Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 January	4 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redeemer Seminary[edit]

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

Delete Fails WP:NHSCHOOL, no significant coverage. Notability of individual faculty is not transferred. --Bejnar (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep WP:NHSCHOOL states that "alternate criteria" guidelines or the "general" guidelines may be used. The alternate criteria simply state that a school must not a branch of another school. Not an issue here because this school has been independent for several years. Furthermore, although you claim an individual faculty's notability is not transferred, the faculty members of Redeemer have published numerous books and are listed in various publications, and to denote their notability in these publication, the title of "professor at Redeemer Seminary" is used in various publications. This article should not be eliminated because the subject is clearly independent and notable and there is no proper article into which to merge this school. Swampyank (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline does not say alternate criteria. It says: All schools, including universities, colleges, high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or both. The "this guideline" is the guideline: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep High schools are generally considered notable so I can't see how a historic seminary with notable graduates and a long history wouldn't be? I also find the assertion that there is no coverage to be suspect. Has the nom checked Catholic sources (or whatever denomination is pertinent)? Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Protestant seminary. I checked book and web sources and they were not about the school. The school was only mentioned in the context that such-and-such professor taught there. --Bejnar (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My findings were similar. But I don't know what is available offline. At any rate, I think a well established school of higher learning would generally be considered notable based on precedent. And there are some mentions of the school and its faculty and alumni in books nad scholar sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Degree-granting institutions are notable by long-standing precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true, why has not the guideline changed? Other guidelines have had bright-line rules, such as for athletes, that do not require the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Can you point to a consensus about the change in the school guideline? --Bejnar (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In practice I have yet to see an established high school deleted at AfD. This school is at the college/ university level. I would support a change of the policy page to reflect well established consensus. As a side note I think the athlete standard puts too much emphasis on being professional and too little on coverage in sources, but it is what it is. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, this seminary was spun off from Westminister in 2009 and was just accredited four months ago. It has not yet had time to become notable. It had a total of 150 students enrolled this past fall. --Bejnar (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For those arguing for keeping Redeemer Seminary solely on the basis of presumption, please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)# ending with Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#This is going nowhere. See also Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Schools. But for outcomes to be valid each school has to be argued on its own merit, not on a presumption. Think about it. --Bejnar (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. It is going nowhere. The consensus hasn't changed because some editors object to it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long-standing practice as noted above (see also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). In this case, the number of Google Books hits, and the news coverage when the seminary was founded, also indicated a pass of WP:GNG. -- 101.119.29.143 (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Won't you even look at the Google Book hits? They are not about the seminary, they mention the seminary in the context of where an author works. The news coverage in 1999 when the seminary was founded as a campus of Westminister was just press releases. No independent coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 23:25, 5 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Football League Championship players with international caps[edit]

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

There is nothing notable about international players playing in the championship. There would be a notable list of England Players picked while playing in the championship but this list is just too indiscriminate. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 22:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft at its finest. Number 5 7 23:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hugely out of date, unreferenced, and if it was complete, it would be absolutely enormous. As per Number 57; pure listcruft. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Listcruft, with no reliable sources provided for the playing stats included in the article. JMHamo (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - given that the inclusion criteria at the top state that players don't even have to earned their caps while playing in the Championship, the article represents a non-notable intersection i.e. players who have been capped at some point in their career and who have played in the Championship at some point in their career. Joe Hart, for example, has played in the Premier League throughout his entire international career. And before any one suggests it, even if the list was restricted to players who had been capped while playing in the Championship, it would still not be a notable subject. Even though it is the second level league in England, the Championship is a much stronger league than many countries' top-level leagues, and dozens of international players come from overseas to play for Championship clubs i.e. it isn't an unusual event -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure LISTCRUFT, not a notable topic. Giant Snowman 10:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If this were about non-Premiership players who appeared for the national side, while with that employment, this might be a useful article, but it is liable to collect players who used to play for Premiership clubs, but have moved to lesser clubs at the end of their careers. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - total listcruft, no indication that being an international player who has played in the Championship has attracted any notable discussion. Fenix down (talk) 12:13, 6 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) buff bills 7701 01:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phipps Garden Apartments[edit]

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

No indication of significance for encyclopedic content. Tal Brenev (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since Sunnyside Gardens is a Historic District and this property is a contributing property, there is an indication of notability. The architect of the complex and the landscape architect are notable, more indications of notability. The only issue is whether to merge to the parent subject or not. I think a merge is reasonable since there is plenty of room in the Sunnyside Gardens article. I can't see how deletion would be appropriate. A Google Book search also turns up substantial coverage in a variety of reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A Google book search would seem to indicate the apartments are notable. This book from Columbia University press has some coverage. This book from McFarland also contains some coverage. This book from Cornell University has no preview, but the title "Clarence S. Stein's Phipps Garden Apartments: A Successful Experiment in American Socialist Housing" makes it rather clear that the apartments represent the primary topic of the entire book. -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. TheBlueCanoe 01:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I'd like better online sourcing for "In 2007, the Landmarks Preservation Commission included the Phipps Garden Apartments in the designation of the Sunnyside Gardens Historic District." Bearian (talk) 17:38, 9 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic perception[edit]

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

Article is written like an advertisement (All "further reading" sources have the author Amit Sheth). Also, not enough context to describe the topic. Tal Brenev (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like promotional b.s. If substantial coverage in reliable independent sources emerges, please let me know and I will reconsider. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- To verify the "reliable independent sources" for this idea, the citations in the Further Reading section have been linked to the papers on the Publisher's website. Please have a look at the references and note that the Publishers of this work and the associated conferences are quite reliable (IEEE Sensors Conference, Applied Ontology Journal, IEEE Internet Computing, International Semantic Web Conference). Coryhenson (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The papers seem like they are original research, which can't be used a source. Tal Brenev (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Tal Brenev[reply]
Delete. Original SYN. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:50, 10 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 Curry#Curries_of_China. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese chicken curry[edit]

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

No sources and no indication of significance. Tal Brenev (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I agree with the lack of sources being a problem, but the fact that the article says "It is a common dish served in Chinese restaurants worldwide." *is* an indication of significance, and I think sources could probably be found for this article in which case I would support keeping it. That said, I see no mention of chinese chicken curry at: recipe source, ibiblio's list of common Cantonese dishes, Flavor and Fortune, a Chinese Cuisine magazine, list of recipes, and a few other places. The only thing I have found is this celtnet page which says Gali Ji Huifan (Chinese Chicken Curry on Rice) is a traditional Chinese recipe of Cantonese origin. I think somewhere out there are probably sources that could be used to establish notability, but I didn't find any.AioftheStorm (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Until a source can be found the article should be kept, and if the creator doesn't contest or no one finds a source within a week or so it should be deleted. Tal Brenev (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Tal Brenev[reply]
- I agree, if the creator doesn't contest deletion, and a source for this article isn't found, then it should just be redirected.AioftheStorm (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Curry#Curries of China which already says more than this article. Mangoe (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- That section doesn't have any sources either, but a redirect there would be better than deletion.AioftheStorm (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Curry#Curries of China. Source searches aren't providing much, and the topic is already covered at the redirect target. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per WP:CHEAP and above discussion. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 9 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. If anyone is willing to take this up and work on it, I am willing to move this into their userspace Guerillero | My Talk 06:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rising of fashion in China[edit]

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

Seems like an advertisement, is filled with external links with the intent of promoting something. Tal Brenev (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --みんな空の下 (トーク) 23:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy this article is not ready for prime time. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Chinese fashion is an encyclopaedic subject - there are articles for French fashion and Japanese fashion although the latter redirects to Japanese street fashion. However, although the topic is appropriate, the article needs a LOT more work doing. Mabalu (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Userfy. Title is inappropriate, but the creator could potentially contribute to Chinese fashion, which currently doesn't have many details about contemporary fashions. TheBlueCanoe 01:08, 9 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 Hot (Israel). Guerillero | My Talk 06:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HOT Zone (channel)[edit]

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

This article has no sources, and I couldn't find anything indicating that it exists. Possibly made up/invented. Tal Brenev (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 22:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hot (Israel) Channel does exist (site is here in Hebrew), but it's pretty much a non-stop rerun feed, so redirect to the parent article is more appropriate. Nate • (chatter) 23:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article be merged with HOT_(Israel)? Tal Brenev (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Tal Brenev[reply]
I'll start a merger proposal at Talk:Hot (Israel) Tal Brenev (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Tal Brenev[reply]
Merge per Tal's findings. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 4 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saints Row: The Third soundtrack[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Saints Row: The Third 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 is classic video game trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A PROD was removed so I'm bundling the rest of the bunch for the same reasons:

