these failures to find reliable sources, and since Request for Sources templates have been added to the article for more than two years with no result, I submit this article to AfD per Deletion Reason #6 and/or #7. M. Caecilius (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps you should bundle English-ordered Chinese and English-ordered Japanese, which are essentially the same. Ansh6 6 6 07:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; possibly redirect to Chinglish or Chinese Pidgin English. Ansh6 6 6 07:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's non-notable due to lack of independent and reliable secondary sources .--Cold Season (talk) 14:10, 4 September 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. --BDD (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Moon Wars[edit]

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

This is a minor, fan-developed game that is unlikely to have garnered attention or reviews from any quality sources. TTN (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If anyone can point to quality sources in Japanese I'm willing to revert my opinion. The problem here is that this looks like it has never gained any true coverage in reliable sources as far as I can tell. I did a search in English and a search using the Japanese on the entry and Google Translate, but neither brought up anything that would show that this article should be kept. I'm aware that GT has some serious flaws, but this seems to have been a fairly underground game as far as I can tell. Sometimes these sort of games gain a substantial following and become wildly popular (Higurashi is a great example of this), but this just isn't the case here, at least not yet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:29, 25 August 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, Dea db eef 19:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Who by Numbers. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Success Story (song)[edit]

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

The article does not fulfill criteria given in WP:NSONG. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. T C N7JM 12:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. T C N7JM 12:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The song is not notable per the criteria given above. T C N7JM 12:11, 16 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article would be best as a redirect to The Who by Numbers. The album and band is notable, but I can't really see any independent coverage of this song, other than probably reviews of the LP, that it would have its own article. Unless were missing any coverage or official chart positions, a redirect or merge would have to do for now. 和DITOR E tails 15:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The current sources are a self-published source and a copyright violation, but the appearance on The Kids are Alright is significant and a legit DVD release can be cited. It's mentioned in multiple book sources as notable example of John Entwistle's songwriting, and one of the few songs by him to make it onto Who Albums in the 1970s (only My Wife is more notable IMHO) - see here, here and here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article using the sources listed here, and hope the Heymann Standard is now met. The unsourced original research about the line "I'm your fairy godmanager" being an allusion to homosexuality (instead of just a pun on the fairy godmother) was, frankly, unacceptable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. None of the links is actually about the song, so WP:NOTINHERITED applies as does WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. Where it should redirect is another question, more than happy for Ritchie333's input on that. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't decide which article to redirect to (and I believe you could make strong cases for both The Who By Numbers and The Kids Are Alright (film)), that usually means you have to go with "keep". If you assume that The Who and Entwistle solo are two distinct entities, I believe the song also passes WP:NSONGS criteria 3. "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups." (depending, again, on whether or not you interpret two as "several"!) Notability is tenuous, but I think it's just about there. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to The Who by Numbers, per WP:NSONG. -- Trevj (talk) 15:14, 3 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, Dea db eef 19:27, 3 September 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) 17:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bayside Ravens[edit]

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

Non-notable sports team; no showing of notability. Neutrality^talk 19:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significance, doesn't belong here. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:14, 4 September 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) 18:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Female Gridiron League of Queensland[edit]

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

Non-notable sports league. No showing of notability in reliable external references. I would accept a redirect to Gridiron Queensland or Gridiron Australia, but the creator of the page has refused. Neutrality^talk 19:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are some secondary sources (newspaper stories) on the league and its teams. I think there's enough material out there to pull together one decent article on the league and its teams. —C.Fred (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This league is the first ever women's American Football league in Australia and is sanctioned by Gridiron Queensland (GQ), Gridirion Australia (GA) and the International Federation of American Football (IFAF). As a result of this league starting last year, similiar leagues are starting in NSW, VIC and ACT in the next month or so, with this league being used as a template and acknowledged as the birthplace of women's Gridirion in Australia. Australia intends to sent a women's team to the next World Cup in 2017. To redirect to Gridiron Queensland we undermine the historical significance of the women's league by lumping them in with the men's league. Although sanctioned by GQ, this league is a completely separate league to the men's league. Every person involved in this league is proud of being a part of Australian sporting history. Pgollan (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Note to closing admin: this user created this article. Neutrality^talk 14:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject appears to meet WP:GNG given the sources in the article. It probably isn't notable enough (yet) to have an article for each team or anything like that, but there does appear to be enough notability for an article on this league. - Aoidh (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak under WP:CSD#G11. (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 07:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mehboob Chohan[edit]

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

Fails both WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Cannot find any reliable, third-party sources online. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 18:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 3 September 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 under G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Non-admin closure §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faraz Khan (Faraz Chohan)[edit]

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

Fails both WP:ENT and WP:GNG; cannot find any reliable, third-party sources on either Faraz Khan or Faraz Chohan. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 18:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 20:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a duplicate of Faraz Khan. GregJackP Boomer! 04:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@GregJackP:, the older one should be deleted (though both), they are advertising. --Tito☸Dutta 04:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm easy. However it needs to be done, I'll support it. GregJackP Boomer! 04:47, 4 September 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 Texas Collegiate League. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acadiana Cane Cutters[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG, and WP:ORG; it's a non-professional baseball team, which has only been around for two years, and appears to have gained barely any media coverage at all (a quick Gsearch shows nothing that isn't primary or unusable for notability). Tagged as failing GNG and being an orphan since March. Also, if the article is correct, the "Pro baseball teams in Louisiana" cat is false - this is an amateur team for professional prospects, not a professional team. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's at least coverage in the local papers, such as [10][11][12][13][14] --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Local sources don't establish notability. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no showing of notability. Neutrality^talk 19:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Texas Collegiate League. Spanneraol (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Spanneraol. Collegiate League Teams aren't notable until they've established some non-routine coverage - which this relatively new team has yet to do. Mpejkrm (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Local coverage isn't enough for this. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 15:28, 10 September 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. postdlf (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Swindell[edit]

