Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 January	17 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rock for Dimes[edit]

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

Charity music event with no properly sourced indication of notability. Article relies entirely on primary sources; there's also a possible WP:COI here, as the article's creator also created a recent, similarly poorly-sourced article about one of the bands that participated in the event (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shroud of Gaia), and is simultaneously quoted on that band's website as giving feedback to them on how great their performance was — and in at least one spot in this article he wrote about the event in the first person ("our national backline sponsor"). As always, I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if somebody can source the article properly, but no matter how worthy the cause may be it's not entitled to keep a primary-sourced advertisement on Wikipedia just because it exists. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 04:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC) This AFD was already correctly transcluded to the log for January 15, when it was actually created. Bearcat (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article appears to be a brochure created by someone within the organization. Non-primary sources provided or those that I can find myself are blogs, trivial, or press releases. Might merit a sentence in the March of Dimes Canada article, but that's it. WP:NOTPROMOTION, even for a worthy cause. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find coverage to indicate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 01:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Here we go again... Bearcat (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Open English[edit]

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

Completing nomination for User:70.208.21.233, whose edit-summary rationale was "wikiepdia is not for company bios and ads, this is not notable." I am neutral. Ansh6 6 6 02:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 17:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this as WP:PROMOTIONAL while welcoming its eventual organic reconstitution BlueSalix (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The tone of the article doesn't strike me as particularly problematic, but as far as I can tell, ~~all~~ many of the sources come from the company or its advertisements or business profiles. Notability is not established. Cnilep (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe in five years. There is little substance in this article, and no indication of cultural relevance. It reads like the "History" or "About us" page on a corporate website. The advertisements section seems like a weird PR thing. Ringbang (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2014 (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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YoYo Games[edit]

(Find video game sources: "YoYo Games" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Article lacks reliable secondary and third party sources and fails WP:Notability BlitzGreg (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Venture Beat MSDN Blog GamesIndustry.biz PocketGamer Mashable InsideMobileGames. Plenty of source I would say. You guys should at least attempt a cursory look using Google. Tsk tsk. SharkD Talk 07:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fairly notable company, decent amount of refs, but could use more (like most articles). Fairly balanced discussion of company. Don't see compelling reason to delete. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, as listed by SharkD above. In addition, all the passing mentions, interviews, releases, and generic short articles to provide plenty of WP:V material. Article may lack these sources, but notability is about existence of such sources and not article quality, and finding such did not pose much trouble. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Overmars[edit]

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

Article was recreated after previous discussion to delete the article for failing WP:Notability per Wikipedia:PROF#C1 and is also criteria for speedy deletion per Wikipedia:Field_guide_to_proper_speedy_deletion#4._Recreation_of_deleted_material. No proper citations are given, all links are dead and inaccessible and therefore unverifiable. Since the article can not establish this it also does not meet the criteria for WP:NACADEMICS. BlitzGreg (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination that occurred after the subject's very clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 (highly cited publications on Google scholar) was explained at length to the nominator on the article's talk page. The claim that "all links are dead" is also false. A couple of the links were dead (likely due to the subject recently leaving employment with Utrecht U.) but recoverable through the internet archive, other links (the ams genealogy and distance calculator one) are and were live (but paywalled in the case of the distance calculator) and the nominator also insisted on deleting a citation to a published journal article with the excuse that the courtesy preprint url given in it (now removed) was dead. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not insist on deleting that one citation that was not dead, that was a mistake, and I even admitted so. The issue is not only regarding that, but the very fact, that not only were the sources unreliable, they also fail to establish why the person is notable in the first place per "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." the policy in question. BlitzGreg (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to fail to understand the difference between a large number of works, and a large number of citations, a difference that is critical to understand WP:PROF#C1 and that was clearly explained to you prior to the nomination. Nobody has been arguing that Overmars warrants an article because of the fact that he has many publications (although that fact is mentioned in the article). The reason he warrants an article is because some of his publications have had a very high impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't seem to understand the difference between a large number of citations and a large number of sources. Those Google results are not enough to go on alone for verifiability, and independent secondary or tertiary sources. And upon further investigation it appears this article was only recreated after a former discussion to delete said article where the exact same content was given as justification for not deleting, but the resolution was still to delete the article see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Overmars.

That discussion is from the early days of WP and would now be considered archaic, for example because it conflates another person of the same name. Large numbers of citations conclusively establish notability and this individual seems to have many fold more than what have been considered the minimum to pass WP:PROF in quite literally hundreds of AfDs. Agricola44 (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on basis of stunning GS citations. This nomination is a candidate for worst ever nomination in the WP:Prof domain. A trout for the nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Unverified citations mind you, the Google scholar results may be well over 2000, but they are actually well over 2000 unrelated results. This becomes apparent around page 10 of the scholar citations David is refuting where Overmars is not actually being cited, the results just have similar titles to the keywords searched for. BlitzGreg (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may have inaccuracies, but for computer science Google Scholar is the preferred choice because the other alternatives are even less accurate. See for instance the final bullet of WP:PROF and the source cited there. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thousands of citations apiece for several works definitively shows significance through high impact works and thus notability according to Wikipedia:PROF#C1. --Mark viking (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACADEMICS as the sources demonstrate this person is well known for authoring important scholarly works. Note that the article was in fact recreated after the first AfD and would have been a speedy G4 (in 2005) but it's in fine shape now. Also, I find it amusing that the article featured an image of the footballer Kostadin Markov which wasn't removed for almost 5 years. Ivanvector (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Citations well past numbers req'd in WP:PROF c1 are conclusive. Agricola44 (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Snow keep Nom is advised to listen to experienced people like David instead of wasting the community's time here. --Randykitty (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, David is most likely the one who recreated the article since he is the only one with a record of editing the article that long ago. He only cleaned up the article after my nomination to delete it. BlitzGreg (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, AfDs often result in an article being improved while the discussion is ongoing, such that the original concerns for deletion are addressed and the article is saved. Ivanvector (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Actually, if I look in the article history it was not David who created the article and actually if I look on the talk page he already explained everything that needed to be explained before you nominated this for deletion. I strongly suggest that you withdraw this nomination. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I second the motion for nom to withdraw. This is starting to consume valuable time that is best spent elsewhere. Incidentally, WoS citation numbers are comparable to GS, i.e. quite high: h-index 23 and cumulative cites >2000. This evidence is conclusive proof of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. The WP:Prof guidelines seem to have become one of Wikipedia's pontes asinorum. Some pass over, some do not. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

My second concern here is that once you hit about page 10 of the Google scholar results, the quality of results significantly decreases to where none of the actual results are citing Overmars at all, actually about page 5 it starts doing that towards the bottom. This is the equivalent of using Google search results as as justification for WP:Notability. BlitzGreg (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With a GS h-index of 48, who cares? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, more than sufficient evidence to pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:PROF due to his widely used computational geometry text: "4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." - tucoxn\^talk 23:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of breweries, wineries, and distilleries in Utah[edit]

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

Disputed WP:PROD. There are almost no notable entries in this list. Wikipedia is not a directory. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The article doesn't met the criteria for serving an encyclopedic purpose according to WP:LIST with it essentially being a redlink directory for non-notable wineries, breweries and distilleries that will largely stay forever redlinked since they do not pass the criteria of WP:GNG. The truly notable wineries can be included in referenced prose discussions on Utah wine and I see no reason why Brewing in Utah or Distilling in Utah articles couldn't be created that would include a link to any notable breweries or distilleries in the state. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 01:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll note that List of wineries, breweries, and distilleries in New Jersey started out similar to this one, with only one or two clearly notable items in the list, and being a linkfarm to everything else as well. I think it had an AFD too although under another title. Now it's been vastly improved and all the entities listed have their own Wikipedia articles. Are all the wineries on this list truly not notable, or is this a similar case where further development is needed? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - But remove the external links and add references from reliable sources other than the company's website. With a little work references can be found; those with no references can be removed, the remaining should notable enough to leave (with a red-link for the eventual creation of individual articles). -- Zyxw (talk)

Comment: Also see the related AFD discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Connecticut (which also includes AFDs for Idaho, Iowa, New Mexico, and Tennessee), plus the individual state AFDs listed below. -- Zyxw (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree the links on this page need work, but it is not hard to find beer books and New York Times articles about breweries, they are one of the largest sectors of non-durable manufacturing growing in the United States - hence notable. Per WP:CSC, lists may contain nonnotable entries; in fact - they may be set up to contain nothing but non-notable entries. These lists are valid for navigation, although consensus may end up renaming or shaping them differently at some point in the future. I updated parts of several of these lists including List of breweries in California. It was not hard and I learned that beer brewing is one of the largest non-durable industries in the U.S. and growing at a rate of up to 20% per year. Therefore I think the entire topic is relevant. I have worked on many lists in Wiki before; WP:CSC does not demand citations on each line and states that a list may contain non-notable entries. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is a sub-article of List of breweries in the United States. If we wish it deleted it is that article that should be nominated with a centralised discussion. Having 50 separate discussions is hopeless and risks contradictory decisions. Lists with non-notable entries are permitted per WP:CSC. Spinning Spark 19:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CSC. Also, I agree with Zyxw that the external links should be removed and the list need to be updated with references. The problems with the list are fixable through cleanup and development. - tucoxn\^talk 21:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AirCut[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability not established by reliable sources. Consider speedy deletion as recreation of deleted article ("Aircut"). Novangelis (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Ad-spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources aside from the local paper coverage noted in the article. That is not sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable Transport Award[edit]

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

No indication of significance Itsalleasy (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a short new section in Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article does indicate the topic's significance. For example, see the lead, where it states "The STA directs international attention to cities on the cutting edge of transportation policy. By highlighting successful completed programs and emphasizing transferability, the award helps disseminate new ideas and best practices, while encouraging cities worldwide to improve their own livability."

– Also keep as meeting WP:GNG. Many sources cover winners of the award; there's enough content in reliable sources to merit a standalone article.

– Source examples include: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "No indication of significance" is part of WP:CSD, not notability. The WP:GNG here is clearly established by substantive coverage in multiple reliable sources, as listed by Northamerica1000. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2014 (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. Stifle (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chennai Worlds 2014[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines for an event Wieno (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:GNG. Source examples include:

Worlds 2014 in Chennai. The Hindu.
Sizzling debates mark the ‘Worlds’. The Hindu.
Harvard University Emerges Debating World Champion. Indian Express.
Pakistan at Chennai Worlds. The News International.
Duo wins “Worlds” debate competition. Harvard Gazette.