Saints Row IV soundtrack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saints Row soundtrack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
( Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saints Row 2 soundtrack, which precedes this bundle.)

czar ♔ 21:30, 3 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) 14:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Saints Row does not have the cultural weight of Grand Theft Auto (which these articles appear to be modeled off the GTA soundtrack ones) to make the soundtracks notable. There are some interesting uses of specific pieces of music discussed in sources (using songs like Power or You've Got the Touch during specific missions, or how the game characters will sing along to certain songs), but that's not enough to justify listing out the full track lists. And as there are no released soundtracks (as there is with the GTA), this is just trivial lists. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - I think Masem has it nailed above with comparisons to similar articles on the Grand Theft Auto soundtrack. And as the nominator states, there is no credible claim to external notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Masem. Samwalton9 (talk) 16:34, 6 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) 00:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Nanda[edit]

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

Non-notable director of a school. Fails notability for professors/educators ES &L 21:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Non-notable, at least the article failed to establish that and could not find any credible reference on internet search also. Cheers AKS 21:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep some dude has been deleting whole swaths of the article that says why its notable. he is notable because he is the director of the best bussiness school in asia. we have an article for the chairman of the same school. and aless notable director of iim lucknow i am trying to add mor e sources the reason thier are less online sources is because he is a new apoitee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberalufp (talk • contribs)
- removing of non reliable sources is absolutely appropriate for the article itself and would have provided no additional weight to any "keep" !votes. And the fact that "there are less online sources because he is a new appointee" is verification of the fact that the creation of the article was WP:TOOSOON. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*not delete her is notable because of the new source added and new ifo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.249.51 (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC) — 98.113.249.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Struck by ES&L - editors may not !vote twice, and this IP is same editor as Liberalufp ES &L 12:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 21:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 21:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I find a GS h-index of around 8 in a highly cited field. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Change vote. User:Salih's find of named chair gives at leat a formal pass of WP:Prof#C5. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: Director of the topmost business school of India, IIMA. We need to look for reliable sources. Salih (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ ~~per Xxanthippe.~~ Keep per named professorship (at Harvard, no less) as shown in the link prvoded by Salih. --Randykitty (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject satisfies WP:PROF. Specifically, criteria #5 (the person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.) as evidenced by this link [1] and #6 (the person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.) as per this [2]. Salih (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep i agree with salih70.112.61.71 (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep i agree with salih

Keep. Change vote in line with new references. Cheers AKS 09:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification. I was attempting to strike off my previous vote and erroneously someone else's vote got impacted. EatsShootsAndLeaves, this was not intended. Sorry for the inconvenience. Cheers AKS 10:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Holders of named chairs at major universities are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:55, 7 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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Filming of James Bond[edit]

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

There's absolutely nothing in these articles that's not already covered in the individual film articles. In fact, almost all the text appears to have been copied directly from the film articles to these. Anything else someone would want to know about the production of James Bond can be found over at James Bond in film. These articles are useless and need to go a quickly as possible. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons as above:[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 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Terminate all with extreme prejudice. Utterly pointless to organize by decade, and it appears to be copied from other articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 22:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Can you explain why you think these topical scopes are warranted? Erik (talk | contribs) 23:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The idea was to begin a more detailed history series on James Bond in film focusing on the filming aspects. I agree at present they're redundant, but the idea was that each are expanded to cover more detail than in the current filming of article but none of us have got around to expanding them. I thought it would make interesting reading to have detailed studies of James Bond production and filming as an ongoing process rather than individually and an overall summary.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, so there's more detail about the filming of each movie? Why not have a sub-article for each film? The one example I can think of is Production of Watchmen. It would be in line with WP:SPLIT and WP:SUMMARY. My concern here is that grouping by decade is pretty arbitrary. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason being I wanted an article overview of James Bond production as a continuous process rather than individually for each film.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article James Bond in film covers the production efforts behind the films, James Bond filmography covers the actors portraying James Bond, it seems entirely reasonable to have an article covering the locations and photography. Perhaps it should be renamed James Bond movie locations and cinematography? I find the other article titles, filmography and James Bond in film, confusing also and in need of clarification. One if more like an article on Actors portraying James Bond in film and the other Production of James Bond films. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Filming of James Bond is a better title, although Production of James Bond films also would be a very suitable title I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganise. I think there is enough material held here and not elsewhere not to just delete, but - like Eric - I find the breaks a little too arbitrary, and think the articles could be reorganised and renamed. Grouping into films by each Bond seems a possible suggestion? - SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that might make sense but I was really trying to think of it as a history of James Bond film producing and initially it seemed by decade was the "encyclopedic" way to do it. I'd forgotten I'd created these soon after creation and had intended to further expand them. I think articles which focus on the filming and production as a continuous process is legitimate as an article subject but as Schrod says some reorganisation is really needed and some new content built in to make them less redundant. As Candle says, we could discuss filming locations and cinematography more , at present we only have a List of James Bond film locations ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How does the actor affect the production end? IMO, James Bond in film has the right organizational breakdown: by producer. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we know, Schrod wrote most of that article. James Bond history is generally divided into periods by Bond actor, that's why.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:27, 5 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 deleted by RHaworth (A7 short article and G12 copyvio). (Non-admin closure) --みんな空の下 (トーク) 21:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The jungle friends and the hunter[edit]

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

No context, no references, possibly made up. Tal Brenev (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Reads like an essay, non-encyclopedic. It's actually a copyvio in some way... --みんな空の下 (トーク) 20:45, 3 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Barnes[edit]

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

Contested prod. This is an article about a politician who has yet to win the primary for the Democratic nomination, much less win the seat itself. As such he fails WP:POLITICIAN. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Fails WP:Politician and WP:1E. If he wins the election (or even the primary), we can reconsider. Beyond WP:NOTNOTABLE, the article is almost entirely an editor who has only done, as of yet, only worked on that article, which is curious. PrairieKid (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support: As stated above, it fails WP:Politician and WP:1E. It isn't even really written that well. I think we should include his name on an article about the list of people running with a brief synopsis of him, but there is no need for a full-out article. Leoesb1032 (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 21:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 21:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the critical bits to the election article as per standard procedure. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have also listed the picture from the article at possibly unfree files. If anyone viewing this has expertise in this area, commenting at the following link would help determine its status [3]. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Do Not Support". It fits under WP:Politician as the subject meets the Primary notability criterion in of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". This can be seen from the references in the bottom of the article. Furthermore, there are many other pages of people who have yet to be elected to a political office and their pages have not been deleted, i.e. Sean Eldridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alliegreenprint (talk • contribs) 16:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage listed looks to be no more than about 250 words on the candidate at a time, all in local media. That doesn't seem to add up to "significant". If there are other pages that do not meet our standards, that is reason to consider deletion of those pages, not to accept this one. (The particular example you cite is someone who had a Wikipedia page years before he filed for candidacy. That doesn't mean that page's presence is unquestionable but it faced and survived a deletion discussion before he was a candidate.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:20, 6 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Musoke[edit]

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight. Into the Rift (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Into the Rift (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: There is really no need for his article on this Wikipedia and I believe he also fails WP:1E as well. Leoesb1032 (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 08:05, 5 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 Channel V India. Guerillero | My Talk 06:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Channel V India[edit]

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

No indication of significance, no sources. Tal Brenev (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 21:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 21:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "significance" is these lists are standard for notable TV channels. I don't think it's credible that this information is unverifiable, so the present lack of sources is irrelevant. This should be merged to Channel V India, however. postdlf (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Channel V India, since the the latter is a short article, some of the content is already located in its Programming section, and also per WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTGUIDE. WP is not a TV guide. LibStar (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that applicable here? This is not a schedule. It's a list of notable programs indexed by the notable channel that broadcasts them, which is part of what Wikipedia is. See the extensive lists at Template:Lists of TV programs by country. postdlf (talk) 01:20, 8 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Mutapcic[edit]