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

Definitely "too soon". One #39 hit in the country charts? One source and no real evidence of notability. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notability criteria for musicians, #2.:Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. Reviews of the artist's work can also be found on Taste of Country, Pitch and Billboard. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 16:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not American, so perhaps I misunderstand, but surely a genre-specific music chart does not qualify? Make the genre specific enough, and anything would hence become notable. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:CHARTS, such a chart does qualify. That said, keep. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:CHARTS says that chart should be included in the article, not that it establishes notability. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - But that chart is included in the article; in fact, it was included when you nominated it. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Er, yes, I am not disputing that it was. I feel we are talking at cross purposes here. WP:CHARTS describes what chart listings might be included in articles. If Swindell is notable, that listing should be included. It does not describe which charts make artists inherently notable. WP:MUSICBIO (inasmuch as it is more than a guideline) calls for a "national chart". A genre-specific national chart is clearly less indicative of notability because it is easier to get on. Swindell has not, unless I am mistaken, charted in any non-genre-specific way. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        "A genre-specific national chart is clearly less indicative of notability because it is easier to get on." That sounds like your own opinion. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 15:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Obviously if you are competing only with singles in a specific genre rather than with all singles you will reach a higher position in a chart. This is surely self-evident. How could you reach a lower position? What singles would be above you in the genre-specific chart which are not also in the main chart? Pinkbeast (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that it is necessarily easier to get on a genre specific chart than a cross-genre chart, but I'd argue getting onto even a genre-specific chart in Billboard is no small feat. These rankings take into consideration airtime, digital downloads, digital sales, and streaming. Country music is wildly popular in much of the United States, and while it's difficult to estimate the number of active country bands, there are likely several hundred in most metropolitan areas, and probably a few or several thousand in each state. All that considered, landing a spot on Hot Country Music is kind of a big deal, and is exactly the kind of notability we look for. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 16:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        It's no small feat, but Swindell has, specifically, not accomplished the feat called for in WP:MUSICBIO (or if he has, that is not reflected in the article.) Pinkbeast (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I think we will have to disagree about what constitutes a "national music chart" then, as some others have already stated. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the charting single and the sources shown above. — sparklism ^hey! 07:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSICBIO. Eric444 (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:MUSICBIO with a charted single. Added a review from Taste of Country. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:12, 4 September 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) 17:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design (historical)[edit]

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

This is a fork of intelligent design, which is a WP:FRINGE topic and liable to be WP:POVFORKed. Consensus on talk page was redirect to teleological argument. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Deletion done after somebody altered topic section from history of debates and 19th century usages to say it was teleology and led to Discovery Institute. Since this (historical) is back to emphatically saying 19th century usage NOT main page topic intelligent design and NOT Discovery Institute. Reversed that edit and undid redirect. And please give it more than half a holiday weekend for examination of people. Markbassett (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Putting here summary of the pre-existing reasons as given in Talks: Putting a disambiguation alternate topic of 19th century then-common usage of the phrase. Chosen since main article being explicitly and only the recent Discovery Institute flavor is not the same concept and DI drew from the NASA or Science uses as a nice-sounding label, not from the 19h century debate history. See Talk. I thought that candidates for this topic Reaction to On the Origin of Species or History of the creation–evolution controversy seemed close to appropriate, but that a standalone article might be better sticking either of those with this as a sub-section. The existing intelligent design has already decided this material is not a fork of it and does not belong there. A subsection of concept after Watchmaker would be a third candidate, but still think better as separate isolated topic than sticking it into any of those. Markbassett (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect). There are 2 articles already for this subject: teleological argument and intelligent design. Discussion about that (in my opinion) POV forking is taking place mainly for now on the intelligent design talkpage, but in any case certainly does not show room for a third article. The focus upon the 19th century seems very much based on original research and is WP:UNDUE.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article named Intelligent Design ~~Wait, probably eventually delete There are numerous significant problems with the ID-related articles (particularly the ID article) currently being discussed.~~ And I applaud Markbassett's good faith efforts to get the missing material covered somewhere; the problems that they noted are certainly valid. ~~But~~ Andrew Lancaster's research, reasoning and impartiality has been immensely good as is their reasoning for "delete" one post up. I think that his recommendations elsewhere essentially are to merge. North8000 (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Intelligent design. This is just background information on how the expression has been used. It's normal for an article on a complex, or controversial, topic to have a paragraph or two on this. Borock (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion but FYI a group there has been removing / excluding historical information from the Intelligent Design article. They are proponents of having that article refer only to the version promoted by the Discovery Institute. North8000 (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier to defend one section in that article than a whole new article, it seems to me anyway. There does seem to be a lot of overlap between Intelligent design, Teleological argument, Creationism, Creation science, and probably lots of other articles on the general topic. Borock (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are right in both of your posts. I was just pointing out one "roadblock" to your idea. North8000 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where are your sources showing that this has relation to the topic of intelligent design keeping in mind WP:NOTDICDEF? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Intelligent design per Borock (talk · contribs). In reply to your question, IRWolfie- (talk · contribs), although you were not addressing me I note that the article up for deletion states that in historic use [ID=God], whereas the ID article asserts that current usage does not specify "God". The latter article says in its body that

"Whether this lack of specificity about the designer's identity in public discussions is a genuine feature of the concept, or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from the teaching of science, has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case."