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WUDC as a whole is notable but I don't believe each individual tournament is notable enough to have its own page. Wouldn't it make more sense to redirect to or merge with World Universities Debating Championship? Note that no other WUDC tournament has its own page. Wieno (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, each WUDC tournament ought to have its own page. Given that there is a Debating Portal on WikiPedia. Maybe rather than delete this page a page for each WUDC tournament could be created? - Q — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.42.255 (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with WUDC article, by perhaps having a subsection on past tournaments. Someone should consider making a hall of fame for the three language categories on the WUDC page as well. Ratibgreat (talk)

Keep, as Chennai Worlds in particular was notable for its poor organization, possible financial mismanagement, and generally poor execution. Even if it's decided that each WUDC tournament doesn't deserve a page (which I would contest as well), future participants and organizers will be justifiably interested in particularly successful or unsuccessful events. They need to know what to emulate and what to avoid. As an analogy, every car model may not deserve it's own page, but some models are particularly notable for being highly successful (the Volkswagon Beetle) or unsuccessful (the Ford Edsel). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.215.226 (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:52, 16 January 2014 (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. Ultimately the WP:NOTNEWS argument has not been successfully refuted. Open to draftifying if someone contacts me undertaking to work on it. Stifle (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Norfolk helicopter crash[edit]

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

Fails WP:AIRCRASH. Military crashes are quite common and there is nothing notable about this one. ...William 11:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 11:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions....William 11:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William 11:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions....William 11:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 11:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Fatal helicopter accidents while always sad occurrences are not that uncommon, particularly in the military. No indication that this has lasting significance. Unless something emerges over the next few days indicating possible lasting effects or something particularly unusual, it should be deleted as failing established policies on notability of events, particularly air crashes. We do have articles on 2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash and 2013 Glasgow helicopter crash, but they are seen as more unusual events which may have lasting effects on how helicopters are operated. The following AfD decisions (all delete) are relevant: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 French helicopter crash (French military helicopter crash kills 7), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Antarctica helicopter crash (4 killed from research station), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Berlin helicopter crash (2nd nomination) (1 police officer killed). In contrast 2011 Chinook shootdown in Afghanistan was kept, but it was "the worst loss of U.S Military life in a single incident in the Afghanistan campaign" and hence important for the history of the war. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Simple routine accident. -EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 11:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Too early to say. Until the accident investigation has reported, there is no way to know whether this incident is significant or not. Therefore judgements such as 'nothing notable about this one' and 'simple routine accident' are pure unsubstantiated speculation (as if any air accident could be ever be 'simple routine'). Some people are in such a rush to erase other people's efforts. 85.210.175.111 (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Too early to say. This may not be a notable accident for now but until the inquiry determinants the cause the accident the article should stay until recommendations are realest. I can give several examples like maybe flying near a nature reserves during low flying training would be changed or to pilot training or any mechanical failure and weather which may of let to the crash but we don't know as of yet because it's been less then 24 hours and new information about the accident will come and paint a better picture of the accident. But like I said keep until the inquest has ended and then vote for deletion. NorthHuanter (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The above account (the article creator) has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a community banned editor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was started by someone else; the sockpuppet account was one of several contributors (including me). —rybec 10:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The crash is generating quite a bit of news coverage in Britain at present, and it is rather unusual to have a crash involving an advanced US military helicopter, there could possibly be a few issues still to come out. PatGallacher (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment News coverage is WP:ROUTINE. The article deleted here[10] had lots of routine coverage too....William 15:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. "Generating quite a bit of news coverage" is not evidence of notability, nor does being "rather unusual" (which is also somewhat weasel-wordy), and while there may be "a few issues still to come out", Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I see no real rush here. It's certainly not routine for an American asset to crash in the incredibly featureless Norfolk marshlands with four fatalities. So, like NorthHunter, it's a little to early to say. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If not for WP:RECENTISM we wouldn't be having much of a debate. There are tons of military accident accidnets like this littering the archives of Aviation Safety Network and many of them with much bigger death tolls than 4 but no article. The difference between those and this- It happened yesterday....William 16:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well I think the point I'm making is that we don't regularly have USAF helicopters crash in East Anglia with four fatalities over the flattest part of the country. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - However that does not, in any way, establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well of course it makes it notable. It's not like a crash in Afghanistan is it? It's one of the most reliable airframes in the USAF, so if mechanical failure has occurred, this is rare. But never mind, the usual clamour and rush to delete an article before we find out what happens is beginning, won't be long before someone links us to WP:AIRCRASH claiming it to be some kind of holy text. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        No, geographic location does not make a crash any more or less notable. Unless you're claiming systemic bias is a good thing? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Now that's where you're wrong. Are you suggesting that the helicopter that crashed in central London was not more notable than a helicopter that crashed in a field in Wales? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, review later Nothing we know about it so far makes this accident notable, but there's no hurry to make a decision. Wait until the investigation and inquest are completed. 86.5.176.168 (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, review later. While it was probably too soon to create the article, based on the limited information available, it is certainly too soon to delete the article - there is insufficient evidence to accurately determine its notability either way at this point. Thryduulf (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the sad deaths of the crew and loss of the helicopter, military accidents are generally not notable in their own right!!--Petebutt (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a notable accident. Wikipedia is not a memorial, nor is it a news service, and having generated "quite a bit of news coverage" does not establish WP:PERSISTENCE that is required for notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTHENEWS. The collision between two RAF Grob Tutor light aircraft at Porthcawl in February 2009 had a lot of news coverage as two of the victims were schoolgirls who also happened to be cousins. This was reinforced when another tutor hit a glider a few months later killing another schoolchild. A well referenced article grew from these events but that has subsequently been deleted. I see no reason to expect that coverage of this event will be as extensive.--Charles (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:CRYSTAL. My guess is that you are probably right, but it's far too early to know. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who deleted Porthcawl mid air collision because I read the report same with the two Red Arrow accidents of 2011 and the changes that were made would make the accidents notable? This accident cause is still unknown and the article stay until the inquest in compete. It makes it more odd that the aircraft is one the safety helicopters used in the US Air Force and a military crashes are common are they more common then car crashes, NO! it crashed into featherless area with no high ground or other and to say military accident would occur more during war zones and training but in some cases unlike in a war zone changes can be made to make flying safer. One more thing I would like to stay is Aviation accidents are less common in some area then others which is good and some area are slowly getting better in aviation safety I.E Russia and Asia but it's odd when it happens. Accidents happen like this is odd, that a crash would happen is the first place but more odd is the circumstances of the accident. Which has led to many questions on what caused this accident. Keep until inquest is done to deiced notability. 13:59, 8 January 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.34.52 (talk)
  - WP:CRYSTAL is about article content not talk page discussion.--Charles (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sad but military flying is dangerous and they crash often but that doesnt make them particularly notable unless they hit something notable or kill somebody notable, not the case here. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a well-written article. I think four deaths in any single helicopter crash in UK it notable. The fact that it was a USAF accident on UK soil seems to make it more notable. And although it's unlikely, it may be part of a larger picture, so I'd certainly keep until the investigation is completed. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just to note that the USAF have been based in the UK for sixty years and accidents are not that rare with British-based aircraft like this helicopter. MilborneOne (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is there any article that tells us how many and/or lists them? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here at least I guess. Is it ok to link it there while this AfD runs? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that being "well-written" is not a reason to keep, and the other reasons are weasel-worded: "seems to", "may be". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. No indication of anything notable or of lasting consequence in the accident. We don't keep non-notable articles in case they one day become notable. - Ahunt (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't advocate "one day", I'd suggest until report is published. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should consider our WP:READER who may wish to learn more about the Pave Hawk or the USAF deployments in the UK or the Norfolk coastline. They don't know about WP:AIRCRASH or WP:NOTNEWS (and would probably crack a grin at the fact that we have a main page section called "In The News"....)], nor do they care. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a lot like WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more profitable for you and the encyclopaedia if you actually wrote in English and not ESSAYS etc. Take a step back from all that and try to see the sense here. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the argument, not the (standardised by everyone else) use of Wiki abbreviations or on the arguer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. There seems to be no reason to think that this sad accident will have any long-term ramifications or will receive prolonged coverage. Nick-D (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RAPID, "Don't rush to delete articles". PatGallacher (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See, pathetic really. There are two ways to cut this. So shall we now focus on the utility of the page rather than continually fling CAPITAL LETTERS at each other? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please don't accuse editors who are using standard Wikipedia practice of being "pathetic". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fatal accident with serious damage to the aircraft. NickSt (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does this establish notability? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable crash. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable accident: did not involve "the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia" and there is no indication that the accident will result "in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directive (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft)." Regarding the latter clause, the article may be restored following the official inquiry if the inquiry results in significant changes as outlined. Unless and until such changes occur, this remains a non-notable, albeit tragic, incident, which is suitably recorded at List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present). Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 15:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hasty, considering this aircraft "may have the best safety record of any helicopter that the United States military has ever owned." and it crashed in one of the most featureless parts of the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know, it isn't necessary to respond to everyone else's comments/!votes here. See WP:BLUDGEON. As for safety records, this isn't the first Pave Hawk to crash and unfortunately probably won't be the last. See also the 13 August 2002, 23 March 2003, 20 October 2004 crashes. As for the site in Norfolk being "one of the most featureless parts of the world", you clearly haven't seen it. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 15:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - (Thanks for introducing yet ANOTHER set of capitals) I've only responded to your !vote. Other comments have been, well, comments. This is a discussion you know. And yes, there have been other crashes, but this is a peacetime crash with four fatalities, not comparable to those you've linked to. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perfectly comparable: crashes during operational flights which were not as a result of hostile actions. Two of the a/m crashes also involved loss of crews. Where's the difference? Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 16:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        "Perfectly comparable"? If I have to explain why not, it's clearly going to be wasted! argh, bludgeoned to death by my own comment... argh! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Neither the fact the helicopter has a good safety record or the remoteness of its location provide notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        The whole "safety record" thing is misleading anyway. Is it the case that the authorities can boast about the machine's safety from a technical POV because many of the previous crashes were due to pilot error - like the 5 August 2013 Pave Hawk crash in Okinawa? Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 09:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've checked the latest news about this and it looks like there is nothing particularly significant ever since. 2-4 deaths is (still, unfortunately) a relatively frequent death toll, similar to that of private aircraft. This is already commemorated in 2014 in aviation anyway and can be expanded there further. If something important about it surfaces in the future, the article can be recreated, but so far WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL (even though I generally believe in the zodiac astrology). Brandmeister^talk 10:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it notable? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because of the above mainly per PatGallacher -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - But PatGallacher argues that the event is notable because "it is rather unusual to have a crash involving an advanced US military helicopter", which is demonstrably false, and because "[t]he crash is generating quite a bit of news coverage in Britain." In the latter case, Wikipedia is "not the news" and anyway, after a few days the UK news cycle moved on and this has barely received a mention since. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 09:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's rather a good point. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 10:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Also, there is no deadline; we can easily recreate this in the future. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft so that this well-written article can continue to be developed and to give time for an informed assessment of whether the event is to have enduring significance. This is what draft space is for. Thincat (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or move to draft or userfy). Non-notable accident unless/until it has enduring significance. DexDor (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The unique circumstances in which this specific crash took place make it notable.Leptictidium (mt) 07:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unique? In what way?--Charles (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - following the initial news, there seems to be no further coverage. That may be because we are in the waiting period between incident and report but for the moment it seems to have had no knock-on effect - helicopters have not been grounded, the site has been cleared and reopened to public. The text of this article could be put in the helicopter article and the title redirected. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Already included in List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present). Fails WP:AIRCRASH unless it results in significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2014 (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 Cities (Anberlin album). Stifle (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Unwinding Cable Car[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NSONGS Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album Cities (Anberlin album). -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of breweries in South Carolina[edit]