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights the page has barely been changed since the last AFD nomination. Into the Rift (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Into the Rift (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The last AfD nomination was a deletion so I suppose this could even have been speedied.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Nothing has changed since previous deletion. Still has no top tier fights.Jakejr (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 08:04, 5 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Kruize[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY. Played almost all his career in the Dutch league. Ravenswing 19:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 22:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 22:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 22:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG as well. Not seeing anything in the way of non-trivial coverage. Hell Google isn't even showing much in the way of trivial coverage. Reso lute 22:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have played several games as a professional with a notable club. Doesn't that establish notability? Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. Notability is not inherited. Also, because notability is defined by coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and cover them in non-trivial fashion. This player lacks that in spades. Reso lute 05:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not suggesting that the subject inherited notability. It is my understanding that professional athletes who compete at the highest level are considered notable? I actually disagree with this consensus, but (for example) I have seen Olympic competitors kept even when they haven't been covered. Same with pro players of football, baseball etc. If this is no longer the case I hope the guideline has been changed and that the change can be cited so we can spread the word. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject notability guidelines can only presume notability, and most (particularly those related to WP:NSPORTS) make only that claim. You are correct that that the SNGs have been treated in the past as if they assured notability rather than presumed it, but I've never felt that past mistakes justify future ones. In this case, that presumption is being challenged and must now be supported by RSes. Reso lute 21:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond that, yes, Candleabracadabra, you're right: WP:NHOCKEY, as with the other sports subordinate criteria, establishes presumptive notability for players who've played at the highest level. Kruize is not one of these players; neither the German nor the Dutch leagues are considered "highest level." Ravenswing 01:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG as Ravenswing and Resolute have said. ÞórrÓðinnTýr ^Eh? 22:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet NHOCKEY and can't find anything to pass GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:39, 9 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. Guerillero | My Talk 06:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Eigenmann[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player; fails WP:NHOCKEY. Has played only a handful of games in the National League "A," spent his career in the Swiss minors. Ravenswing 19:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 22:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 22:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. He seems to have played 10 more NLA games today, but I can't immediately find any non-trivial coverage from which to pass WP:GNG. Note also that the cite does not support the claim (it states only that he appeared in one game in the 2012-13 season, not that it was his NLA debut), and that the external link doesn't even go to the right player. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. Reso lute 23:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, isn't it enough if he is playing on the highest league in Switzerland? --Stryn (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. The SNG can only make the presumption that a player who has appeared at this level may be notable. When challenged, that presumption must be supported by showing the player meets the GNG. Reso lute 21:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Beyond that, the NHOCKEY guideline doesn't consider the Swiss league top-tier. In order to trigger NHOCKEY's presumptive notability -- which as Resolute correctly states, still must pass the GNG if challenged -- Eigenmann would have to have played at least 100 games at that level. He's played but a handful, and being a fringe player in a second-tier league doesn't confer notability. Ravenswing 21:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet NHOCKEY and I can find nothing that shows that he meets GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the fact that they may technically meet NHOCKEY (although that's obviously in dispute) is irrelevant given that he doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep or Redirect to GCK Lions where this player is mentioned. It is not a given that GNG sources do not exist until a proper search, including non-English-language sourse, has been undertaken. Note: When this ice hockey bio article was created it clearly met the criteria for inclusion under NHOCKEY for playing in Swizerland's top professional league.The nom should be reminded that deletion is a last resort, and per WP:BEFORE should only be used after other alternatives, includung redirects, have been fully explored. Dolovis (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You're outright admitting that you didn't bother to make any sort of search for sources, for a BLP article yet, when you created it? That being said, playing in the top Swiss league has never been considered to meet criteria #1 or #2, and certainly does not now; there is nothing in Wikipedia policy or guideline allowing for "grandfathering" of an article that may be affected by tightening guidelines for notability. Ravenswing 00:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. None of the leagues are considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:22, 14 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 Unity Bank of Canada. Sandstein 20:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Bank[edit]

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

duplicate of Unity Bank of Canada Vt catamount (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Unity Bank of Canada; this version adds no further material to that. AllyD (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unity Bank of Canada, with a hatnote to Unity Bank (Nigeria). This version is totally extraneous. Note: I copied the infobox from this page to Unity Bank of Canada, as that page was lacking a proper infobox Novusuna ^talk 20:49, 3 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 20:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hicks (writer)[edit]

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

No indication of significance, why subject can be included as an encyclopedic content. Itsalleasy (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject to later re-creation per WP:UPANDCOMING and WP:REFUND. He's at best marginally notable; even the Post blog is not really a good source. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 9 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) 00:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monterosa Ski[edit]

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

No indication of significance Itsalleasy (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be a well established ski resort. Google Books provides sources covering it. What am I missing? Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I assume that Monterosa Ski#Further reading already indicates some significance. More is available in Google Books (eg., the 2004 book L'Italia dello sci has six pages about it). Cavarrone 11:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, just needs better sourcing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 4 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. Withdrawn by nominator. - Mr X 17:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kid3[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Fails WP:NSOFTWARE and WP:GNG. - Mr X 16:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing this AfD. It seems that there are a number of German sources, and although I can't verify most of them, the sheer abundance of minor, less reliable sources strongly suggests that the software may pass our minimum notability guidelines.- Mr X 17:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that Kid3 is non-notable software. Compare its download statistics on SourceForge with other audio tag editors which have an article in Wikipedia: Kid3 has 2335 weekly downloads, EasyTag has 558 weekly downloads, and puddletag has 117 weekly downloads. Since the first release, Kid3 has been downloaded 332,219 times from SourceForge. This numbers are only a small part of all Kid3 installations. Kid3 is most popular on Linux (especially KDE), most Linux users will install Kid3 from the repositories of their distribution, Kid3 is part of all relevant Linux distributions, e.g. Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, and openSUSE. Several DVDs containing Kid3 have been published (e.g. the DVDs accompanying c't 13/2008, 17/2010, 14/2011, 1/2012, 15/2012, EasyLinux 2/2008, 1/2013, iPadWelt 03/2013, Opensource-DVD), thus there are also more Windows and Mac users.

Several specialized magazines have reported about Kid3 (e.g. c’t 9/2005, 13/2008, 5/2010, 26/2012, c’t kompakt 2/2010, EasyLinux 2/2008, 1/2013 (rating: 5 of 5 stars), PC-WELT 02/2012), search on Heise Online for arcticles in c't. Kid3 is also mentioned in books such as the Ubuntu Linux Bible (p. 496), Michael Koffler - Linux das umfassende Handbuch (p. 313). These are German magazines and books, I do not know about magazines in other languages, but there are for example articles in the Italian PC Professionale and the English Wired.

There are also quite a few reviews about Kid3 on the web:

Kid3, Editor di Tag ID3 e Nomi di Files non Solo di MP3
Taggare velocemente un album con Kid3
Linux MP3 tag editors- a review
Kid3, un editor de etiquetas ID3 multiplataforma
A great mp3 tag editor (Kid3)
Kid3 (mac.informer)
How To Install Kid3 2.3 On Ubuntu 13.10, 13.04, 12.10, 12.04 And Linux Mint 15, 14, 13
ID3 completo en MP3
KDE ID3 Audio Tag Editor Software Review
Kid3 (Ubuntubond)
Put the right tag to your MP3 – Kid3
Edit the tags in your audio collection with Kid3
Kid3: A Great ID3 Tag Editor for KDE Linux
Kid3 (ubuntuusers)
Create Custom Playlists And Tag Music Albums With One Click Using Kid3
Editando rapidamente informações em arquivos MP3
Kid3 Tag Editor (chip.de)
Kid3 Semi-Automatic Audio File Tagger
Kid3 (heise.de)
Tag your music the right way with Kid3
Kid3 2.0 Rilasciato! Ecco come installarlo su Linux
Kid3 – Audio-Tag-Editor mit Internet-Anbindung (from EasyLinux 1/2013)
Nachregeln (from EasyLinux 2/2008)
Kid3 (mpex.net)
Kid3 (netzwelt.de)
Ist erste Wahl für das Bearbeiten von ID3-Tags (opensource-dvd)
Tags bewerken: Kid3
Kid3 compie 10 anni ed è sempre più automatico (PC Professionale)
Musica Maestro! Strumenti Open Source per professionisti e appassionati (PC Professionale)
20 unbekannte Software-Perlen (PC Welt)
Conheça e instale o KID3 no Ubuntu, Linux Mint, OpenSuse, Fedora e outros!
Kid3 (Shareware.de)
Kid3 (Softpedia)
Kid3 – opensource ID tagger to edit mp3 & other media files
Modificar un mp3 facil
Best Free MP3 Tag Editor
Tom's Definitive Linux Software Roundup: Audio Apps
Get Your MP3 Tags in Order (Wired)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ufleisch (talk • contribs) 04:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added bibliography and references to proof notability. - Ufleisch (talk) 14:00, 5 January (CET) —Preceding undated comment added 13:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Urs, Thanks for your contribution.