As drafted, the article proposed for deletion definitively states that one side of that debate is correct (and implicitly that the other is not). That sure sounds like a POVFORK taking sides in this public debate. If there are problems with NPOV treatment of the historic usage of the phrase in the article about the phrase, then involved eds should make greater reliance on RSs, WP:FOC, and make effective use of the increasing levels of WP:DR.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For wikipedia-ish style, does it not make more sense to use disambiguation and keep each article to it's defined subject ? Would think that having ID (DI flavor) contain subparagraphs about ID (the music album), ID (the NASA usage), ID (the 19th century), etcetera is a lot of digressions and length better handled as separate articles or subsections in other articles. Markbassett (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the case if WP:Not a dictionary was strictly enforced. However many articles have sections giving the background of how the title of the article came to be or on alternative related useages. Without checking I would guess that Communism, Citizenship, and for that matter Evolution would have this kind of material. After all the concept of evolution existed before Darwin, although with different meanings - but related. Borock (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an original essay. Carrite (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It does look like original research, since all the references are pre 1900. I'd expect this to be discussed in reliable sources but unless there are actually modern references about the history of the expression I don't think this article meets WP policies. It does look like somebody's just typed "intelligent design" into Google Books and copied out the results, rather than reporting something that is already discussed in reliable sources. Dictionaries report usage of an expression through time, encyclopedias describe concepts. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be purely based on OR based on counting use of words in a certain period. So I see no reason to believe this will ever deserve its own article (WP:NOTE, not to mention all the other problems). If OTOH it starts to be edited based upon WP:OR and WP:V then it will simply be an un-needed fork. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The objection to using pre-1900 references as being OR seems confused -- those are original sources, which is not the meaning of OR. I would think that for history article those are the more direct original and close context for historical reasons, and that even by 1890 summaries of events there will be the problem of anachronistic viewpoints creeping in. ngram viewer was in ID talk countering claims that 'intelligent design' did not exist in 19th century as a topic, and gives access to the texts by year, and so is in See Also, not as a subsection of the article topic. Any cite prior to 1989 Panda text is at least sure to not be part of the other ID article. Markbassett (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" I would think that for history article those are the more direct original and close context for historical reason" No, we do not interpret historical sources to be related to a modern topic WP:PRIMARY. That is an example of original research (original synthesis). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"related to a modern topic" Umm, remember this topic is not modern but explicitly the 19th century, and is explicitly barring any relationship as either (a) out of scope - not the topic; or (b) anachronistic - it's not like Darwin had any notion of today. So yes, I see the 1860s letter by Darwin as direct evidence and the 1890s review by Academy of Science as speaking more directly and with better understanding to the time. And neither could have gotten more recent material mixed in. Markbassett (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete as original research and original synthesis of 19th century primary sources. Also note that this content is not suitable for merging, wikipedia is not a dictionary and content is not necessarily relevant to the topic at hand just because it uses the two words "Intelligent design" WP:NOTDICDEF. We only link content when the reliable sources provide that linkage, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - textbook SYNTH. Guettarda (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article which starts out: "Historical uses of the phrase..." is going to be in trouble with WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I do know that there are some cases where this rule is ignored, but I don't think the consensus is going to say this topic is important enough. With Google Books you could write an article on the historical uses of any two words put together. The question of mentioning the info in another article is another question. Does the article on the Washington Redskins have info on the historical use of the word "redskin"? Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer my own question: No, but it has a link to the article Redskin (slang) which is one of those exceptions to "not a dictionary." Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think WP:DICT applies, since I'm just following what the wiki says to do "For other uses of the phrase, see Intelligent design (disambiguation)." and this material would not fit under primary scope which is basically 'as promulgated by Discovery Institute'. If you have a suggestion for improved phrasing, better wording would be appreciated. Markbassett (talk) 20:54, 11 September 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. --BDD (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pencak Silat Mande Muda[edit]

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

Notability questionable. Looks like an advertisement. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is already quite badly written, unsourced, wrong context and I agree it looks like an advertisement. Adrianw9 (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources and nothing to show it meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE.Mdtemp (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Failed to find enough reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:55, 9 September 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 Emily Windsnap. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Windsnap and the Castle in the Mist[edit]

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

Delete - This article is not notable to be added on Wikipedia. This article appears to be written like an Advertisement or Promotional purpose. CharlesWhiteUSA (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Tail of Emily Windsnap, although that article also currently lacks independent sources. The Emily Windsnap series, as a whole, appears to have solid notability (see GNews results: [15]) but the individual sequels, not so much. Best result here would be to consolidate one article for the series, and improve that article by adding sources and independent coverage. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Arxiloxos. Let's avoid the needless elimination of information that could properly be merged and housed elsewhere. bd2412 T 16:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I can see where some schools cover the series in some format, but the series doesn't have any real individual notability. I'll see if I can find sourcing to merit an individual page for the series. If not, then this can redirect back to the author's page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to specify redirect to Emily Windsnap, as there's now a page for the series as a whole. The individual novels aren't notable enough for their own entry, but there's just enough for the series as a whole to merit an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Emily Windsnap. One article on the whole series seems quite enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:54, 5 September 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) 18:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lamin-x Protective Films[edit]

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

Delete - This article is not notable to be added on Wikipedia. This article appears to be written like an Advertisement or Promotional purpose. CharlesWhiteUSA (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find no sources providing substantial independent coverage of this company, or its product. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No good sources or independent coverage - seems a lot like an advertisement for the company. Adrianw9 (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 3 September 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. Neutrality^talk 19:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Justices of the Kansas Supreme Court[edit]