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

Disputed WP:PROD. There are almost no notable entries in this list. Wikipedia is not a directory. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - But add references from reliable sources other than the company's website. With a little work references can be found; those with no references can be removed, the remaining should notable enough to leave (with a red-link for the eventual creation of individual articles). -- Zyxw (talk)

Comment: Also see the related AFD discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Connecticut (which also includes AFDs for Idaho, Iowa, New Mexico, and Tennessee), plus the individual state AFDs listed below. -- Zyxw (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:CSC, lists may contain nonnotable entries; in fact - they may be set up to contain nothing but non-notable entries. These lists are valid for navigation. More reliable sources can be sought, merely place the correct "citation needed" tags on the page and one of the citation finders will pop over and fix it. I updated parts of several of these lists including List of breweries in California. It was not hard and I learned that beer brewing is one of the largest non-durable industries in the U.S. and growing at a rate of up to 20% per year. Therefore I think the entire topic is relevant. I have worked on many lists in Wiki before and never encountered this sort of situation because WP:CSC does not demand citations on each line and states that a list may contain non-notable entries. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is a sub-article of List of breweries in the United States. If we wish it deleted it is that article that should be nominated with a centralised discussion. Having 50 separate discussions is hopeless and risks contradictory decisions. Lists with non-notable entries are permitted per WP:CSC. Spinning Spark 19:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per consensus in the discussion below that any problems with the list are fixable through cleanup and development, on top of the nominator's withdrawal. postdlf (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of breweries in Nevada[edit]

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

~~Disputed WP:PROD. There are almost no notable entries in this list. Article is basically a linkspam farm. Wikipedia is not a directory. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdraw nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see most of the per-state articles have been prodded (as lists of mostly non-notable places), but wouldn't it be better to create a central list of all the notable breweries (i.e. those with articles) at List of breweries in the United States, merging notable entries as necessary? --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem with this idea. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As nominated the list was problematic: full of entries without their own articles, sourced only to the breweries' own web sites, and failing to distinguish breweries that are truly Nevadan from those that are merely branches of out-of-state chains. I have cleaned that up and I think there is now no reason to object to the list: it is much smaller, true, but still lists three locals and two chains, all notable enough for their own articles and reliably sourced. The current article is about equally split between a prose overview of beer in Nevada and a list of breweries, so I would have no objection to moving it to beer in Nevada. The existence of at least one published booklet on this topic [Moody, Eric N.; Nylen, Robert A. (1986), Brewed in Nevada: A History of the Silver State's Beers and Breweries, Nevada State Museum, 24pp] suggests that it is notable enough to support an article and not just a list. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep them all, subject to possible merging back of some of the shorter lists into List of breweries in the United States, per Colapeninsula's point above. Deleting (as opposed to winnowing) the existing state lists would be an unhelpful strategy for dealing with this. And as well, some (perhaps nearly all) of the state articles may prove amenable to editing into more substantive articles as David Eppstein has done here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements to the article by User:David Eppstein (WP:HEY). As it exists now with only blue-linked entries, it passes WP:LISTPURP. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also see the related AFD discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Connecticut (which also includes AFDs for Idaho, Iowa, New Mexico, and Tennessee), plus the individual state AFDs listed below. -- Zyxw (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2014 (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. Stifle (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Moysey[edit]

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

This sounds like the story of an artist that never made it. He was mentored by a famous artist, who admitted in 1974 that noone wanted his paintings. He's evidently mentioned in Kokoschka's book but I can't find the faintest shred of anything else online, other than wiki mirrors. I don't think an association with a famous artist confers notability here, but maybe I'll be proved wrong. A painting by him sold for only £105 in 2006, which does not indicate he has a following of collectors. Sionk (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Have added some refs the which seem to me enough support notability as an artist. Have also moved the article to Philip Moysey (Philip with one "l"). (Msrasnw (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment on a source: The source that I found most convincing was the biographical entry in Buckman's Dictionary/Encyclopedia of post war British artists. Buckman, D. (2006). Artists in Britain since 1945. Bristol: Art Dictionaries Ltd. (see page p243). This is clearly a work for specialists given the number of biographies but it seemed enough for me - especially since WP:BLP is not relevant. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)) PS: A small sketch by him of W B Yeats - seems to have gone at Whyte's Dublin for around $1800 in 2005 [11].[reply]

Delete. The article still does not convince me of a pass of WP:ARTIST. Indeed, it explicitly makes the case that he is not notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited from Kokoschka, despite his positive words about the subject and his works. Nothing found to indicate that he meets WP:ARTIST. AllyD (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2014 (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. Stifle (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antrim Forum[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. The only coverage I could find was non-independent and promotional, or passing and trivial (announcements of events at the venue). Does not appear to pass the General notability guideline. As for the argument on the talk page ("Notability is clear by the notable bands that have performed at the venue"), notability is not inherited. Having notable groups perform at a venue does not make the venue notable. One of the current references is a dead link, and apparently was non-independent when it worked. The other is merely a list of events at the venue, and may not be independent either. DES ^(talk) 22:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator, unless significant independent reliable coverage is found and added to the article. DES ^(talk) 22:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a 2,000+ capacity hall, which was used extensively among Notable acts who toured through Northern Ireland is definitely notable. Evangp (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Evangp, that is not what the notability guideline says, nor what WP:GNG says, nor do I find it in any other guideline. I fear this is no more than WP:ILIKEIT. The former says "...there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability" and "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". See also Wikipedia:Permastub and notability is not inherited. Actual coverage is needed for this and any similar articles, in my view. DES ^(talk) 00:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is also home to the Antrim Hockey Club, which I've added to the article. You should just delete all concert halls and arenas according to you, since they wouldn't exist without tour artists and sports teams. Evangp (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course event venues require performers. But the point is that some of them, say for example Madison Square Garden or Albert Hall, have been written about independently and in depth, and thus are notable, and others have not and so are not. If there is significant reliable independent coverage of Antrim Forum, fine, simply cite it and we are done here. If not, this venue is not notable by Wikipedia's current standards. DES ^(talk) 00:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Antrim Forum is a fitness and recreation centre, with outdoor sports faciities, the Paddy Marks Arena is the one where the hockey club play. Famous bands have played there, but it has garnered no independent coverage. Murry1975 (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Paddy Marks Arena is part of Antrim Forum. More reason to keep this article. Someone with better research skills just needs to dig a little deeper. I suck at finding references! Evangp (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found some coverage! look ----------> http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/olympics/18504359 Enough proof this is a notable venue?
    - More coverage ------> http://www.nitkd.com/?page_id=20 Evangp (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even more coverage ------> http://www.thenafl.co.uk/grounds/id/134 I think this settles the debate, we keep the article, it just needs a little touch up Evangp (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment The bbc.com link above is merely another announcement of an event at the Forum, is says noting about the forum itself, and so contributes noting to notability. The nitkd.com links says a little about the Forum, but it is only a passing mention and does not, in my view, establish notability, although it coems clsoer than any othre source yet cited. Or it would, except that the thenafl.co.uk link above uses the exact same words which suggests that this is copied from a press release or official statement, and so is not truly independent and of no value in establishing notability. DES ^(talk) 22:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Robinson[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter Peter Rehse (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Ribeiro (fighter)[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights. He's not notable simply because (quoting the article) he's "appeared in Grapplers Quest, World Jiu-Jitsu Championship, Pan Jiu-Jitsu No-Gi Championship and NAGA" since appearing at those events merely requires filling out a registration form and paying the entry fee. He did have a 3rd place finish at the 2000 IBJJF world championships, but that was as a brown belt and therefore doesn't meet WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and his grappling doesn't meet WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Jones (fighter)[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Todorchev[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter Peter Rehse (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced article about a retired MMA fighter with no top tier fights. Doesn't meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Tapusoa[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter Peter Rehse (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage to meet WP:GNG and lacks the top tier fights required to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2014 (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. Stifle (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Tae-Hyun[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter Peter Rehse (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He doesn't meet WP:NMMA, but I was trying to find out if his ssireum record makes him notable under WP:MANOTE or if there's enough coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. I don't speak Korean and my searches have been inconclusive. The article says he's a 3 time Cheonhajangsa Ssireum champion, but that doesn't seem to be the national championship and I don't know how significant it is. I also can't confirm his ssireum record. It would be nice if someone more knowledgeable about Korea could enlighten the rest of us. Papaursa (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Not notable as an MMA fighter and no sources to support other claims of notability. Additional sources could change my mind and I don't object to the article being saved to someone's sandbox for improvement.Mdtemp (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Not notable for MMA and needs support to satisfy WP:MANOTE. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2014 (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. Overall consensus here is that the subject meets point #3 of WP:AUTHOR. That said, the article would definitely benefit from incorporation of the sources presented herein into it. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Slade[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Pure (self-)promotion/puff piece about an "information security consultant", almost exclusively referenced to the subject of the article himself. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If people delete the history of computing security you are asking for problems. Slade was active internationally before the US government had fancy jobs with fancy titles like "Homeland". In a discussion of his book Dictionary of Information Security, the article explains why Slade is an unusual person (quoted below, but I don't expect that Thomas will have any idea who these people are). I don't plan to argue with Thomas here or anywhere and won't be back (I'm on wikibreak).