Gene93k, can an will you give an consideration whether the contribution is sufficient.

Kid3 is a reliable maintained program like Easytag. See http://kid3.sourceforge.net/

Please advise if anything is missing.

It is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals.
I used the Style guide for software like Easytag.

Please advise if the structure is not correct according to the guidelines of Wikipedia.

I added anonymous Kid3 three years ago to the Tag_editor page. Apparently removed because no sequel page existed on Wikipedia.

--Toon van Gerwen (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are sources that verify that the software exists, but not necessarily that it is notable. I suggest you read WP:RS and remove any sources on this list that do not meet the criteria of being independent, reliable, subject to editorial oversight, not self-published, etc. Wired would be a reliable source.- Mr X 14:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list above is not filtered, but I have added the reliable sources to Kid3#Bibliography and Kid3#External links. Is this sufficient? --Ufleisch (talk) 15:59, 5 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. Accidentally created copy of an AfC draft not (yet) meant for publication. Huon (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Osiris Number 432[edit]

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

This is just pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo about astrology based on sources with no credibility whatsoever. Pichpich (talk) 16:04, 3 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 20:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caffè![edit]

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

Cant see this as being notable: ceratinly no reference to assert notability. I suspect this is promotional, first edit by new user TheLongTone (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Could probably be speedied. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced product article of unclear notability. A search revealed no significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 19:10, 4 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) 00:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Health information on Wikipedia[edit]

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

This is an article on ourselves. We have an irreconcilable conflict of interest in writing it; WP:NPOV can never truly be satisfied. I'm sure similar articles exist on other aspects of Wikipedia's merits, and they should all be deleted for the same reason. Mangoe (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As long as the article reports what secondary sources have said there is no problem. A quick glance at the footnotes show this is considered a serious (notable) topic by many people not involved in WP. And not everyone who edits WP is pro-WP. This and most of our desire to be fair should take care of POV problems. Borock (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Make that: "the desire of most of us to be fair..." Borock (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The secondary sources in the article show the notability of the topic and also provide a foundation for writing the article. There is nothing inherent in Wikipedia topics that prevent well-balanced articles from being written based on independent reliable sources. Conflict of interest is usually about financial interest; but most WP editors are volunteers and many are anonymous to boot. See Wikipedia for an example of an article on us that strives to be balanced. It's not perfect, but is far from an untamed self-love fest. --Mark viking (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just need to be careful. We also have an article on Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep the conflict of interest isn't a reason for deletion, and the idea that most editors who edit articles about Wikipedia do so in a positive manner is perhaps a bit naive.AioftheStorm (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. I think it is snowing. This is an excellent article that fully meets our policies and guidelines. Whether wikipedia is reliable as a source on health matters is something that readers want to know about. We can provide that information and we do so in this article. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia and some of its content is now so prominent as to be independently notable. There has been chat in the press about the health content (including the recent discussion about a medical disclaimer). That makes the subject inherently notable. Ideally we should be using secondary sources, but there are not many of them available. JFW | T@lk 22:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the discussion on a health disclaimer? I think that's a great idea. Borock (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nomination statement/justification is completely impractical. Ignore the Wikipedia context for a moment - "This is an article on ourselves. We have an irreconcilable conflict of interest in writing it; WP:NPOV can never truly be satisfied." That's exactly equivalent to a justification for stating US citizens have a COI in editing United States. Or, in complete generality (and in a nutshell), members of a particular group have a COI with articles on that group. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is not a proscribed topic. Thanks for creating this, Bluerasberry. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 8 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) 00:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peercoin[edit]

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

References do not show notability according to wikipedia standards. Minor mentions in large lists of coins, non-independent and non-reliable sources HoopJumper (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ars Technica, MIT Technology Review and Wired are three citations from the article that address Peercoin (or PPCoin, as it was once known) directly, and in detail. They're independent secondary sources, and seem to be reliable. Some of the content in the article may need to be better sourced (or removed), but the article itself seems to pretty clearly meet GNG. Breadblade (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject has coverage in independent and reliable sources, namely Breadblade's listed sources, and others (such as New York Times Dealbook and Equities). While it's true that many sources list Peercoin only in passing, but it is still a major point in several sources regarding cryptocurrencies in general. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OneGuy (talk)
Weak Keep There are clearly well respected sources as listed above by Breadblade as well as what seems to be a bit of academic notability (even if the author had a hand in it), but this is barely enough for me to vote in favor of keeping this article. If we can find more sources, it's good to go. Citation Needed | Talk 17:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 23:17, 7 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Cumming[edit]