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

Delete - This article is not notable to be added on Wikipedia. CharlesWhiteUSA (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is one of a sporadic range of nominations for deletion by this editor, including some clearly notable topics. This, in particular, is part of Wikipedia's comprehensive series of lists of state supreme court justices. bd2412 T 12:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep No real reason presented for deletion, and topic is obviously notable as a List of for those who have been on Kansas's high court. Nate • (chatter) 13:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep No reasonable ground for deletion was presented. The individual justices who served on the highest courts of each state generally got a sufficient quality and quantity of coverage in statewide and national publications and in books to qualify individually as satisfying WP:BIO. Many of them have articles already, and those lacking articles have sources such as [16] and [17] for the earliest redlink justice who actually served on this court. The highest court of each state certainly satisfies WP:ORG. A listing such as this is an important and useful organizational tool for studying how the justices overlapped in their terms.This list is also a tool for developing the encyclopedia, in that its redlinks suggest articles which could be created. Edison (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. State supreme court justices pass WP:POLITICIAN, and this list clearly meets the Wikipedia guidelines for lists. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No particular reason to delete this article given - all these justices are highly publicised and a lot of them have their own articles. Adrianw9 (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coffin Baby[edit]

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

Unremarkable film. Fails WP:GNG. Article does not assert notability. — Richard BB 10:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep This film stars many notable people, and IMDb gives a host of some borderline-reliable critic reviews. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Meets WP:NF through coverage and commentary in independent sources. While yes, the three-sentence nominated version had issues, they have been addressed and the article improved to the point where the project is now served. I would remind the nominator that an article does not have to itself "assert" a notability, as notability is found through a topic's coverage outside of Wikipedia and not by anything we write within these pages... though by asserting itself as a sequel to a notable film this one did so assert. Also I wish to politely remind of any unintended WP:Bite: This was a brand new article, contributed by an inexperienced newcomer, and proposed for deletion 22 minutes after being authored, but wisely declined . After being declined, and with no polite tagging for cleanup or expansion or sourcing, it was nominated for deletion. So be it, and here we are. Though not intended to force cleanup, the nomination did just that. And while it has caught the attention of multiple genre sources loved by horror fans even if not by Wikipedia, it also received enough attention in suitable sources. The film appears to have had an earlier release in Germany so we can look for additional non-English coverage. Considering it stars Bruce Dern, I think it safe to allow the now improved version to remain and be further improved as additional reviews come forward toward its more recent Blue-Ray release. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements by MichaelQSchmidt. Covered in multiple reliable sources. Cavarrone 20:29, 6 September 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. Bad-faith nomination. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Support Unit[edit]

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

Delete - This article is not notable to be added on Wikipedia. CharlesWhiteUSA (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator doesn't indicate if he followed the steps at WP:BEFORE before making this nomination. Following the "Find sources" links at the top of this AfD page, I find reasonably substantial coverage of this United Nations initiative at GBooks, GScholar, and GNews, notably including discussion in this book: [18]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:10, 3 September 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. Bad-faith nomination. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sky-Sailor (Martian UAV)[edit]

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

Delete - This article is not notable to be added on Wikipedia. This article appears to be written like an Advertisement or Promotional purpose. CharlesWhiteUSA (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was clearly a PhD project at the ETH Zurich. The article is briefly descriptive and not overtly promotional with no obvious commercial motive. There are references showing that the project garnered some interest internationally. This is not a very satisfactory article and my inclination is to suggest a merge with Electric aircraft or Mars aircraft but it sits uncomfortably between them - a Mars paper project with a feasibility model tested on Earth. --AJHingston (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of a sporadic range of nominations for deletion by this editor, including some clearly notable topics. bd2412 T 12:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Other noms exist, but please comment on why this topic should be kept. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This research project has not yet achieved notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 3 September 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. Bad-faith nomination. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Foundation[edit]

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

Delete - This article is not notable to be added on Wikipedia. This article appears to be written like an Advertisement or Promotional purpose. CharlesWhiteUSA (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have to disagree - whilst the article needs work by someone who knows all about it, it has detail and doesn't seem like an advertisement to me. However it is poorly referenced. Adrianw9 (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 3 September 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 Student activism. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Disorientation[edit]

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

This is not an encyclopedia topic. A few webpages where universities encourage new students to learn whereabouts they are going, aren't important. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this IS indeed an encyclopedia topic. It is a major set of organized activities on many campuses. It is a social phenomenon, and worthy of an article. It goes by different names in different countries and therefore the wikipedia piece can help people understand the practice. I know many people who have participating in such events. Both of my schools had disorientation weeks. Do not speak about which you do not know. Let the users decide. Thank you. User: Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.74.69 (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title, at least, does not seem encyclopedic or of long standing. US colleges, at least, had leftist campus activists running during orientation week around handing out leaflets denouncing the administration and the mainstream student organizations, and military training, decades before someone pinned the "disorientation" label on it. "Disorientation" as promoted by a website not referenced yet in the article seems a small and recent movement and does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG. Only a few schools have refs for "disorientation" as such, and secondary coverage of the specific "Disorientation" movement is lacking. The general topic of student dissidents, and the history of student activism, antiwar, the US civil rights struggle, anarchy, student radicals, anti-capitalism, etc should certainly be covered in Wikipedia, and are at Student activism. This new "Disorientation" movement could be mentioned there, so a Smerge (slight merge) might be appropriate. Edison (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Student activism, per WP:ORG, WP:BEFORE - possible search term. -- Trevj (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of disorientation campaigns happening around the country, we are beefing up the text and resources for the wikipedia page and will be updating it soon. The student activism page needs a lot of work, actually, thank you for pointing that out. Let's see what we can get together for this page and if it best fits into Student activism so be it, but I do feel that this is worthy of its own page. Thanks for your patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen Other (talk • contribs) 23:08, 6 September 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) 18:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