"Virus Bulletin remarked about the unusual collection of five forewords, "that so many acknowledged experts are willing to contribute says something about the author's standing in the field"—the forewords were written by Fred Cohen, Jack Holleran, Peter G. Neumann, Harold Tipton and Gene Spafford."

-SusanLesch (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think WP:AUTHOR is a better notability guideline than WP:PROF in this case: despite the deletion sort listing under academics and educators, Slade's books seem aimed more at industry than academia. Regardless, it's not hard to find multiple published reviews of his works [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. The nominator's claim that this is self-promotion appears to be false, easily seen to be false by looking at the article history, and an unfortunately common violation of WP:AGF. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think WP:AUTHOR The vast majority of the links on this article are from the authors own self promotion pages. Not to mention his 'claim to fame' is writing a couple of computer security books. That's it. Amazon is full of authors who have written far more books, books that are in multiple languages, used around the world. His biggest claim to fame is doing a lot of reviews for other books. If this article stays in, it is a sign that Wikipedia is just as biased as many people claim it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.206.194 (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again Susan Lesch, the creator of the article and an associate of the subject, is pushing to keep it. This is clearly a puff piece she created for someone she knows. And now she is trying to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.206.194 (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Comment. 173.64.206.194 is deluded in thinking I know Robert Slade. When I was in London I took a train a long way to meet David Harley, and would do that again if I ever had the chance. I've never met or corresponded with this subject except to secure OTRS rights for his photo. I resent your comments here and on the article talk page which are completely off topic. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Second comment from the same IP struck. Please only !vote once. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- multiple independent reviews of work are sufficient regardless of what notability guideline we're talking about. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donny Raines[edit]

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

Unsourced non-notable MMA fighter Peter Rehse (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No top tier fights so he doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2014 (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. Soft delete. —Darkwind (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then You Left Me[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Entirely unremarkable album track, fails WP:SONG TheLongTone (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Last AFD closed as "no consensus" after nobody bothered to make any opinion known...[reply]

I am also proposing deletion of the following similarly unremarkable recordings.

weak deleteThe fact that these tracks are unremarkable should not play into whether or not they deserve a standalone article; however, I think it seems excessive to have standalone articles for songs unless they were singles or major hit or otherwise notable on their own aside from being performed by a notable band. Any good information could be merged into the album pages. I feel like a tourist (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just how does not being remarkable "not play into whether or not they deserve a standalone article"?? TheLongTone (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that "unremarkable" (the way I took it) is simply your opinion of the song. For instance, I think that this entire band (let alone any individual albums or songs) is completely unremarkable, but there is no denying their notability and the fact that they deserve an article. Maybe I mistook your use of the work unremarkable, though...if what you meant was that the song itself has never received enough coverage/popularity/success to support a standalone article, then that makes sense, but then again, if the article contains content that is verifiable, an argument against deletion could possibly be made--but you won't be hearing it from me--I maintain my stance of 'weak delete'.I feel like a tourist (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By unremarkable I mean fails WP:SONG: no critical attention (I'm sure the Bee Gees obsessive who created these articles would have found it), no chart success at all, not even one week at #97 on Ascension Island, &c &c. TheLongTone (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These all fail WP:SONG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2014 (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 Robotboy. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robotboy (character)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is comprised mostly of original research and personal interpretation, a la a typical Wikia.com article. The uncontroversial information that remains could easily be incorporated into the main article, Robotboy or List of Robotboy characters. Article also meanders and becomes in effect a duplicate list of characters. A unique article is not warranted for this character. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to back to Robotboy per previous AfD consensus. Semi/fully protect Redirect if needed.Martin451 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robotboy. I concur that protection may be necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with the above. Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Miller (photographer)[edit]

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

seems like advertised page about the person, no sign of notability. unable to satisfy WP:PEOPLE Mr RD 16:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "No sign of notability"? None whatever? Hmm, he's one of just eight photographers whose work was part of Then and Now (Duke University show, published book), the others being David Goldblatt, George Hallett, Cedric Nunn, Guy Tillim, Paul Weinberg, Graeme Williams, and Gisèle Wulfsohn. That's pretty good company, for a start. He's in Panos; can many of your camera-toting friends say the same? Yes, the fate of the poor man's photos of "supergrannies" depended on the whims of Kickstarter customers; but then recourse to crowdfunding is common these days (as the traditional institutional buyers are less interested in real issues than in celebs and their non-issues). -- Hoary (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep per hoary Pass a Method talk 17:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article demonstrates, and its sources back up, the fact he took part in 2 exhibitions, both of which toured various noteworthy venues (1 of which he took part in equal measure as other photographers whose notability is beyond doubt, and that University of South Africa consider "A highly acclaimed photographic exhibition"); he has contributed extensively to various printed books; Duke University considers his "a highly personal form of expression". -Lopifalko (talk)
Additional comment. Miller's photos appear on pp 102, 103, 105 of the notable book Omar Badsha et al, eds, Beyond the barricades: Popular resistance in South Africa (n.p.: Aperture, 1989; 0-89381-375-3). That on p. 103 reappears (titled "Siege of COSATU House, headquarters of the Congress of South African Trade Unions, 1987") on pp 438-439 of a catalogue of an itinerant exhibition, Okwui Enwezor and Rory Bester, eds, "Rise and fall of apartheid: Photography and the bureaucracy of everyday life" (New York: International Center of Photography, 2013; ISBN 978-3-7913-5280-0). (The latter book may for all I know have additional photos by Miller: though excellent in other respects, it lacks an index.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2014 (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. This is about an alleged term in microprocessor technology, not in actual aerodynamics. The content is unsourced (WP:V), and, sorry to say it, but "I think I've heard of it" is just about the least persuasive "keep" argument imaginable. The policy-based outcome is therefore a clear consensus to delete the article. Sandstein 10:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aerodynamic number[edit]

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

No notability shown. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

week keep I think i've heard of it however I don't prove notability.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No google books or google scholar hits for the meaning given in the article. Standard google hits have the phrase as part of the larger phrase "aerodynamic number size distributions" but I couldn't see any that related to this article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sing, Your way through life[edit]

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

Just-published book with no evidence of notability--fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) and attempts to inherit from notable organization and problems that authors are addressing but WP notability is not inheritable) DMacks (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom and failing Wp:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A really ugly WP:PROMO attempt for a book released last week with no sign of notability (and now being used to hold an ugly attack on the rights of Wikipedia editors to boot.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lads, calm down and please control ego's a little, please send me a way to mail you and I will happily send you a copy of the book, this book will save many people, it is being considered for national consumption by the NHS and is going on coast to coast radio in the USA, Yes you have power, yes you can delete it. but please think a little first. a little knowledge is dangerous, read the book and then you will know. perhaps you might even help me to make it more complient — Preceding Greg Woods comment added by Therapeia cic (talk • contribs) 19:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Therapeia cic (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Greg Woods[reply]

We don't appreciate or accept bribes (in part because you don't know where we live and in part because it doesn't help your case what-so-ever). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete If it makes it into use in the NHS we can reconsider.©Geni (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Someone please show me the results of a study (ideally a secondary source) that demonstrates the benefits of the approach discussed in this book. JFW | T@lk 07:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The accuracy of the content, in fact everything about the content, is irrelevant to the question of notability and thus whether it has an article. It was needless for the author to offer us copies for this discussion; it might be helpful for creating the content of the article, but it does no have any policy impact on whether the article gets saved. We have plenty of articles on lousy or inaccurate books, and there are many wonderful reads which have not gotten enough notice for us. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2014 (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 redirected to Embarrassing Bodies#Embarrassing Bodies Down Under by User:Tokyogirl79. (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 19:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brad McKay (doctor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG I don't think he is notable yet...host of a non notable TV show maybe a redirect to the TV show article if it is ever written? Theroadislong (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have nominated this article for WP:speedy deletion under criterion G12, unambiguous copyright infringement. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2014 (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. Stifle (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ChessWorld[edit]

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

A corresondence chess server with no coverage in reliable and independent sources, fails WP:NGAME and WP:NWEB. The article has been tagged with multiple issues for over a year. smtchahal^talk 15:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to meet notability (see WP:GNG) from what I've been able to find. If there were good reliable-source ([WP:RS]]) references, it's possible it could merged with Correspondence chess; I did see a book say it was the best email-based correspondence chess service, and another listing it as among the ten best chess sites. It seems like a nicely written, informative article, which would be of interest to some readers; I just couldn't find much objective information about the service. Posting two super-brief "this exists" book mentions:

David Brine Pritchard (3 January 2014). The Right Way to Play Chess. Constable & Robinson Limited. ISBN 978-0-7160-2332-6.
Bruce Pandolfini (30 June 2008). Pandolfini's Ultimate Guide to Chess. Touchstone. p. 357. ISBN 978-0-7432-6098-5.

––Agyle (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arcane Battles[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria. Google search brings up only social media and forum posts, and a lot of irrelevant pages (not about the game). Proposed deletion contested. ... discospinster _talk 15:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inarguably fails to meet WP:NGAME or WP:GNG. smtchahal^talk 15:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Wp:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrd10 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 16 January 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2014 (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. Stifle (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Girlfriend in a Coma (TV series)[edit]

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

This drama is still in pilot stage and I haven't been able to find any references saying that it has been ordered to series. Babar Suhail (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some sources of notability of the television show are there, like this and this. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's obviously some sources, but if it's not notable, the logical action would be a merge to Girlfriend in a Coma (novel), not deletion, since a major TV adaptation of a book obviously deserves coverage in the book's article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Rafaelgriffin. --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - with merge to Girlfriend in a Coma (novel) as per User:Colapeninsula --Fastester (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2014 (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 and revert to "Studio 23" version. —Darkwind (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs aired by ABS-CBN Sports+Action[edit]

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

The television channel is yet to be launched this Saturday. Studio 23 is a different channel, though it will occupy the same UHF channel. However, any television programs aired by Studio 23 are not shows aired by ABS-CBN Sports+Action. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 13:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that all its contents will be moved back to List of programs aired by Studio 23 before deleting it.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 13:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect instead to List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN Sports+Action as favor the motion. - Gabby 09:57pm, 16 January 2014 (Phil. Standard Time)

No need for a redirect. Both channels are different so there is no need for a redirect.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 14:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restore title to List of programs aired by Studio 23 and keep This is overcomplication at its worst; Studio 23 can be frozen rather easily, and this new sports channel has a completely different schedule from what preceded it, so mixing the two will be confusing to anybody who reads this article. Keep the two channels separate history-wise besides the frequency history. Nate • (chatter) 03:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and keep per Nate. Tell admins to G6 the article and copy in the original article above. ApprenticeFan ^work 00:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and keep, per Nate & ApprenticeFan. --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan ^work 00:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan ^work 00:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep based on the arguments above, it seems reasonable. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bullock (Australian politician)[edit]