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

Uncontested prod deleted, then restored on request (User_talk:GB_fan#deleting_Tim_Cumming_wiki_page); I have no problem discussing this here. So, to reiterate: biography (likely, WP:AUTOBIO) of a British poet. As written, fails WP:ARTIST requirement for inclusion in our project. The only reference is to a publisher website. Author/subject makes numerous claims of notability, but has not provided any citations to back his claim. Google search by me failed to locate any significant treatment of a subject other than short biographies on pages of the publisher and minor cultural institutions. Google Books confirms he has published several books but I am not seeing any discussion of him as a subject. I am open to anyone finding and presenting sources that will show he passes notability - it would be nice to save this entry, but, as written right now, it does not pass, and I am unable to locate any sources to rescue it myself. PS. The subject has added more references the the article, comments about their quality would be appreciated. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't honestly think it's worth sorting through the puffery to determine how much of it is total promotion and how much is valid. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TC: Citations added include reviews from Magma and (in Salt Authors page) from Poetry London, two major UK poetry journals. Reliable and independent. Plus retrieved Evening Standard full-page review of Hawkwind Do Not Panic by Pete Clark, from 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.197.29 (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll ping User:DGG, maybe he can offer some help. I am not familiar with what constitutes a reliable source in poetry reviews outside mainstream press and academic journals, neither of which seem present (some of the subject's work did appear in the mainstream press, but as a primary source; and not every journalist who writes for The Guardian or BBC is notable, neither). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TC: In terms of contemporary poetry, Magma and Poetry London are, for the UK, two of the leading mainstream journals, alongside PN Review and Poetry Review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.197.29 (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete Probably Not yet notable. Is there evidence for the importance of Magma poetry ? The review is by a poet even less well known than Cumming. We normally judge poets and short story writers who do not produce works as extensive as books by inclusion in major anthologies--his work has been in some minor ones. His own books are in almost no libraries. His video on Harkwind for BBC has not gotten significant distribution & is not included in our article on them. . He conducts a BBC series of interview/discussions, but we have consistently said such are not notable unless they receive major notice. His paintings have received no notice except by himself on his own program. DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DGG you're quite wrong there is whole paragraph about the hawkwind film for the BBC in the wiki hawkwind entry. It is not widely distributed because it has not been released as a DVD, but I was told by the BBC music dept that it gained the highest audience rating for a BBC4 music doco on first showing in 2007. As for anthologies, Identity Parade, in which I have six poems, was the first major new anthology of British and irish poetry since the early 1990s, and the same publisher, Bloodaxe's, The New Poetry. Also published in three editions of The Forward Book of Poetry, the UK's annual anthology of the best of the year's poems, including the Poems of the Decade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.197.76 (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy echo User:DGG.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Many new refs have been added by the subject: [4]. I am afraid, however, that they still seem to fail the mainstream / independent / mentioning in more then passing requirement. Perhaps a poetry expert would like to comment, particularly on "Magma and Poetry London are, for the UK, two of the leading mainstream journals, alongside PN Review and Poetry Review" statement? This discussion was already listed on the "list of Poetry-related deletion discussion", although I don't know if this project is active enough to monitor this list...? I'll go and leave a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry talk page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:42, 11 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 20:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1.800.Vending[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Company appears to fail WP:CORP. Recently material was removed, but I think it was justifiable. It was mainly primary sources and government records. Some of the removed material wasn't even about this company. 2 previous AfD's were no consensus closures that were almost cut and paste discussions by the same editors. The fact that the company exists isn't in question. the notability, however, is questionable to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. The article does not now, nor did it previously have any quality secondary sources. I did a quick Google News search and also found none. The article should be deleted for notability, but even if the topic was notable, it could be deleted for lack of WP:V. The article has been AfD nominated twice previously, but none of the Keep votes actually provided sources for V & CORP or a policy-based argument. CorporateM (Talk) 14:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've reviewed the longer entry. Outside of a claim by Connectiticut Department of Banking, nothing suggest coverage in independent, reliable sources, and one government complaint (which apparently wasn't important to be picked up by press, or at least no other sources are presented) does not make a company notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Before the article was stubbed, there were already no verifiable sources indicating notability, and searching turns up nothing outside of user-submit business complaint websites. Based on previous AfDs I tried to look up what the supposed fraud was that was supposed to have been notable, but didn't find anything at all. As it is now, this is just not quite a speedy A7. Ivanvector (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP....William 01:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP and non-trivial coverage does not exist. - tucoxn\^talk 23:06, 6 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lazers (band)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BAND Cheers AKS 13:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete – Though vague assertions of notability are made, it's completely void of any source or suggestion that this is the case. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 14:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lazers confortred my husband before and after his surgery. I will remake the page again if its deleted. I won't let you forget about them. You would only know them if you were of New England. DO NOT DELETE. They are well known new englanders. If you aren't in new england, you wouldn't know them. That don't matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karknocker2 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero notability. Article and article creator even admit this. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find anything other than Facebook and MySpace pages for this group. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Valenciano (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: I am, in fact, a lifelong resident of New England, and I've never heard of these nonentities. While that's no part of notability criteria, that no one else has ever heard of this ephemeral garage band and that they fail WP:BAND going away is. Since the SPA has kindly informed us of her intent to defy Wikipedia policy and remake the article indefinitely, I recommend we salt the article as well. If the SPA wishes to commemorate the group, I suggest she put up a MySpace page. Ravenswing 18:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No claim of notability provided ("confortred my husband before and after his surgery" is not a reason why a band should have a Wikipedia article), and no reliable sources cited. If and when they accomplish something that would get them past WP:NMUSIC, then maybe they can have an article — but as of right now, delete and salt. Bearcat (talk) 07:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NO PLEASE DONT DELETE! You people don't even care. I will just recreate The Lazers page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karknocker2 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe you're the one who doesn't get it here: we have rules, and we have ways of stopping you from breaking them. So no, you won't "just recreate the page" — and the onus is not on us to "care" about your personal interests, either, but on you to demonstrate their notability properly via the use of reliable sources. If it's really so critically important to you that they have a Wikipedia article, then surely it's worth investing a bit of time into learning how to write an article that would actually pass our inclusion rules. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are ruining my life. People don't understand this kind of yogurt like i do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karknocker2 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 14:12, 8 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. Guerillero | My Talk 06:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radmilo Armenulić[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTENNIS and hence should be deleted. Cheers AKS 13:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Silvana Armenulić. Article on his wife. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Radmilo Armenulić was the Yugoslav Davis Cup coach for 17 years and three months (1979-1997). According to some findings, he remained at that position more than any other coach in tennis history. --Svetisrdj (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Radmilo Armenulić trained a generation of very talented players: Bruno Orešar, Goran Prpić, Slobodan Živojinović, Goran Ivanišević. --Svetisrdj (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dont delete This person is quite known, and article can be expanded a lot, not to mention other interesting facts about him. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 21:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure what is the OP's reading about WP:NTENNIS (and it's just a guideline), but if its point 2 says "Have competed in one of the international team competitions: Fed Cup, Davis Cup,...", common sense says that it should apply to a 17-times coach as well. A simple Google search shows a plenty of RS, chiefly in Serbian [5], and that includes full features [6][7], and his short statements were even quoted in TIME [8] and Herald Sun [9]. No such user (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:No such user - subject of the article seems to meet the WP:GNG. Sources are not required to be in English. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:52, 12 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. Arguments on both sides are pretty feeble, and boil down to "It's just not notable" vs. "Other stuff exists". No prejudice against relisting quickly if someone wants to make some policy based arguments. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2005–06 Copa Catalunya[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:GNG. - Mr X 12:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable season, doesn't merit a separate article. Giant Snowman 18:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Normal season article. Another seasons are: 2010–11 Copa Catalunya, 2012–13 Copa Catalunya, 2013–14 Copa Catalunya. It is a very strange to delete one season article and keep all another. NickSt (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. None of the individual seasons appear notable. Where is your evidence of notability? Giant Snowman 12:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EANP. All seasons are notable. Famous clubs, Barcelona and Espanyol, took part in it. NickSt (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to prove notability using reliable sources. Just because famous clubs are involved does not make it notable, notability is not inherited. Giant Snowman 18:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Nick. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:17, 12 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. Guerillero | My Talk 06:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

F1 Exhaust Note[edit]

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

Another one. Appears Non notable from a Google search, with a dodgy tone. Would tag A7, but not sure if this is eligible as it isn't web content... --Mdann52talk to me! 08:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC) --Mdann52talk to me! 08:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is, possibly. Since this game little popular or something, it went through a pressure that talks about the F1 racing event. Although, it's not officially licensed to F1 Association for this game alone much else. I searched it from Google and System16, the arcade encyclopedia that was friendly, can be found [10] as well as, IT'S INFORMATIVE. So, there you have it. --The Game Expert (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: A while ago, I'd upload some pictures that it was taken in other websites for this game to create more signs of an article. And yes, it was very successful, since Thrill Drive. Later, I'll gonna put more pictures that are safe and non-violatable. So, that's my comment. If you want to share your comment, then that's should be fine if you have on your minds. Thanks!!! --The Game Expert (talk) 14:34, 23 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) 19:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing there is both significant coverage and reliable sources. I thought for a while that the Killer List of Videogames was - but unfortunately, re-checking both the Wikipedia entry and their acceptable use policy the content appears to be user-submitted. As I said for the F1 Superlap discussion, we need in depth coverage in reliable sources. And there doesn't appear to be any. Delete as of now with a hope that there's something like magazines from when the game was actually current. Neonchameleon (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus for Killer List of Videogames to be considered a reliable source for Arcade games and it has been used in FAs. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. That's one source. One more needed. Neonchameleon (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the change. There are magazine reviews about this game. And I'd recently advised that you should look at the CVG Magazine review. Those magazine reviews about this game can be seen on System16 where they found out of those... And look for google images about this. --The Game Expert (talk) 08:24, 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, Sandstein 12:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the only review listed by System 16 (as mentioned above by Game Expert), and appears to be the most in-depth coverage the game has received, which really isn't saying much. There is a page on SegaRetro (also a wiki), which has very little information. It seems there is little if any potential for this article beyond a basic description of the game's properties - to my mind, the game does not satisfy general notability. --quantumobserver ^position momentum _{entanglements} 21:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No deletion and keep, for one thing. I'd add one more exterminal link that it would like to have notability and so on. And yes, just one thing, there's a trivia from Micheal Jackson ( Well, we know that he died already in the past years and he's one of the most entertaining and most superb singer of the world, in the Black American culture.), he owned this game much and recently to be played always. By the next years, his dedicated machine was already exhibited or sold from Micheal Jackson's Auction at April 4, 2009. That's one of it. I'll add more if I can catch up there. --The Game Expert (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per the The Game Expert. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the last discussion. Later on, I'll notably finish the AfD or Articles for Deletion discussion for this article. For those Wikipedia user who are not yet been added to this topic and who are interested to this game, for 2 days, I would close the discussion insteadly and I'll gonna get the result of this article to be nominated as a readable article without speedy deletions at the moment. And there's no need to get well-explained why this article should be closed in AfD. --The Game Expert (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have written the article, contributed to the discussion and are not an Administrator. Therefore, you are not really able to Close it. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:51, 6 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 based on concerns regarding the reliability of sourcing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hidayat hussain[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biography. The subject's claim to fame seems to be his past position as Registrar of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. A Google search turns up several other Hidayat Hussain's of varying notability. The article fails WP:BIO. - Mr X 12:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 12:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have held several very senior positions in the Pakistani civil service. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 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, Sandstein 20:19, 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 06:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why we need a relist after just 4 days... this is the second one of these I've come across recently, but I'll leave this one alone as I'm WP:INVOLVED in the discussion. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 07:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nobody seems to be able to come up with sources, so fails WP:GNG and even WP:V. --Randykitty (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, an editor above has opined that this person "appears" to have held senior positions. Unfortunately, we cannot verify this due to lack of reliable sources. It is possible that additional sources exist in Urdu which I cannot find, if such sources are found please disregard this !vote. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Am I the only person here who bothers to comply with WP:BEFORE? You do not !vote to delete something unless you have looked for sources. Hidayat Hussain, Registrar of the Supreme Court of Pakistan: Annual Report of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, 2003, p 144. Hidayat Hussain, Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Law: World of Islam Today, a report of the National Institute of Historical & Cultural Research, 1981, p 54. He (assuming it is the same person) might satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, on either account, as a politician or judge, depending on what "national office" means. James500 (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Delete It could be the case that the subject is notable, but the sources on which to base such an article are elusive. With current material being insufficient, we unfortunately don't have much on which to base the article. ~~Therefore, the current content needs paring down in order to satisfy WP:V.~~ -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 06:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Revising this to delete because it's unclear who the subject is or whether sources relate to the same subject, e.g. economic-review.com.pk has an article by "Hidayat Hussain is the Head of the Economic Services/ Business Suppport Office of the Pakistan France Business Alliance (PFBA)" published on 02 October 2013, which is after the death date claimed in the current article. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 07:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the state it's in, we cannot possibly keep a BLP like that. Strongly support recreating with proper sourcing though. I nearly actually closed this as "Delete but anyone is welcome to recreate an article with sources, but we cannot leave an unsourced BLP sitting there like this", but I realised that no-one had said that so I wasn't really evaluating consensus by doing so! :) Daniel (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the subject (according to what seems to be WP:OR in the current article) is apparently deceased anyway! -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 07:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BLP's of those recently deceased still affect the living relatives and friends of the individual. I believe this exact point is included in the policy. Daniel (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct about what WP:BDP says, but no contentious or questionable material with implications for others seems to be included in this case. (Sorry for the digression.) -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When veriable assertions are made about the biographical content this article (as the subject is no longer living) we can keep. Writings by the subject in their role as a clerk for the court does not encourage me to think this is notable. Hasteur (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me that the 2003 annual report of the Supreme Court of Pakistan was written by Hidayat Hussain. What it contains is a list of former registrars with their dates of appointmentand retirement which includes a person called "Hidayat Hussain". There is no question of suggesting that the Supreme Court do not know who their registrar was or that the report isn't sufficient confirmation. Another list of chief judges, judges and registrars was published by the government in 2010. These documents are available in pdf and come up in Google searches. Whether a registrar of the Supreme Court of Pakistan is thereby ipso facto notable depends on how you construe WP:POLITICIAN, which unfortunately is not written in language that makes intelligible sense. James500 (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete being Registrar of the Supreme Court of Pakistan does not grant automatic notability. There is simply a lack of third party sources about this individual. LibStar (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the post that makes him notable. It's being secretary of four different government ministries. But I agree the lack of sourcing is a concern. Sadly rather common on articles about people from outside Western Europe, North America and Australasia, however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I agree with comments above to the effect that, due to inadequate sourcing, this article should, as it stands, be blown up, whether its subject (or subjects) is (or are) notable or not. James500 (talk) 15:54, 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. Sandstein 20:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HorrorNews.net[edit]