German Pellets[edit]

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

This is being repeatedly created. THe author doesn't seem to comprehend either (1) the laws on WP:SPAM or (2) the laws on providing reliable 3rd party coverage. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just do not understand why other companies are allowed to publish many information about their company on wikipedia and I wrote a few sentences, in my opinion they have nothing to do with advertising and these few sentences are always deleted.I know that advertising is not allowed but in my opinion that is no advertising. There is no advertising, no solicitation, there is no sales-orientated language used. By reading the article about WP:SPAM I do not find the reason why you are considering that page as WP:SPAM! If there is really something that promotes the company I'll change it on the page German Pellets. MWolli (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Barney, please be careful how you phrase things since the nomination seems a little BITE-y. MWolli, as far as the spam stuff goes, I think that at this point it's less that the current phrasing is considered to be unambigously promotional as much as it's that you've continued to try to add it to Wikipedia. However at the same time, I don't see where anyone has really discussed notability standards or sourcing with you, so I can understand where you would get confused over this stuff. I'll drop a note on your page and let you know about notability and sourcing. That's really the biggest issue with this page right now: it lacks coverage in reliable sources to show notability, but more on that on your page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: since almost all of the coverage is in German, I've asked WP:GERMANY for help with finding sources and fleshing out the article. Also, anyone coming in, there is a German language article to pull information from here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the German entry, it looks like MWolli translated what was on the other entry and added it here. I know that sometimes different language WPs have different standards on promotional tones and that some phrases or words can have different connotations in another language. I don't think that this is a case of intentional spam, in any case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article now has refs from RS and passes GNG. Although the references are in German, there is no requirement for English language sources. Note, I had previously nominated one of the versions for CSD as promotional, so I certainly understand why Barney started this AfD. I just think that Tokyogirl is correct on what she thinks happened. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 14:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a couple more references to add (and passed up Russian references with the same information). Numerous independent sources refer to the company as the largest pellet producer in Europe, and it has received an appreciable amount of non-local coverage, both of which demonstrate notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:08, 3 September 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 , as Fram says, "nuke these articles and indef their creator". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Girls' School European Volleyball Championship Cup[edit]

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

Group of unverifiable articles for seemingly non existent tournaments. The 2013 Girls' Youth European Volleyball Championship exists, but this similar tuornament can not be found through Google, and the one source given is about the Youth championship, not the "school" championship. Perhaps there is some translation problem, but with nothing given to verify this, and the very strange titles of some of the articles, there is little left to keep. Note that no tournament with these dates is e.g. listed at the official CEV calendar[19]. Elaborate hoax or some strange verification problem? Fram (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated are the following articles by the same creator:

2014 FIVB Girls Cup International of School
2013 FIVB Girls Cup International of School
FIVB Girls Cup International of School
Category:FIVB Girls Cup International of School (yes, it's a category, but it's useless to keep it if the articles are deleted)
2015 FIVB Girls Cup International of School
Girls' School European Volleyball Championship Cup
Girls' School African Volleyball Championship Cup
Girls' School South American Volleyball Championship Cup
Asian School Girls Volleyball Championship Cup
Girls' School NORCECA Volleyball Championship Cup
2012 Girls' School NORCECA Volleyball Championship Cup
User:Diego123141 (user page is a copy of one of these articles)

Delete all The FIVB articles have no source and searching the FIVB site turned up no matching events with similar names, dates or locations. The 2013 event article has results and I can't find anything to match. The use of "Girls' School" isn't normal FIVB terminalogy (would expect youth or junior) for articles. Unless we can get some clarification, meaning sources, from the article creator, I think all articles should be deleted. Ravensfire (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I've left a message on User:Diego123141's talk page asking for sources. Ravensfire (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the creator of these articles has ignored this AfD but added a new article on the same hoax, I have also nominated 2012 FIVB Girls Cup International of School for this AfD. Perhaps, if these are indeed determined to be hoaxes, some uninvolved admin can indef block this editor? Someone is bound to consider me involved, so I'ld rather not do it myself... 06:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

At this point, the articles have been tagged as unsourced and as hoaxes and personal notes left on the creator's talk page. I concur, and don't think anything other than a block will get their attention. Ravensfire (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If more evidence is needed that these are pure fabrications: the latest article, 2012 FIVB Girls Cup International of School, claims that a major tournament was held in Greece between 22 and 26 november 2012, with Angela Levya of Peru as Best Spiker. Strangely, at exactly the same dates, the actual 2012 Girls' Youth South American Volleyball Championship was held in Peru (quite some distance from Greece), with Angela Levya from Peru as Best Spiker as well (and as MVP). It seems unlikely that she was at both tuornaments at the same time, and it seems equally unlikely that the FIVB would organise two such similar tournaments at the same time. Please nuke these articles and indef their creator. Fram (talk) 07:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- More evidence, several of the 2014 articles now have results. Even with a massive does of WP:AGF this is still dreck. Also added their user page to this list as it's a copy of one of these articles. Ravensfire (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin - please consider blocking Diego123141. Despite several notes on the named user's talk page, none of their articles are sourced and they all appear to be hoaxes. They have removed the AFD notice on several articles. An indefinite block to get their attention and push them to using sources might help. While they appear to also use various IP's originating from Peru it hops around so putting together a list of previous IP's used probably won't help much. Ravensfire (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated, the next hoax article in the series, Gabriela D'Odorico. Delete and indef block are the only solutions here. Fram (talk) 06:48, 9 September 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vivisimo[edit]

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

This article cites zero mainstream sources — only trade publications. But WP:CORPDEPTH says that "media of limited interest and circulation" aren't sufficient to prove notability. See also WP:B2B#Trade publications and awards aren't good enough.