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

Previously de-prodded. A thoroughly non-notable individual, failing WP:POLITICIAN and without any significant coverage. Frickeg (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete never held an elected position. LibStar (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 16. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 10:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:POLITICIAN, never even got close to being elected and only routine media coverage. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Running doesn't imply winning, we have plenty of perpetual candidates on wiki. The requirement for WP:N is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" and here there IS neutral, third party coverage, routine will do the trick. The fellow was broadly enough covered that he turned up with I was working on Steve Bullock (Montana politician). I sure wasn't looking for him... and speaking of perpetual candidates that don't ever win but are most assuredly notable, try Robert Kelleher. Montanabw^(talk) 21:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Please point out the significant coverage of this guy in reliable sources, Montanabw? Is someone who ran three times and lost a "perpetual" candidate? Your Montana example Kelleher ran 16 times and espoused a colorful mix of positions, so transcended our usual standard that losing candidates who receive only routine campaign coverage are not notable. Joshua Norton was notable as well, although emperor only in his own mind.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - I'm not arguing that there is much: Looks like the Australia ABC http://www.abc.net.au/elections/vic/2010/guide/fern.htm (cited in article) covered his elecion results, he's got a show on a radio station: http://www.3mbs.org.au/?q=node/1128, not sure if he's the same Australian who writes books about reptiles or not, http://www.redbubble.com/people/pugsly/works/2669754-more-experimenting with two other more famous Steve/Stephen Bullocks, it's a sifting job. https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=net+neutrality+decision&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=steve+bullock+Melbourne+-Montana&rls=en&start=10 generates decent results I think it's notable that he's a Green Party candidate. Montanabw^(talk) 08:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, first - the ABC page is an election guide, covering every single candidate. (Some have more info than others, of course.) He has a show on a small community radio station. The other stuff is uncertain. Also, in general, Greens candidates are not notable. I know a couple personally. It is worth bearing in mind that Australian candidates differ quite a bit from US ones, in that the party, not the broader membership, determines candidates. Thus in unwinnable seats they are usually minor party functionaries or local councillors or just party members. Frickeg (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thanks to Montanabw for looking for sources, but I don't think that they establish notability here (and I agree with Frickeg's comment that the ABC publishes similar summaries for all candidates in all elections, and note that this material is normally provided by the candidates themselves for the ABC to publish so it's not really independent content). I don't think that there's any reason to think that someone who has unsuccessfully contested a state seat which is safely held by a major party for a minor party three times would have received much coverage. Nick-D (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per longstanding consensus for unelected politicians. Carrite (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesper Öhrvall[edit]

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

Another in a string of non-notable teenage hockey players who fail to meet WP:NHOCKEY, with no evidence of passing the GNG, and where the article incorrectly asserts that the subject has played in the SHL. Subject, like the others recently AfDed, played only in a single exhibition game, which does not qualify for NHOCKEY's Criterion #1. Ravenswing 02:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, does not meet WP:NHOCKEY or GNG. Played 1 game for HV71 in the European Trophy tournament not the Swedish Hockey League.ÞórrÓðinnTýr ^Eh? 02:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails NHOCKEY, GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolute (talk • contribs)
Delete Doesn't meet GNG and fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmie Jansson[edit]

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

Another in a string of non-notable teenage hockey players who fail to meet WP:NHOCKEY, with no evidence of passing the GNG, and where the article incorrectly asserts that the subject has played in the SHL. Subject, like the others recently AfDed, played only in two exhibition games, which does not qualify for NHOCKEY's Criterion #1. Ravenswing 02:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn player, fails NHOCKEY, GNG. Reso lute 03:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Chilton[edit]

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

References are Trivial at best and article verges on advertising. Fails WP:BIO YoginiukYoginiuk (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 16. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - AFD created by editor in an attempt to WP:HOUND - User:Yoginiuk has been banned for a period of one week for hounding. Nonsensical reasoning for AfD in description. reddogsix (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like a AFD out of spite. besides that I had no problem finding sources on this one. It's a new stubby article but room is ample for expansion. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article in its current version doesn't really state a case for the subject's notability. Forbes has him at #1075 on the worlds' richest list [17]. Pretty much, all American billionaires have coverage and it looks like there's some here, but it would be desirable for the article to make clearer what's actually notable about him. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2014 (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.

!--Relisted-->

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. Stifle (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LEL Brothas[edit]

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

I was going to wait to nominate this for deletion, but I don't see the point. This group fails WP:MUSIC by leaps and bounds, the article is spam, and the references are garbage. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Waaaaah a 4chan board keeps editing a page we should delete it bawwwww :(" - bongwarrior — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.6.116 (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:MUSICBIO. STATic message me! 03:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The http://www.musiccrowns.org bio looked good, but then I realized that it was a self-promotion site. They have a cursory AllMusic entry and the MTV entry is a copy of the Wikipedia article. Yes, they released a song or two, but it did not appear to achieve prominence. Fails WP:BAND Not to mention copyvio of publicity photo previously published at http://www.arabnews.com/us-hip-hop-group-rocks-riyadh Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This press release of an article is sourced by a bunch of press releases. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2014 (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. Sandstein 10:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Centra biroji[edit]

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

Doesn't indicate notability. Laun chba ller 14:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think notability or otherwise may be difficult to establish since it doesn't look like there is much in English. There may be some coverage in Latvian so it would be handy if a Latvian speaker could comment.Acb314 (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh, cool, didn't know that what they offer is even legal. Not sure it even is much of a virtual office - they just offer to register or declare residence at their address and some legal and booking services. It looks to be small business venture to me. I am not certain though if they aren't important in the particular niche they are operating in ~~Xil (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure what makes them notable, I read it more as an advert. (Might become a customer!) If the article had some additional references from the Latvian "Bizness" newspaper, Baltic Times, etc., I'd consider it more a reference article. Generally I'm for preserving any reasonable content regarding Central/Eastern/Baltic Europe, but someone would have to persuade me on this one. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:50, 31 December 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, Courcelles 06:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article contributed by a WP:SPA editor; the firm does not appear to have (or have had) an article on the Latvian Wikipedia; referenced only to a company listing page, the article text doesn't even make claim to be anything more than a firm going about its business on the page itself (other than the unquantified and unreferenced claim to be big and growing). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In which case wouldn't it qualify under WP:G5?--Laun chba ller 23:20, 17 January 2014 (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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saints Row 2 soundtrack[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Saints Row 2 soundtrack" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Lists of in-game soundtracks with no external claims of notability are classic video game trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Prod removed. Topic fails GNG by itself, as only mentions are the full track listings and no dedicated critical commentary, but a mention of the highlights in the main article's prose would make sense. czar ♔ 15:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 17:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 17:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not the worst trivia list that I've seen, but it still lacks notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saints Row: The Third soundtrack contains the rest of the bundle (SR1, 3, 4). czar ♔ 21:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other three soundtracks were deleted. czar ♔ 14:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge.GTA is mentioned as being more notable and having more significant cultural impact than the Saint's Row series, per other deletion articles. However, this is highly arguable, as both series have a significant following. I'd sooner suggest merging a more simplified version of the tracklisting to the actual game's article than straight deleting the articles while retaining none of the information. Would suggest the same for the GTA soundtrack articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.14.55.22 (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC) — 184.14.55.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Series popularity/following (or any other series) doesn't have any impact on their notability and especially their soundtrack's individual notability. The only criteria is notability as defined by Wikipedia, namely WP:GNG. Popularity and notability very often overlap, but similarly a popular thing can be non-notable just as an unpopular thing can be notable. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. I see soruces for teh release [18][19], but nothing offers critical commentary besides generic "here is a list of tracks". I can't find anything else of significant coverage and nothing outside the sources about the game itself. I don't suggest merging, as this will make main article unwieldy and a list of every track isn't essential information. The main article already has a sourced prose section on soundtrack and audio, which is sufficient. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Schulze[edit]

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 11:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources. not established notability. But welcome to recreate if sources are found in the future--BabbaQ (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Inlinks indicate a substantial songwriting activity. Tomas e (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Servicios Ecoforestales para Agricultores[edit]

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG, in 16 years of existence, a mere 2 small gscholar hits. LibStar (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 30 December 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, Courcelles 06:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon's Temple BBS[edit]

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

Article about a single relaunched Bulletin board system that does not show any sign of notability. Given sources are either self-published or do not mention the subject. Tagged for CSD, was changed to Prod - denied by an IP without giving a reason. Ben Ben (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm aware that a BBS technically isn't part of the internet. --Ben Ben (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too promotional. Also lacks notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 30 December 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, Courcelles 06:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously promotional and lacking any independent coverage. The only independent sources cited don't mention this BBS at all but are actually used to WP:SYNthesisze some claims by comparison. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am just wondering why this page should be deleted but in the list of BBS systems found at List_of_bulletin_board_systems, most of the other systems listed here do not have any sources but are allowed to stay on Wikipedia. I feel that if Solomon's Temple BBS is deleted then so should these other systems that have been on this list such as Demon_Roach_Underground, to give an example. I do see how the article can look promotional as this was not intended. I was just showing the services that the board hosts. I am also looking for suggestions for improving the article. I have been looking at adding more sources but this is hard considering most of the sources for BBS systems were from the time this system was just getting started and some sources would be on sites that are no longer on the internet.Williammea05 (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you find other articles failing WP:GNG, by all means nominate them for deletion. Their existence doesn't preclude deleting this one though. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2014 (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. Stifle (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RWADA[edit]

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

This specialized, obscure acronym is little more than a definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete adds nothing worthile to the definition at Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (New York) Tigerboy1966 10:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 30 December 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, Courcelles 06:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Five Minutes to Twelve[edit]