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

Completely non-notable website. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that this website has made any historical impact / been given any well-known and independent awards per WP:NWEB, or has otherwise fulfilled the general notability guideline. Having hosted Jesse Ventura and Austin Idol does not confer notability onto the website . I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I like the website and I've used them as a reliable source in the past quite often, but the thing is that being a RS doesn't guarantee notability. In this case I can't see where the website has gained any coverage to merit a keep. It's known and respected in the horror field- you'll find its review blurbs on many DVD packages and whatnot, but the problem here is that it hasn't actually gained any coverage. Popularity/awareness isn't the same thing as coverage that'd pass WP:NWEB. If anyone wanted to userfy the content then that would be nice, but I don't know if/when this will ever pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:20, 4 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 Slim Burna by User:Deb. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Burna car accident[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Non-fatal auto accident even with a celebrity involved is not notable. ...William 11:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William 11:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions....William 11:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Slim Burna, where the accident is covered. (I have done the same with Car accident of Slim Burna.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect done - it's a duplicate article, so there's no controversy. Deb (talk) 12:20, 3 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 Ernő Gerő. Uncontroversial post-merge redirect. (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 21:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerő interregnum[edit]

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

Article has been merged with Ernő Gerő. Noodleki (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest Redirect instead of deletion. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Usually a merger is followed by a redirect of the merged article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:20, 3 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.

Keep as a redirect: they are harmless. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) buff bills 7701 01:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Franciszek Malinowski (activist)[edit]

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

Violates WP:POLITICIAN. Should be deleted. Cheers AKS 11:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Polish Wikipedia article describes the person as one of the leading politicians in the KPP ranks. - Darwinek (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Entry in PSB: User:Piotrus/List_of_Poles/Majnert-Michiels. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:59, 4 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) 00:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Franciszek Malinowski (journalist)[edit]

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

Does not comply with WP:AUTHOR. Should be deleted. Cheers AKS 11:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:BEFORE, Section C2, this was nominated way too soon, on the same day it was created. — Wylie pedia 13:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, before nominating for AfD, I checked for this person on internet and could not find any credible reason for qualification on WP:N. Waiting would not have served any purpose. Thanks for pointing out anyways. Cheers AKS 14:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that is because he was an 82-year-old Polish journalist, whose works could probably only be found in print or on a library shelf. — Wylie pedia 19:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The person was awarded one of the highest civil orders of the Republic of Poland. - Darwinek (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course this article must be kept. There is no justification for nominating this article for deletion and the editor who nominated this article for deletion gave none. Such hasty frivolous nominations for deletion are nothing but disruptive editing. They should be examined and editors who are seen to indulge in them too often should be warned. Contact Basemetal here 09:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. We seem to be evolving a rule that recipients of the Order of Polonia Restituta are notable. If there are sources... why not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep obviously notable subject, I echo Basemetal about the frivolousness of noms like these. Cavarrone 20:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course recipients of one of a country's highest honours are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 8 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 19:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Yager[edit]

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

On notability grounds. This is the third nomination - both previously were no-consensus although I think the dominant view was delete. MMA fighter with only two top tier fights, both losses. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Fails WP:NMMA and should've been deleted twice already. Into the Rift (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable MMA fighter.Jakejr (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 08:04, 5 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. Guerillero | My Talk 06:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Kadau[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable editor at Mad Magazine. References and coverage are trivial mentions of editor, not in-depth articles about the individual. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi. And thanks for this discussion. First let me just say why I created the page, perhaps it has no place in this discussion, and if so, please tell me, since it is one of the factors I use when looking for ways to add to Wikipedia. I created the page because Charlie is referenced in at least 2 other Wikipedia pages, and I felt it would benefit the site to have an actual link to those references. Second, I'd like to address the comment regarding him being not notable. Other than John Ficarra, Charlie and his writing partner, Joe Raiola are the two longest lasting editors at MAD. Charlie has almost half again as many contributions to the magazine as Joe (although Joe has several other significant contributions outside MAD, which Charlie lacks). Third, let me discuss the citations. Not going to argue the fact that the articles are not in-depth about Charlie, but they are accurate and credible, which is what I was going for.

If you don't agree with my arguments, and intend to delete the article, might I suggest that you leave it up for a few weeks. I'll be trying to find better sources to augment it. Regardless, I really appreciate your input, I'm new at this and trying to find my way so I can make valid contributions. Onel5969 (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. One other thing, when reviewing Wikipedia's Notability Guideline, I would posit that Charlie meets the "additional criteria" for creative people in reference to numbers 1 & 3 in that list: Charlie is regarded as an important person in the eyes of his peers, and he is one of the largest contributors to the body of work known as MAD magazine. Onel5969 (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Consider this a bit of a combination of WP:IAR and WP:AUTHOR. I looked for, but could not find the usual significant coverage that would be needed to support notability. On the other hand, point #3 for creative professionals indicate that people who have a major role in the creation of a well-known collective body of work that has coverage does qualify. I think MAD magazines certainly qualifies as such a body of work, and Kadau's position(s) at the magazine over a long period of time can be verified. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Co-creator of a body of work, significant role. -- GreenC 05:43, 14 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. Guerillero | My Talk 06:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Mathias[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter Peter Rehse (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet notability criteria for MMA, kickboxing, or general notability since the only source is a link to his MMA record.Jakejr (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 08:04, 5 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1946 in China[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:ISNOT. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:51, 3 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 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1933 in China[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:35, 3 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 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1901 in Argentina[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:41, 3 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 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1895 in Brazil[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:37, 3 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 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1885 in Argentina[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:40, 3 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 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1883 in Argentina[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:41, 3 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 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1882 in Argentina[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:41, 3 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 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1879 in Chile[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:33, 3 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 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1876 in Argentina[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:42, 3 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 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1872 in Argentina[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:41, 3 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 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1865 in Argentina[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:41, 3 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 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1864 in Argentina[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:41, 3 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 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1938 in China[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:ISNOT. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1937 in China[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTDIR. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1922 in China[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTDIR. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1944 in Japan[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTDIR. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1943 in Japan[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTDIR. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1927 in China[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTDIR. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1937 in Japan[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTDIR. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1931 in Japan[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1934 in Japan[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1877 in Argentina[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1878 in Argentina[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1875 in Argentina[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1869 in Argentina[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1867 in Argentina[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1866 in Argentina[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1900 in Argentina[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1899 in Argentina[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1871 in Argentina[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1870 in Argentina[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1918 in Italy[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category should be considered. Cheers AKS 08:30, 3 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 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1884 in Argentina[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1881 in Argentina[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1927 in Japan[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1879 in Argentina[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1918 in Japan[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1919 in Japan[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1892 in Brazil[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1932 in Bolivia[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2007 in Europe[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Valid list. Carrite (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2008 in Europe[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Valid list. Carrite (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 in Ukraine[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1891 in Chile[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1880 in Chile[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1934 in China[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1934 in Bolivia[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1945 in China[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1813 in Spain[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1810 in Spain[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category may be considered. Cheers AKS 08:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1812 in Spain[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category should be considered. Cheers AKS 08:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1915 in Italy[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category should be considered. Cheers AKS 08:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1914 in Japan[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category should be considered. Cheers AKS 08:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1932 in Paraguay[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category should be considered. Cheers AKS 08:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1872 in Bolivia[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category should be considered. Cheers AKS 08:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1871 in Bolivia[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category should be considered. Cheers AKS 08:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1916 in Italy[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Instead of an article, a category should be considered. Cheers AKS 08:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1916 in Romania[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Cheers AKS 08:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1917 in Romania[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Cheers AKS 08:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1873 in Argentina[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Cheers AKS 08:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Years in Malaysia[edit]