Worse yet, this one-sided article reads like a press release. (That's why, for example, it's not completely clear exactly what Vivismo Velocity Search Platform actually does.)

Please delete ~~per WP:CORPDEPTH and/or~~ per CSD G11.

~~Dear all: Please read WP:42 before you vote.~~

Cheers, Unforgettableid (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Vivisimo is a keystone of the history of alternative search engines and services in the U.S. Deleting this page would be a great disservice to those that use Wikipedia. Unforgettableid could probably help out a lot more by focussing on a field where his/her expertise could really shine through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki12rt (talk • contribs) 07:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Vivisimo was an important company in the enterprise search space.
- The page WP:B2B#Trade publications and awards aren't good enough is not Wikipedia policy--it is just an essay by a Wikipedian. In many domains, a combination of the trade press and a company's own publications is probably the most reliable source for a topic. Consider, for example, non-stick coatings for frying pans. There is certainly academic research on the compounds used, but I doubt there is any on the way they are applied to frying pans, the way they are marketed, etc.
- The fact that the current state of an article is not very good (or that editors with a COI have contributed to it) is not a reason to delete it.
- It doesn't take much effort to find articles about Vivisimo in the mainstream press. The Google search [site:nytimes.com vivisimo ] finds dozens of articles mentioning it, many focusing specifically on it. --Macrakis (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Vivisimo was a massive company and a vital part of the industry and there are hundreds and hundreds of articles online mentioning the company. As pointed out, sites like the NY Times feature Vivisimo frequently - which I wouldn't describe as "limited circulation"... Adrianw9 (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was a lot of coverage of the takeover in business and tech press and other media, from Wall Street Journal[20], TechCrunch (owned by AOL)[21], Pittsburgh Post-Gazette[22], Forbes[23], plus[24][25][26]. But there's also other coverage of Vivismo - mainly in InfoWorld, but also elsewhere[27][28][29]. This is the sort of company that gets a lot of press. Notability standards for businesses are quite weak and clearly met. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the article fails CSD G11, then it doesn't matter whether Vivisimo meets WP:CORP or not: Wikipedia tradition is that articles correctly nominated as "G11" are deleted. But I still am not convinced that Vivisimo meets WP:CORP. I haven't yet seen a New York Times article about Vivisimo which includes significant coverage: if you find one, please show us. I haven't yet looked into whether my local library offers me WSJ access through its EZProxy at-home-access service. I don't see why TechCrunch would be "mainstream coverage". Read the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article: you'll see it's nothing but local coverage. Read the short Forbes article: much of it seems to be quoting from a press release. Of the three Google Books links provided, one links to InfoWorld, a trade publication; the second looks like an undergraduate textbook; and the third looks like an academic work. So it seems to me that none of the three Google Books links point to mainstream sources. Dear all: Please reread and review WP:42, and memorize it well. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion for CSD G11 is "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." This page is not exclusively promotional, though I agree that there was some puffery. I have edited the article to reduce that. As for NYT articles, the Google search above lists many NYT articles mentioning Vivisimo. The first one, "New Company Starts Up a Challenge to Google" is an article by John Markoff, a respected technology journalist, primarily about Vivisimo. I am confused by your evaluation of sources; in what way is an "academic work" a problematic source? --Macrakis (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake; the article by Mr. Markoff indeed includes significant coverage and is indeed an acceptable source. Also, I looked more carefully at the relevant policy pages today; I now see that academic works are often excellent sources. OK; so Vivisimo probably passes WP:CORPDEPTH. I have struck out the relevant part of my nomination. Also, thank you very much for your recent edit; it removes much PR-agency cruft from the article. But the article started out so atrocious that I suspect it still deserves deletion (per G11) despite the significant improvements you've made. If you're still interested in rescuing the article, then more public-relations content removal is probably necessary. You may also want to explain what Vivisimo's product actually does; you can adapt content from the first paragraph of Garrepi's revision if you like. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:06, 8 September 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) 18:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Abandoned State[edit]