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

Lacks even the IMDb votes, fails to meet WP:NFILM and GNG. Alex^{discussion ★} 09:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find enough info to justify notability, though I'm admittedly unfamiliar with the language of the film. Award that the film won seems to be at a film festival of unclear importance (award mentioned in rkt.rs article/interview). A google translation of the Serbian Wikipedia article (also nominated for deletion) consists of "5 to 12 ( Eng. Five Minutes to Twelve) is a Serbian short film from the 2013th The director of the film is Elijah Dodić and starring Natalija Radic , Andrew Colic , Milena Novakovic and Vanja Todorovic . Film speaks on the topic of juvenile unwanted pregnancy in Serbia. [1] The film won first place at the Short Film Festival Tik-Tak Fest 2013th [2]" --Agyle (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Agyle: You're right. Award was fairly trivial, a non-important competition organized for elementary schoolers. Alex^{discussion ★} 17:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, based on the Serbian wikipedia article deletion discussion, the festival had 14 entries, on the topic of unwanted pregnancies, from 8th-12th grade students. Elementary school, in the US, typically means school up to the 5th or 6th grade, around age 10-12. --Agyle (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Info on IMDb proves its importance. --Dodić Ilija 21:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb includes user-submitted content, and uses different inclusion criteria than Wikipedia, including being “of general public interest.” That is met by any work that is publicly displayed, including any video uploaded for public viewing on the internet (e.g. YouTube). So inclusion on IMDb does not indicate notability, as Wikipedia defines it. From Dodić Ilija's name, I would guess this is the creator of the work, and is not an unbiased judge of this issue. Please don't take this personally, I sincerely hope you become a well known filmmaker, but right now I do not think this film nor its creator meet Wikipedia's notability standard. --Agyle (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Agyle: The organizers of the movie festival have created this article, if you think that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standard I respect your opinion. Just to clarify, I didn't mean nothing bad when I wrote that IMDb proves its importance. --Dodić Ilija 22:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this short film exists and has screened and has won a minor award, it fails having enough coverage to meet WP:NF. If non-English sources are brought forth, ping me so my !vote might be reconsidered. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ″The organizers of the movie festival have created this article″ – here's one more reason to delete, a conflict of interest. Alex^{discussion ★} 20:25, 23 January 2014 (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) 16:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines at 5th tier beauty pageants[edit]

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

Unsure of notability here. The pageants themselves seem to have not much in the way of sourcing to show notability, let alone such a specific hook on that area. Wizardman 16:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. This is akin to having an article on a city counsil district election. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I try to avoid the beauty pageant crap as much as possible after the whole Araksi Çetinyan nightmare, but I see no reason for this article to exist - as Bearian has said, it IS a non-notable stage in the progress. No reason for a standalone article. Mabalu (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2014 (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. Consensus is that all of these lists should be deleted. Sandstein 10:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mobile Fighter G Gundam mobile suits[edit]

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

This is an overly in-depth list of plot elements that are not critical to the understanding of Mobile Fighter G Gundam. It lacks any real world information from reliable, third party sources to establish overall notability for the topic, so this is something better suited to Wikia. TTN (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating these lists that have the same issues:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. None of these articles satisfy WP:LISTN, and merging them into the main articles would overwhelm those articles with overly-detailed plot elements. Like TTN says, this is much better suited to Wikia. If someone wants to copy them over, that would probably be helpful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mobile Fighter G Gundam where notability of neither the list nor the list elements is required per WP:NNC. Per WP:TOOLONG, an article being to large (in this case making an article too large) is an invalid reason to remove material. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:LISTN. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per NinjaRobotPirate. The lists fail the notability guidelines and the material itself is too far removed from the closest notable subject to be of any merging value. Them From Space 20:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:N. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2014 (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. Michig (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People's Republic of Zhongtai[edit]

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

Seems to be a (perhaps machine assisted) translation of the Chinese WP article. But not sure the refs satisfy our GNG: the first two are cartoons, the others seem local and fairly trivial. I found this [20] that seems a better source but still seems like trivia, something someone made up in a day. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G10. Obvious attack page with unsourced negative allegations. --Randykitty (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I don't see how this could be considered an attack page, but it does seem to me to lack sufficient notability. The article is about a stunt that lasted half a day and got a little bit of local media and internet attention, but does not seem to have any long term notability. Categorizing the restaurant as a micronation is stretching it a bit. BabelStone (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Read the article. It's a clear attack page, with unsourced claims of the restaurant being in violation of health regulations and being the ridicule of the whole of China. The restaurant owner is mentioned by name (making this a BLP issue). Claiming that a restaurant does not adhere to health regulations is a business killer, so something like this should not go to AFD, but should be speedily deleted. One of our first rules is "do no harm". Well, we're currently harming this restaurant owner. --Randykitty (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of true notability supplied. One could argue BLP1E as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG, attack page issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one identifiable WP:RS, apparently the site of a provincial government, did not appear to actually mention the supposed declaration of an independent micronation. Instead is talked about government inspectors citing a number of establishments for various concerns. The other sources were not reliable for citing that this supposed micronation was actually declared by the restaurant owner. One, in fact, cited the whole "People's Republic" stuff to unidentified online forums, but when their reporter went there, the business was operating "normally." Much better sources would be needed to save this article. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTNEWS / BLP1E no indication of any lasting coverage of a cagey (or squirrelly) attempt to skirt the law. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local event. -Zanhe (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great Devs[edit]

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

There is no reasonable claim of notability in the article: as far as I can tell, their two most well-known products (Life of Tank and Sky Snipper) aren't notable, so I'm very suspicious of the notability of the company itself. Slashme (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Martin451 22:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Martin451 22:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of notability. Mr RD 16:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr RD (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Culinary School of the Rockies[edit]

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

nothing more than a run of the mill commercial educational facility, much like a tech school or a business school. No indication of meeting either WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. In addition, the name of the article's creator indicates both WP:COI and WP:PROMO.John from Idegon (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice - The Culinary School of the Rockies is now known as Auguste Escoffier School of Culinary Arts. If looking for sources, use the latter term. Once the AfD is over the article should be moved to reflect the newer name. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete obvious advert. Created by a one edit user with an obvious COI. LibStar (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include: [21], [22] (pp. 99-101), [23] (p. 111), [24], [25], [26], [27] (pp. 105-106), [28], [29], [30], [31], "Cooking School of the Rockies" - NBC's Today Show, March 2002. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Auguste Escoffier School of Culinary Arts - The Culinary School of the Rockies is now known as Auguste Escoffier School of Culinary Arts. To give you an idea of the difference this makes, the Rockies name returns about 29k ghits. The Escoffier name returns about 359k. Passes GNG and ORGDEPTH. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I only got 10 g-news hits on the full new name of the school and none of those were this particular one. It is a chain name and generally individual units of a chain are not notable. If you just searched "Escoffier", I could understand all the hits. That is the name of one of the most acclaimed cooking schools in France! John from Idegon (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

furthermore, when you add in Boulder, it goes down to 120K hits. but I'm wary of WP:GOOGLEHITS. the vast majority of google returns are just directory listings of culinary schools or WP mirrors. not proper sources. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding It is a chain name and generally individual units of a chain are not notable: There are 2. One campus in Austin. Now one in Boulder. That said, I agree there's see no reason to have separate articles for each one. Keep, move to Auguste Escoffier School of Culinary Arts, and expand to discuss the school more broadly and incorporate the Austin location. Clarified my keep above. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks to Northamerica1000 for pulling up those mentions of the school, but that is all they are is mentions. The only one that speaks in detail, for what could be seen, was the one from Highbeam, but that sure read like a press release to me. I see no indication of depth. Even the brief mentions in stories that are listings or on another subject appear to be from more or less local papers, hence not meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. John from Idegon (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professional cooking school that is more than two decades old. 19:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who Killed Tom King?[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This has some coverage, but I can't see how it meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria. It survived AfD in 2007 (barely). Boleyn (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable series within popular television show. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This is a sinlge storyline of what is certainly a notable soap, but I cannot beleive that the storyline designed for the purpose of covering up an actor's resignation is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlike Emmerdale plane crash, This has far to much over-detail & crap that just isn't needed ......
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 10:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:02, 16 January 2014 (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. Stifle (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Fong[edit]

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

Despite my sympathies, I just don't see this pastor as notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not even claimed, much less demonstrated. --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- He is associated with two projects that are notable to have articles. That might be enough to make him notable, but I am unsure. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per consensus in the discussion below that any problems with the list are fixable through cleanup and development, on top of the nominator's withdrawal. postdlf (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of breweries in New Hampshire[edit]

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

~~Disputed WP:PROD. There are almost no notable entries in this list. Article is basically a linkspam farm. Wikipedia is not a directory. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdraw nomination. There are a lot of issues with the brewery lists, but I've changed my mind and I think this one can be better fixed through editing/moving/merger. Would an uninvolved editor close this as speedy keep please? Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I agree that the list sections themselves are not encyclopedic and basically just WP:ADVERT linkfarms, there is some worthwhile content in this article. I would recommend moving this article to Brewing in New Hampshire and just removing the list aspect of it while leaving the referenced prose. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 19:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, the list sections as look as there are any notable bnreweries in the lists -- are justifiable WP lists on the same basis as any other. The text section is certainly acceptable. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would support a move per Agne71. To address DGG's point though, there is only one borderline notable New Hampshire brewery on the list. The rest are non-notable or are branches of a larger corporate organization (e.g., Red Hook, Anheiser Bush). IronGargoyle (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can understand where you, IronGargoyle, are coming from, but this page gets many visits and I have been religiously keeping it up to date and as accurate as humanly possible over the past few years. I have tried my best to keep it as neutral as possible, along with it being unbiased and self-promoting. For Christ's sake, yes, it contains a list, but an accurate list just to express common, yet fragmented, knowledge in one specific place. If this page is "wrong" for Wikipedia why has it not been removed by the countless previous Wikipedia viewers? I have a passion for craft beer in New Hampshire and am neither personally connected (or will ever be) to any of these breweries. I owe service to none. I strictly want to advocate for relevant and accurate data on a specific industry. There is no other location online that has as comprehensive and accurate data in regards to the brewing industry in New Hampshire. If this page must be deleted how can WE modify it to contain the current data, but not offend the likes of you, IronGargoyle? And furthermore, I do not know who you are, where you reside, or what you know about the brewing industry, but IronGargoyle, many of the breweries listed on this page are notable and industry relevant craft breweries. I use to feel that the freedom of press in which WIkipedia provided was an exemplar in expanding a wider and accurate knowledge base. The fact that some "come-along" can just pop on to a page that has been years active and non-offending for years and just delete others hard work saddens me. So...thanks IronGargoyle for trying to, and probably, deleting something that I have taken pride in maintaining...thanks. And with deletion of this page will come the deactivation of my Wikipedia account, my utter denouncement of Wikipedia, and the resurrection of this page on another, more refined, media-based website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GustavChad (talk • contribs) 02:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, you don't need to take anything that happens on Wikipedia personally. As I, and others, have noted there are certainly some worthwhile content in this article that follows Wikipedia's guidelines and contributes to Wikipedia's mission of being a global encyclopedia. The last word is key, we're an encyclopedia, not a WP:DIRECTORY. So while an encyclopedic entry on the history and culture surrounding Brewing in New Hampshire is very worthwhile, a phonebook style directory of breweries is no more notable than a List of pizza parlors in New Hampshire or List of car washes in New Hampshire. Do notable breweries in New Hampshire exist? Of course, and they should have articles that pass WP:GNG created and be mentioned in an article about brewing in New Hampshire. We don't have to delete the entire article but some significant work does need to be done and we shouldn't take personally the removal of an material since none of us WP:OWN our edits anyways. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 04:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Brewing in New Hampshire. GustavChad's idea for "resurrection of this page on another, more refined, media-based website" is admirable and I would recommend it merely because I think directories are a great benefit to society, whether or not they survive as lists on Wikipedia. I _love_ Wikipedia, but it is rarely comprehensive and accurate, particularly so in the case of lists of businesses. Keep up the good work here and elsewhere. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PRESERVE. The prose sections in the article (History, Beers) are worthy of preservation, and blue-linked articles exist in the lists. A solution is to limit the lists to verified entries and those that already have a Wikipedia article. The Beer festivals section would benefit from the external links within the section being changed to inline citations, using the links as primary sources for verification. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also see the related AFD discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Connecticut (which also includes AFDs for Idaho, Iowa, New Mexico, and Tennessee), plus the individual state AFDs listed below. -- Zyxw (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2014 (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 Residents. Stifle (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Murdered Mommy[edit]