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

Article does not have any content of its own and is merely a catalogue. Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. Cheers AKS 08:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the dozens of discussions this user has opened should be closed as disruptive. Make a proposal somewhere for mass-deletion of country by year articles. Don't pollute the deletion area to make your point. Stratham14 (talk) 18:30, 3 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. Sandstein 20:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J.P. Calderon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Calderon has very little notability, even on Survivor (I don't even remember him). He played volleyball in college, participated on a popular game show, posed for a magazine, and models for an agency. None of these things by themselves constitute enough notability for the encyclopedia. He hasn't had a significant impact in any of these areas. He's just another guy with a successful career. His article needs to go very quickly.Survivorfan1995 (talk) 07:57, 3 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 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, many sources exist and he has been interviewed a dozen times. Getting media coverage over many years should just about be enough. Sportfan5000 (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All but one of the sources are clearly WP:PRIMARY and unhelpful in establishing notability. The one seeming exception is the Windy City Media Group article but on closer reading, it's clearly interview, not an independent article. It basically only repeats the subject's own words verbatim and contains essentially nothing of the author's own thoughts necessary to make it WP:SECONDARY, meaning it's still primary and still unhelpful in establishing notability. Googling turned up nothing else that seemed helpful. Msnicki (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Calderon's announcement that he was gay caused a media buzz which cemented his notability. He was the cover story of Instinct magazine in February 2007. Yahoo News reported on the Instinct magazine revelation. Edge Los Angeles also reported on the Instinct magazine feature. Of course, the gay media were much more interested in this story! Gay South Florida (a part of the Miami Herald) reported on the gay announcement in a story taken from Towleroad.com. Here's the Towleroad piece. Windy City Media Group published a piece on him. Oh La La magazine published an interview. Edge Boston republished a piece taken from The Dallas Voice. BE magazine published a biography and interview. Of course, CBS has a biography. Instinct magazine continues to report on his life as late as October 2013. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CBS is obviously reliable, but it's not WP:INDEPENDENT. Interviews may also be reliable but unless the interviewer offer his own thoughts – which is rare in interview pieces generally and does not appear in any of the intervews offered here – they're WP:PRIMARY. The Gay South Florida mention is just that, a mention, and little more than a link Instinct magazine's photo shoot. The rest just don't appear to me to clear the bar as WP:RELIABLE. It doesn't appear to me that Edge Boston, Edge Los Angeles (note the redlinks) and Instinct magazine have the required established reputations for fact-checking and editorial control to qualify as reliable sources. To me, they look more like simple tabloids. The only article I think might qualify is the Windy City Media article and even that seems weak to me insofar as it appears to a blog post, not an editorially-reviewed article. Msnicki (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep per GNG. Frietjes (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this was one of 7 drive by comments all with the same comment. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] - Gloss • talk 16:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

then, keep per Binksternet's very well presented arguments. see ad hominem. Frietjes (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think Binksternet has presented the case very well indeed, and can't really add any more to what they say. Mabalu (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, are we missing a 3rd previous nomination for this article? It says this is nomination no 4.... Mabalu (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. P. Calderon, found it. Mabalu (talk) 16:56, 8 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 20:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XPuyoPuyo[edit]

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

There is insufficient outside information about this game. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 07:49, 3 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) 15:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I hate deleting articles about open source software, without some reliable sources to prove significance, this doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Perhaps it could get a brief mention in another article, like Puyo Puyo (video game) or Tile-matching video game, but probably not an article of its own. Novusuna ^talk 22:15, 3 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) 00:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Spielmann[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BLP. The mentioned award itself is not notable. Cheers AKS 07:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:ACADEMIC#1, stellar citation data (over 11,000 citations and an h-index of 48). Award is indeed not notable, but who cares with this kind of citation evidence. Given his standing, finding more sources should be possible and expansion of this too-small stub is highly desirable. --Randykitty (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. A totally misguided and time wasting nomination. A trout for the nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. Fine, the consensus can be otherwise but it cannot be termed as trout. Before you get judgemental & personal, I strongly suggest that you a) Check the time stamp of the nomination and what state the article was in (no in use tag) b) AfD discussion page from any day and how many nominations are voted as Keep. No one gets personal there and c) Other editing work that I have done that has positively contributed to Wikipedia. Please refrain from using such harsh language. You are making this sound as if every nomination should result into a delete - else its a waste of time???? I don't think so. Cheers AKS 06:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- No, what he is saying that its a waste of time to nominate an article without looking into GS first. And no one denies that you have many positive contributions, besides nominations. Not to mention, no one is being harsh, some folks just got annoyed that every time someone writes a BLP article, the user is greeted with Speedy deletion or PROD. My advice, check GS, then if in doubt PROD it, no one will just you if you will follow this simple rule: GS first; nomination second. :)--Mishae (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Thanks Mishae. As I stated earlier, at the time of nomination, the article had only one line, making it difficult for anyone to determine notability + the article did not have in use tag, which the author should have placed if the article was under development. I am sure you will agree with me that the responsibility of writing an article correctly and fully lies with the author and not on the person patrolling it / nominating it. Having said that, I would also like to mention that this nomination was not done randomly; but yes, we all can still be more cautious in the future. What I did not appreciate is Xxanthippe getting personal with this issue (check my talkpage). If a process can be improved, one can be told politely (like you did, which was well received). And we all, being experienced editors have to accept the fact that not every nomination will result into page deletion - that's the whole point of having layers of reviews, editors and independent views. Over an above everything, your suggestion very well taken and in future I will be more cautious of this. Discussions have and will take place. Thanks for your time. Cheers AKS 08:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong about the fact that the 1 line article and the absence of an "in use" tage justified an AfD. To start with, the 1 line contained enough sourced information to immediately see that this is a very notable person. In addition, you are mistaken that it is not the nom's duty to check notability, see WP:BEFORE. Even if the stub had not been sourced correctly, you should have checked for notability before nominating it (and indeed wasting our time on an unnecessary nomination). I agree with Xxanthippe: this nomination deserves a trout. --Randykitty (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, incidentally just now I noticed a new page Rahul Trehan (A.A.P volunteer) and nominated it for Speedy deletion. Now, if I have to go by what I have been accused of, this page will stay on Wikipedia for weeks to come before someone deletes it. We must understand that the nominators are not the people increasing the work, it is the wrong articles that are increasing the workload. Cheers AKS 08:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I do think that the article should be kept, I think there is a certain amount of abuse of citation numbers going on in this discussion (and in the article as well), and the case for trouting does not seem so strong to me. In experimental physics, it is not unusual for hundreds of individuals to coauthor the same paper. In the first pages of results on Google scholar, he is not the primary author. Even so, he clearly does hold a respectable h-index even as a primary author, so I would grant him a pass under criterion 1 of WP:ACADEMIC. (However, I would remove the statement from the article about his Google scholar citation number as grossly misleading WP:OR. Search index results are not usually thought of as reliable sources for this very reason.) I agree that the awards are not significant enough to qualify as fulfilling criterion 2. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of coauthors have not contributed to the subject's papers. The largest number I can find is ten. The editor may be thinking of high energy groups, and the subject does not work in one. The pattern of coauthoship here is pretty standard for a laser optics group. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