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

Came across this via PRODs, but saw that this had previously been nominated back in 2012 for a PROD and the template was removed by an IP. I'm nominating this since we can't do second PRODs on the article. I can't find anything at all to show that this passes notability guidelines. There's no coverage of this in reliable sources and little to no coverage in anything other than primary sources and junk hits. I'd suggest userfying this, except that the original editor has long since left Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Looks like this is an idea for a film that never really got off the ground (or is possibly in development hell). It doesn't help that the article was created by the creator of the film's production company. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being TOO SOON and for being shelved. It appears that filmmaker Andrew Lehti posted on the film's Facebook page just a few days ago: "It was quite unfortunate that this film will never see the light of day, but that's okay. Teresa (Schaeffer) is out. A problem from the beginning. I will be starting my production career with smaller projects... " With this admission, and with A) no coverage and B) no place to redirect, this film article cannot remain here. Sorry Andrew, but we have our inclusion guides. If this is ever resurrected and receives coverage, a new article can be considered. Good luck in your endeavors. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promo piece by the films director. Film lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the film itself is in an abandoned state (can't believe I just thought of that one...). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apt... but could not bring myself to use that pun. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:41, 4 September 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) 17:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criss Jami[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted article (after AfD) partially recreated, but supplemented with a bunch of third-rate sources. It is my belief that this self-published "philosopher" still fails WP:BIO. Orange Mike | Talk 03:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The WorldNetDaily (WND) source is excellent. The rest are trivial mentions. One source isn't enough for WP:GNG. It could pass on WP:AUTHOR #3 if there were multiple book reviews in reliable sources, but not seeing it. He's active posting poems on poetry.com and has garnered fans there thus many are quoting his poems in various sources online. Don't think that's sufficient for notability, need more sources like WND or book reviews in reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ???? WorldNetDaily is not considered a reliable source for much of anything. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see "WorldNetDaily" in that link. At this point it's not worth hashing out [here or at RS review] since it won't make a difference to this AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - explanation there are presently no less than five footnotes sourced to WND.com, formerly known as WorldNetDaily but every bit as non-reliable under the new mask. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - "that link" meaning the link you made ("reliable source for much of anything") to justify why WND is unreliable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, sorry, I was just linking to our definition of a reliable source. As to why WND is not considered one, you'd have to read the article about WND and the myriad times the topic has been discussed on our reliable sources noticeboard and elsewhere. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I created the article without closer considering all the guidelines. Some topics seem hard to classify: I understand that they're not sources, but I noticed the subject is mentioned or quoted about every few minutes to an hour on both Facebook and Twitter (Facebook, Twitter). I'm just saying where I'm coming from. Ahnold T (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - being mentioned or quoted in Twitter or Facebook by people you know does not constitute notability as it is understood here. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:GNG (or see WP:42 for a summary), the topic needs to be mentioned in reliable sources. Since Facebook and Twitter are self-published (everyone can post) they are not considered reliable. Also it has to be "in depth" coverage. It shows however there is a fan base, which might mean book sales, which might mean book reviews, and that would work to show notability - but right now looks like WP:TOOSOON. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm not sure about the subject but they aren't people I know, Mike. I did a search for "Public Posts" on those sites which would be random people anywhere in the world, but yes I gotcha. WP:TOOSOON seems about right. Ahnold T (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see an article on him has gone through this before. It's easy for non-experienced users to get confused on this one. One of the "unreliable" sources said he's the number one quoted author (above the legends), however he's self-published: http://www.gotknowhow.com/quotes/authors/popular/. WP:TOOSOON. Ahnold T (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On that note, I've made up my mind. Perfect sources or not, my human side says this article is very relevant. Ahnold T (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Disregarding the reintroduction of previously discussed self-published and non-reliable sources, there has been no new WP:RS provided since the topic was deleted before TEDickey (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic that the actual given, constant mass of people is considered a non-reliable source, whereas a biography can be written by a single individual and thrown on the bookshelf. Maybe that explains why the site is so vastly inconsistent in its inclusions. Ahnold T (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not ironic. Such a book is a secondary source, whereas Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Such a book may be useful as a reference for Wikipedia purposes, but its existence alone does not indicate that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.--ukexpat (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't explain my point. In the end, buzzwords don't mean much when it comes to the reality of it. Maybe there's nothing we can do about it, but I'm just saying. Ahnold T (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one of the reasons we require more than just evidence of people liking an artist, we need material to write an article with. Need biographical information about the person. The WND piece is excellent in that regard. While WND is considered a poor source on some topics (politics), it's perfectly reliable for reporting basic facts about the life of an artist. However, we also need multiple sources, and since WND is already considered controversial as a source, and since we don't have 3 or 4 other biographical sources, it's very difficult to make a case for keep. See WP:GNG which is summarized at WP:42. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this article doesn't have information not verifiable by the given source(s). Like I said about buzzwords, I proved everything it said including notability, maybe through original research, but I certainly did. I could see if the article was written like an advertisement, but it's not. I was agreeing with WP:TOOSOON until I realized that part of the subject's relevance is surpassing U.S. presidents and historical geniuses without the support of places like Wikipedia. WP:TOOINCREDIBLE. Ahnold T (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOINCREDIBLE Ahnold T (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Amazon store, he has also been in 19 books. It looks like 12 of them are independent of the subject. Amazon Books Ahnold T (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah whatever guys, I give up! hehe Ahnold T (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Shirt58. ... discospinster _talk 12:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kingfisher (film)[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:NFILM. Google search for kingfisher "shiva jillu" only brings up Wikipedia and Facebook results. Prod tag removed. ... discospinster _talk 02:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's possible that there are foreign language results that won't show up in a search, but that the English language results are almost solely mirrors of this article and junk hits is fairly telling. Usually, but not always, even the semi-major Indian films will have some mentions in the English language sectors of the press. It's not always the case, but it's somewhat the norm. I don't mind this being userfied back to the article's creator as long as they're made aware of WP:NOTPROMOTION. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 04:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non administrator WikiProject India editor's observation) It seems more a WP:TOOSOON issue. The article claims the film is going to release in 2014. I am trying to find sources. --Tito☸Dutta 04:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non administrator WikiProject India editor's observation) No, there is not any source anywhere. In addition there is no source for the director, producer, music director too. I am almost sure this article is a hoax (unless all of them are going to debut with this movie, but frankly, I don't think so). In addition the article's prose/writing style is also suspicious too: Story releasing Soon To Wikipedia, film budget 13000? They can't shoot a single scene with this amount. I'll tag the article with "Suspected hoax" template. @Discospinster:, as you have noted, other articles Shiva Jillu, Gowtham, S.Krish have been recently created by the same author and have been deleted too. Most probably all of those articles were hoaxes too. Anyway... I am quite sure a kid/school student is trying to have fun here (I'll not tell you how I have deduced it, guess ). I am voting Speedy delete --Tito☸Dutta 05:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- As per Tito.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 05:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Actually, this is ok for CSD.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged this as a speedy delete since it seems clear that this is a hoax. The original editor for the article seems to have been blocked indefinitely for uploading hoax articles and I've seen others by him that are clear hoaxes, so this should get speedied as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:10, 6 September 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline24[edit]