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

Couldn't establish that this meets WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 15:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Residents. I can't find any good references online. So redirect to band's article, which includes a discography. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loyalty Assurance[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable aspect of Human Resource Management. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 13:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poopoloral[edit]

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

Contested PROD from November 2013 read "Not a notable book per WP:NB. Not enough coverage by reliable sources, has won no awards, has not contributed to any major cultural events, is not the subject of instruction in schools, and author is not notable enough to automatically qualify all works as notable." I concur. Does not qualify under either WP:NB or WP:GNG. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2014 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NCI Building Systems[edit]

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

A CSD A7 was removed without addressing the issues. No indication of significance or importance. Being a public traded company does not assert notability. Routine stock market reports, corporate listings, press releases, and primary sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:ORGDEPTH. WP:NOTYELLOW. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article is one of around 62 mass produced from stock exchange listings. All either PRODed now, or those that have run their 7 days at AfD have been deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article appears to have been assembled over available sources and is little more than a list of announced routine corporate activity. Nothing indicates that the firm is notable as per WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of the approximately 1,000 NYSE companies are notable (can anyone find an exact number?) ; it's a reeasonable place to draw a line. (there are > 2,000 different shares traded, but some companies have multiple shares) . The articles which were from companies just of the NASDQ generally should be deleted (though some such companies are notable as well) , but the NYSE listing is relatively elite. WP needs more content of this sort, and a similar areticle should be written for each such company. This would give fewer valid opprtunities to the paid editors. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A little more work will bring it to WP:GNG. Some of the annual report cites need to be replaced with Hoover's cites as suggested by WP:LISTED (will try to do later). There are already enough independent sources to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. I don't see how WP:NOTYELLOW even applies here? VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are thousands of mentions of the company in Google Books. If you want GNG coverage look for example in Gale's International Directory of Company Histories, where the company has a chapter. Hoovers' also has briefer history of it online. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Payment Gateway List[edit]

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

Solely a list of ext-links without evidence of notability (WP is not DMOZ; fails WP:LINKFARM and WP:CSC). DMacks (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; simple directory of external links with no referenced inclusion criteria, currently acting as a spam magnet. Kuru (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability of any list contents; as noted above, currently a linkfarm of non-notable gateways.Dialectric (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E. Randol Schoenberg[edit]

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

Questionable notability Matzocoda (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 07:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A noted figure who is the subject of continuing coverage for his activities in pursuing stolen art, as well as his philanthropic use of some of the huge contingency fee he got for recovering Maria Altmann's five Klimts. I added some sources to the article; there are more. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article in its current shape clearly demonstrates notability. Good work, Arxiloxos. --MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos. James500 (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St John's Blackheath[edit]

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

No claim of notability made. Seems just like a regular church. Bazonka (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Proof of notability under wp:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete -- Obviously a NN local church. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I just came across this totally at random. I believe notability is asserted by its fairly extensive statutory listing report by English Heritage, by its entry in the "London South" edition (1983) of The Buildings of England series by Pevsner (which I don't have to hand today, but which I can see on the Google Books snippit view), and by its entry in Roger Homan's The Victorian Churches of Kent (1983), which I do have to hand. I don't know whether the separate notability of the architect is relevant or not policy-wise, but I'm sure it can't hurt. Unfortunately I will be struggling for time to do much on this tonight ... could this be left with me for 24 hours pls? Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 18:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC) — Oh, sorry, I forgot to say that should the article be kept, it should be named St John the Evangelist's Church, Blackheath (but I can sort that out). Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 18:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's only Grade II listed, which is the lowest level. That still doesn't make it especially notable. Almost all churches (except the really modern ones) are listed. Bazonka (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add what I can and then I'll leave it to consensus to decide. I have to go out now, so bear with me. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 19:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That (i.e. this diff) is about as far as I can get with the sources I have to hand. I suspect more offline sources exist, but I won't be in a position to find any in the short term. It's a bit thin, but I would lean towards Keep here. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 23:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The Church building is LISTED. It was also designed by a famous architect, over a century ago. The page needs to be expanded, but definitely not removed.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hassocks has made a strong point on our most basic criteria of "multiple independent reliable sources", and the listing does count as a very relevant such source, regardless of the level of that listing. Given that we routinely consider NRHP listings (which on average can be characterized as less notable than the average British listed building) notable, that's more than enough arguments. Circéus (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: based primarily on the English Heritage listing and Pevsner as indicators of notability. And taking a step back, this is providing a decent article which could inform the casual visitor who sought more information on the building, thus meeting primary expectations of an encyclopaedia. AllyD (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Changed vote) at least Weak keep -- I do not think that Listing is by itslef sufficient for notability, but Pevsner's support is enough to lift it beyond the mundane typical local church (which we regularly delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Alfa Romeo 166. Stifle (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alfa Romeo 169[edit]

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

Article that is solely based on speculations, since 2008 there are rumors for a 169 to come, but since then, nothing has happened and it's highly unlikely that the 169 will ever go into production. Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although someone could justifiably claim that it meets notability guidelines, let's be realistic here; all of the sources are pure speculation. If there was verifiable evidence of a prototype, then I'd be arguing to keep this article, but things like [32], [33], [34], [35] and [36] are all based on pure speculation, and most of them didn't come true anyway; there are mock-up images, but nothing beyond that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally agree with that, considering that those rumors and speculations are going around since 2007 (when the production of the 166 stopped) nobody who's realistic will expect that (after more than half a decade) a successor to the 166 will go into production within the next years - despite some sources claiming this since 2007/2008 over and over again.--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Alfa Romeo 166. The rumours of a successor to the 166 have sufficient coverage for a small "Possible successor" section (although not necessarily that exact title). There isn't enough that can be said to sustain a whole article. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In case the above isn't clear, I mean for the section to be about the rumours of a successor not about a car that doesn't exist. It doesn't need to be more than a few sentences. Thryduulf (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Thryduulf. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Lukeno 94 and Jean-Éric Poclain; nothing more than speculation since the mid 2000s.--TCCE (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is also disputed.--TCCE (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was more User:Shirt58 attempting to do things by the book, rather than what was potentially the most sensible route - the one the nominator initially took (before they then tried to speedily delete it in a very inappropriate manner). Regardless, I don't think there's any issue of the notability of the speculation in reality; but they didn't even build a public 169 prototype, so it doesn't justify its own article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that makes the notability of this article equal to zero, when there's no prototype or development mule ever sighted. As far as I remember, the last time I read about the OneSixNine was back in 2006 when the lifecycle came to an end, and sales of the OneSixSix dropped dramatically - and (compared to the competition) sales figures of it have never even been that high.--TCCE (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The car isn't notable, no. Rumours of the car though are sufficiently notable to be mentioned in an appropriate article, and I think that the Alfa 166 article is the most appropriate for that. Given that we have some verified content about the rumours already it is better to merge that to where they should be rather than delete and start again. Whether we do that or not, the rumours mean that "Alpha Romeo 169" is a likely search term that should be redirected to where we have content. Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but under the title "Speculation about the Alfa Romeo 169" or something like that. An automotive equivalent of vapourware for sure, but arguably notable autovapourware, analogous to Development of Duke Nukem Forever. (Question to myself: if the game had never been released, would that article about its development pass the requirements for a stand alone article? Answer: I dunno. Probably?) I agree that "the car itself" is not notable - after all it, never existed. I agree with Thryduulf: "Rumours of the car though are sufficiently notable to be mentioned in an appropriate article". Not to misrepresent this: it was an argument for merge and redirect, not keep. I would go a step further: that pure speculation itself would appear to me to merit a stand-alone article - the car that never was, but was nevertheless had significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. (WP:INVOLVED, etc: I should point out declined the speedy deletion, added a notability tag, and also assisted the nominator with nominating this article for deletion. I'm also obviously in favor of - 500+ and counting, all waiting for experts to step in an fix 'em up ! - little well-referenced stubs.) Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm really not a subject matter expert here, but I'm not clearly seeing there is the potential for an article about the rumours to be more than a stub. In such cases I prefer sections rather than stubs, but this is a philosophical difference rather than something that can be hashed out in a single AfD! If there is to be a separate article though, then I'd much rather it have the simple title it presently has than anything more convoluted. My reasoning for this is that such an article will be the primary topic for the search term "Alfa Romeo 169" (unless something changes in the future, we can deal with that if it happens), and so such a title will be where people expect to find the article. It is the job of the article lead, not the title, to explain the subject (the title's job is simply to identify the subject recognisably and unambiguously). Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you as someone reasonably experienced in this subject area, that keeping this article would be a bad idea and a terrible precedent. There has been speculation on and off for 40 years about a true E-Type successor (until the F-Type came out), with various concept cars and mockups being produced, and we don't have an article on that - which would be infinitely more notable than the 169 rumours. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The discussion has convincingly established that the sources used in the articles fall short of what we would expect in the light of WP:GNG and WP:RS. The arguments for keeping the articles must therefore be given less weight. Sandstein 10:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MSN-03 Jagd Doga[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Mobile Suit Gundam: Char's Counterattack through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details and in-depth toy analysis better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary.