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

As I pointed in the original prod, primarily self-referenced and with next to no indication of notability. Creator added some refs, but I don't believe they pass WP:RS. In other words, the article IMHO still fails the notability treshold pretty badly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added new references but only to Polish websites. Gacek00 (talk) 13:53, 2 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Additional sources proving coverage in mainstream sources have been provided, I am ready to withdraw this nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:12, 3 September 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. postdlf (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polish American Contractors Builders Association[edit]

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

I would like to see this saved. But as this stands, it looks like an unreferenced article about an unnotable organization (fails: WP:V, WP:M). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The WP:V issue is easily resolved via the group's website [30]. Notability is evidenced, in part, by this article from Fine Homebuilding. [31]. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- V is fine, but can you explain how does the brief mention in a specialty press (Fine Homebuilding) satisfies WP:N? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:57, 28 August 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, due to lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. As a licensed contractor myself, I consider Fine Homebuilder an impeccably reliable source, along with its sister publication Fine Woodworking. If we had similar coverage in two or three other comparable sources, I would recommend keeping the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. you'd expect some American coverage, but all gnews shows is one small third party hit. LibStar (talk) 06:47, 3 September 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. --BDD (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gregor Laubsch[edit]

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

I stand by my claim from the original prod that this fails notability. All sources seem like regional or specialist magazines, no coverage in mainstream sources. All awards look minor. Nothing to suggest encyclopedic notability that I see so far. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if subjects have significant coverage in reliable sources then they meet WP:GNG - there's no requirement for the sources to be "mainstream". However, I agree with the nominator that the list of awards and prizes seems very weak, while the article itself makes little claim to importance. Starting with a self-quote from a facebook page is a very bad start! However, there seems to be some coverage about Laubsch in published photography magazines, for example [32] and [33]. Despite him living in Berlin for several decades, I haven't found much coverage in German yet. Sorry, I'm a bit undecided at the moment (though swaying towards a 'very weak keep'). Sionk (talk) 21:38, 29 August 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searched for sources, this is a very active photographer in different blogs and photo communities (there are a lot). But did not find a sign that he could fulfill the criterias in WP:CREATIVE. --Ben Ben (talk) 20:34, 7 September 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. --BDD (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malwina Zielińska[edit]

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

Model entry; seems to fail notability, sources don't seem reliable (WP:RS failure). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 27 August 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on a technicality and due to lack of sources - I do wonder whether she would have passed GNG in the '90s however, even if only in her native Poland - such sources probably are not available online and/or through the usual search engines. However, can't overlook the almost complete lack of reliable source hits when searching her (quite distinctive) name. Mabalu (talk) 13:04, 5 September 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. postdlf (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikanda[edit]

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

I have looked, and I cannot find any reliable sources covering this encyclopedia. Indeed, the only hits I could find are from this article on Wikipedia and its mirrors, the wikanda site itself, and unrelated pages on people with the name "Wikanda". Accordingly, this article fails both WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 27 August 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found it mentioned by some Spanish blogs, but no real reliable sourcing. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Finding a lot of people named Wikanda, but no reliable sources covering this wiki. Not notable. T C N7JM 02:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No RS giving coverage. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:52, 4 September 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. --BDD (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trust (100 Bullets)[edit]

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

This articles does not establish notability. The main article and list of characters have a summary of the topic. TTN (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 27 August 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Asserts no notability. Could also merge with 100 Bullets, but I think it's a bit too detailed for that article. Wikia would be a better home for this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Tulsa shooting[edit]

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

WP is not a newspaper; no lasting significance to this event is claimed or demonstrated. LGA _talk^edits 09:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) @ 10:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (gossip) @ 10:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:21, 20 August 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, Tito☸Dutta 16:26, 27 August 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems like a pretty clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. A search for sources shows that coverage of this event effectively ended in mid-April 2012 ([34]), about 10 days after the incident. Coverage during the incident and court case is ample, but there is no evidence of persistent coverage that contextualizes this event in historical terms. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. GregJackP Boomer! 00:45, 10 September 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 residence halls at the University of Notre Dame. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni Hall (University of Notre Dame)[edit]

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

Non notable. I redirected to List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame, like its sibling hall articles, but was reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 20 August 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, Tito☸Dutta 16:28, 27 August 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Neutrality^talk 08:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame. Whilst I would much prefer some prose at the target, in this case there is nothing sourced that would be sensible to merge. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:32, 4 September 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oro Blanco[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:37, 20 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:47, 27 August 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Large publicly traded company. A merge of some sort to the article on its subsidiary or into an article on its primary stakeholder seems worth considering. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a large company however, not huge but still notable. The article needs merging or expanding, seen as the figures are old too. Adrianw9 (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Return of Ultraman. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black King (Ultra monster)[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of The Return of Ultraman through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Return of Ultraman. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect While a redirect is perhaps the best solution on policy grounds, as this does not meet notability standards, "Black King (Ultra monster)" is an unlikely search term and therefore I don't see a terribly high amount of merit to making it a redirect. Weighing the likelyhood that someone will search for "Black King (Ultra monster)" versus the likelyhood that someone will undo the merge later on without substantially improving the article and establishing notability, I believe deletion would be the best outcome. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a good point, actually... Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Sven. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Preserve the functionality of the entry on the Black King dab page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:14, 6 September 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.