I am also nominating these articles with the same issues:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see plenty of sources and external links that establish notability in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do they establish notability? It's all just primary info, appearances, and lists of models. It never hurts to describe merchandise in something's impact, but that alone doesn't establish it as notable, especially when the models should be summed up briefly rather than as a laundry list. TTN (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Simply having sources does not make them WP:GNG-valid sources that can actually establish notability. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as not passing WP:GNG with multiple independent reliable in-depth sources. None of the sources in the articles are both about the subject and in-depth. Hardly any are reliable sources. There's mostly product pages, listings, appearances, generic info, but no critical commentary, no cultural impact besides appearances. The franchise is notable and suits are mentioned in relation to it, but notability is not inherited and the limited sourced information that isn't cruft or trivial appearances can be easily summarized in parent articles. This isn't even suitable for a list at this point without further sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MSN-02 and 04. In the MSN-02 article, the #4, #6 and #24 sources are clearly independent sources, #7 is debatablely not in depth enough, but still independent.(Using http://web.archive.org/). In the MSN-04 article, #7 and #16 are independent, while #1, 2 and 4 are debatable. Reliable or not, do you seriously expect Scientific Journal class reliability? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 15:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if sources are reliable, it doesn't mean that their inclusion in the article counts as satisfying WP:N. They need to provide significant coverage for the topic, and that would be real world. non-primary info in this case. #4, #6, and #7 are nothing more than showing that it appears in something. #24 is a wiki, so I'm not sure how that is supposed to be reliable. #7 is used for in-universe information, and #16 is about official merchandise. #1, #2, and #4 are not debatable in any way from what I can tell. None of those provide development, reception, or cultural impact, so they don't help establish notability. TTN (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing the above, sources have to be independent, reliable and in-depth at the same time, not so between them. Reviewing the ones mentioned more carefully, I agree with TTN, none of them pass WP:GNG mark. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the references for MSN-03 Jagd Doga are a joke, they include a photo of the robot's toy model and links to an online shop selling them, as well as links to the maker's website. There is no evidence of real-world notability independent of the main media franchise. Delete also MSN-02 and 04, as even in the supposedly reliable sources they're given only the briefest of mentions.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:RS. This is a non-notable article that does not include any real-world information on the subject. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Additionally, it is of note is that the sources listed by User:Whpq demonstrate that the subject may meet WP:BASIC. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alok mittal[edit]

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

unable to completely satisfy WP:A7. Still I believe it should be given a fair chance. So I removed the speedy deletion tag and added the article for discussion here. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete This article was obviously written by someone with very little knowledge of how wikipedia works, as shown in their non-credible references and improper citation, which leads me to believe that it was written be the subject or another primary source who is close to the subject. Sure, someone else could clean up the article, but this is not worth doing if notability cannot be established. Simply having their name appear on some websites may determine the subject exists, but it does not establish notability. I feel like a tourist (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The very first line of the article states that he is the Police Commissioner for Gurgaon and the article included an interview in the Hindustan Times which is a credible enough assertion of notability that a speedy deletion is not appropriate. His position as police commissioner is of sufficient note that the Times of India covered his hospitalisation. His appointment as commissioner was covered with a profile about him as well. The article surely needs help, but it is far from irredeemable so deletion is not an appropriate action. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wikify I agree that his position as police commissioner gives him notability, but this article does need a lot of help. PaintedCarpet (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2014 (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. Michig (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OpenDD[edit]

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

Non-notable XML format, used in a single product and no longer used. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not independently notable. Could merit a sentence in the Elgg article. DMacks (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software format article of unclear notability lacking significant RS coverage. A search revealed no such RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe Merge with Elgg. Not notable. ––Agyle (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete, but a merger might be discussed through the editorial process, and/or clean-up of the article to make the questionable historicity of this person clearer can be undertaken. Sandstein 10:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nennius of Britain[edit]

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

Contested prod, obscure fictional character. Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain is now regarded as a highly unreliable work written several centuries after the events it purports to describe, and he only appears to be a minor figure in that work. PatGallacher (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A monarch mentioned in a well-known medieval chronicle, reliable or not, is not quite an "obscure fictional character"; there are probably many (obscure) scholarly sources that discuss him. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If there are many scholarly sources which discuss him this would establish notability, but where are they? Technically, he was a prince not a monarch. Geoffrey's History is not widely read nowadays, although it was culturally significant because of its influence on the development of the Arthurian legend. PatGallacher (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this source (162–167)? (One source I found on Google Books refers to Nennius as a "co-king", but the book is by an amateur historian.) See also this old source (in the first footnote) which also discusses Geoffrey of Monmouth's invention of Nennius. (Not to be confused with Nennius the historian, referred to several times on that page.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it would help if these sources were integrated into the article to clarify notability, I find accessing Google books difficult at times. PatGallacher (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- The problem is that Geoffrey of Monmouth's work is largely not history that can be verified from any other historical source. It is much closer to being a work of fiction than of history or even of legend. It might be possible to merge this and other kings in Geoffrey's work into a single legendary kings of Britain; indeed we may have such an article, but articles on individual kings should not be allowed, because it is impossible to say anithing of them except to quote Geoffrey. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingiron: I don't think deletion is an option for a purportedly historical figure mentioned in what was once considered a reliable work. A merge would do, though a list of legendary kings is too general, I think; perhaps to one of his (less fictional) brothers' articles? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a very time since anyone regarded Geoffrey of Monmouth as history. Some kind of summary of what he says might be legitimate. However, we cannot have a proper biography of a person on whom there is a single source, and one that is generally regarded as non-historic. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - But Nennius has been discussed from a modern aspect, as a fictional creation by Geoffrey of Monmouth: see the links I gave above. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nomination has been countered by sources presented in the discussion, and consensus is that the topic has received enough coverage to qualify (albeit perhaps weakly) for a standalone article. The speedy delete !vote by User:I feel like a tourist does not contain a valid rationale for deletion per the criteria at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, and topic notability is not based solely upon album releases or lack of them. The delete !vote by User:Hoof Hearted is not policy- or guideline-based. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chi-Pig[edit]

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete They never released an single album during the years that they claim to have been "active." Their one release mentioned appears to be self-released. Classic non-notable local band. I feel like a tourist (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't even remember creating this article! (I think I was trying to fill-in a red link.) It was when I was very new to wikipedia and would have known better today. Hoof Hearted (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Just) passes WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC via [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]. The article should also cover their earlier band the Poor Girls, which also received some coverage. Chi-Pigs did release a single in 1978, with their album released in 2004. --Michig (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Band's claim to notability is mostly regional, but the pair of Allmusic write-ups, along with the Village Voice piece, is just enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Gong show 23:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus due to no input other than from the nominator, with no prejudice against speedy renomination due to no quorum present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Fethe[edit]

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

Has released only one album to date, in 2006 — and the album (which is included in the deletion nomination here), while drawing reviews, doesn't seem that notable itself. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating Out of Nowhere (Harold Fethe album) (his only album so far) for deletion. --Nlu (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus due to no input other than from the nominator, with no prejudice against speedy renomination due to no quorum present. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 24 January 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Bhojpuri Boys[edit]

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY. I wanted to have it assessed at AfD rather than prod in case I had missed something because of cultural/linguistic differences. Boleyn (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sale flamand[edit]

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

Non-notable insult. It is a coupling of the generic insult sale, with flamand which is indeed a Congolese term for whites but does not need this epithet. Of the refs, only two of the sources cited actually refers to the term "sale flamand" - once in a possibly over-sensationalist article about it as a "new swearword" among schoolchildren in 2007; the other to an isolated act of graffiti. The others two sources refer to the use of the term "Flamand" by Congolese people. This certainly doesn't seem to meet the criteria for WP:Notability (particularly "significant coverage") and it seems unnecessary to maintain a full article on this topic. I notice similar articles, such as "Dirty Jew", simply redirect to another page on the prejudice in question. Brigade Piron (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kiffy[edit]

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

non notable. lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. PROD removed. I probably shoulda honored the CSD, but I was tired, and they all looked significant. Dloh cierekim 21:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see significant coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:56, 18 January 2014 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bree Condon[edit]

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She has had some attention for her career, in particular for replacing the iconic Dolores Erickson as the cover girl on the 2006 remix/reissue of Whipped Cream & Other Delights: The New Yorker [45]; The Wall Street Journal [46]; Honolulu Star Bulletin [47]; etc. Otherwise, the bulk of the sources turned up in a Google search relate to a bizarre 2010 incident in which she was the object, and a victim, of an identity theft scam. That incident doesn't directly contribute to her notability, of course. One of the many news reports about this, in the Los Angeles Times, describes her as "a successful model and aspiring actress" and a "minor celebrity", and makes this comment about the actual but limited nature of her notability: "Men could verify that she was a working model and keep track of her photo shoots and acting gigs online, but she wasn't so famous that tabloids might write about who she was actually dating."[48] --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yazdani Bakery[edit]

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

I do not see how the one very minor makes the bakery notable . DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hands down fails WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question: One very minor what? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The bakery has been subject of multiple web articles in online English newspapers. A story was also made by BBC TV. It constantly seems to be appearing amongst the top bakeries/tea stalls/eateries of Mumbai. [49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59]. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per this CNN article and this The Hindu article. Also keep per WP:NRVE: topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, rather than the state of sourcing within Wikipedia articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of good sources have been identified above. Bravo. Andrew (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2014 (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. No prejudice against recreation if at some point it becomes notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland Police 150 Years Citation[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this decoration exists. Google returns no hits ([60]) Vanjagenije (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if it exists it still fails Wp:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've had a look through the two government gazettes issued so far in 2014 ([61] and [62]) and neither seems to mention it, as I'd expect if it had been approved by Governor-in-Council. I'd prefer to wait until we actually know the thing exists before we have an article on it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:51, 18 January 2014 (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. Non-admin speedy closure. Article already deleted through Speedy Deletion. Discussion has become moot. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pomodoro Technique software[edit]

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

Article appears to be little more than a WP:LINKFARM. Merging to Pomodoro Technique may be an option, but then notable software should still be sourced for significance. DonIago (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as little has changed since the last AFD; in fact the previous incarnation of this article had more information than this one does. But still, this is just a list of links, with no independent notability expressed or implied. —Soap— 04:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G4. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete and move to Draft per WP:PRESERVE. The descriptions and collection of tools may be useful as an starting point for some future editor wanting to research this class of software and writing a proper article section about it. As draft space is not indexed nor followed, there's no problem holding there a collection of external links. There are no problems with WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO which would justify a hard delete to block the content from view. Diego (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the article was already deleted under criteria CSD G4 before the AfD was closed. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:39, 17 January 2014 (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.