- O.K. I removed the Original Research part (was bad on my part).--Mishae (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-reverted that. Getting citation data from performing a search and then hand tallying stuff is OR. However, in this case, we cite a Google Scholar profile, which has a stable URL and is not a search result. That is not OR at all. --Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but citation metrics, like h-index are constantly changing and depend upon the database used. We do not conventionally list such information in an article, unless the subject reaches some externally-recognized milestone, for example a WoS "highly cited researcher" (as in the case of Daniel D. Joseph). This sentence should probably be redacted. Agricola44 (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, this kind of information can be found in quite a few articles. And, yes, it changes from time to time. So do impact factors, but still we list them in journal articles and try to update all of them every year... In the present case, this is clearly sourced to GS, with a publicly accessible link, so I don't see the problem with citing it and mentioning it in the article. --Randykitty (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:ACADEMIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per stellar citation record. A complete failure of WP:BEFORE by the nom. -- 101.119.29.9 (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. To add to the overwhelming evidence above, WoS shows an h-index of 42 with citation counts: 1313, 654, 545, 519, 514,...The assessment seems conclusive. Perhaps the nom would consider withdrawing AfD to save others some time. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 21:34, 6 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. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 06:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Spirit Room (Fargo, North Dakota)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. Article written like advertisement. Cheers AKS 07:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—The fact that it reads like an ad can be fixed and is irrelevant for this discussion here. However, the other point remains; I can't find enough sources for this subject to establish notability per WP:GNG. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:15, 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, Guerillero | My Talk 06:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to meet WP:ORG at all. Only sources I could find are along the lines of their website, their facebook, listings on sites like foursquare, short mentions in blogs and a bunch of trivial mentions (such as a mention of an exhibit by an artist which happens to take place there) of which most (if not all, have not studied each and every one of them) would not have been useful even if they had been non-trivial as the places these trivial mentions are in tend to fail independent, reliable or both. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: seems to be utterly routine. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:17, 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. Guerillero | My Talk 06:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of S.L. Benfica founders[edit]

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

There is no evidence for their notability as a group to the extent that ist warrants a separate article, and its not a redirect anyone would look for. DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References are evidence and they are notable for founding S.L. Benfica. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article because this valuable information doesn't fit well in S.L. Benfica#Early years (1904–1950). BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NLIST failure, none of these people seem notable, being one of the (dozens of) founders of a football club does not inherently make one notable, even if the club is as big as Benfica -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think the info needs to be in S.L. Benfica#Early years (1904–1950) either. I don't think listing the names of every single founder member is encyclopedic, especially if that is all they are known for..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 08:15, 10 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. Sandstein 20:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yau-Man Chan[edit]

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

Not notable outside of Survivor. Fails WP:BLP1E. Gloss • talk 07:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I don't think BLP1E immediately works for reality TV stars, though I do agree that in general we should never presume that just being on reality TV is a reason to keep an article on one. There definitely can be more sourcing but knowing how he played in his original season, I suspect this shouldn't be too hard to find to justify why he was considered an atypical player for Survivor (age and smarts over brawn), and he has had post-Survivor career aspects. --MASEM (t) 07:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, he was very popular on Survivor and clearly has notability in table tennis. Therefore, BLP1E doesn't apply. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep per GNG. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this was one of 7 drive by comments all with the same comment. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] - Gloss • talk 16:23, 5 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) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Lyon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Neutral: Nominating on behalf of Survivorfan1995. Altamel (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Survivor: Palau: She's not really notable for anything beyond Survivor and wasn't even a notable contestant on the show. For the most part, she will only be remembered by hardcore fans of the show. So even though I don't really want to delete this article, it just doesn't meet the notability guidelines and needs to go :( Survivorfan1995 (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Suvivor fancruft. Toddst1 (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Survivor: Palau as subject has no notability outside of Survivor. Gloss • talk 05:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consensus was to keep in the 2010 AfD, five years after she was on the show. What has changed since then? A routine obituary in a hometown newspaper or two does not establish notability. Significant coverage of a person's death in reliable sources all across the U.S. is evidence of notability. There is far more coverage than now appears in the article. Also, she had roles in two Hollywood films, including a starring role in a horror film. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets our inclusion guideline WP:N. There are a number of sources which solely cover her found in the article (including People). I don't see how this is debatable. That much (though certainly not all) of the coverage came after she died isn't relevant--there is clearly coverage in multiple reliable sources in the article. Hobit (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PerWP:N JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Survivor: Palau ukexpat (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many reliable sources discuss her life. Here are a bunch of sources not currently used in the article: TV Guide obit, Access Hollywood obit, New York Daily News obit, USA Today obit, CBS obit, and the Huffington Post obit. The sources which are used in the article (People magazine, US magazine, etc.) already establish notability per WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets the WP:GNG in terms of significant coverage in reliable sources. Why is this even here at all, much less for a third time? --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:N --Greenmaven (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, as this is not fancruft; there are many reliable sources about the subject. Epicgenius (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Judging by the RS, her celebrity was quite evidently extended beyond her appearance on the show. WP:GNG --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As Binksternet has shown, there are more sources besides those already in the article. I'm no fan of reality TV celebs but the letter of the law is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and this has been demonstrated. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per notability guidelines, the death was much notable and was on behalf in Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains finale. ApprenticeFan ^work 01:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep per GNG. Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this was one of 7 drive by comments all with the same comment. [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] - Gloss • talk 16:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the user has been editing regularly for three years. What are you implying? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as obviously notable. The first AFD 7 years ago was a slam-dunk delete, but the second one 4 years ago was resoundingly a keep. Survivorfan1995 (talk · contribs) also deleted these links to her article without explanation: The Dalles template:Survivor February 27 death January 19 birth Survivor photo caption breast cancer patients people from Nevada. These changes were apparently in good faith—though ignorant of procedure. I have reverted the first one and people from Nevada, but not the others. —EncMstr (talk) 00:23, 8 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 speedily deleted by Rmhermen. (non-admin closure) Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 11:15, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

Alicia St. Rose[edit]

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

I'm not finding much on Alicia St. Rose. It appears she pursued her art career until about 2007 (it doesn't look like there have been updates since then) and about that time was doing web design and content management, leveraging her fine art studies. She does wonderful work, but it does not seem that there's enough information to prove notability. She's not in AskArt, books, news, HighBeam, other notability links and could not find enough good reliable sources to build an article. There were 117 readers of her page in the past 30 days. Perhaps her career just needs to advance a bit more. CaroleHenson (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Speedy candidate? Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tagged her as an A7 (Unremarkable person) for speedy. While I could have speedied it, I'll let another admin make the call. SarahStierch (talk) 03:41, 4 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. There seems to be an agreement that the subject of this article does not pass the GNG. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and I didn't place any weight in arguments based off of the idea that he might be a great NHL player in the future. Guerillero | My Talk 06:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Perlini[edit]

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

Non-notable junior league hockey player, fails the GNG (no sources which don't violate WP:ROUTINE or WP:GEOSCOPE) and the WP:NHOCKEY criteria. The article can always be recreated should the player, down the road, do any of the things which denote notability. Ravenswing 00:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nomination fails WP:BEFORE. This exceptional NHL prospect meets WP:GNG as demonstrated by the sources in the article and found with GNews and other search engines. Dolovis (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: That would be the "fails WP:ROUTINE" part; as you well know, routine sports coverage is debarred by WP:ROUTINE. The top hits for Perlini turn up various YouTube pages, hockey fansites, league websites, blogs and the like, but those don't satisfy the GNG. This teenager's putative promise as a NHL prospect runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL, of course -- sports fans can think of many a 17-year-old with glittering futures that never materialized. Ravenswing 08:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. No comment on this one, as I suspect that if Dolovis actually put some kind of effort into it, he might be able to find sources on this one. That he relies instead on peacock terms is a little troubling. Reso lute 01:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to suggest this player passes GNG upon doing a search for sources. -DJSasso (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Fails NHOCKEY today, though it looks like there could be some articles about him out there [31], [32], [33]. Patken4 (talk) 04:09, 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) 02:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also found these additional significant and independent sources [34] [35] which should put the issue of him meeting GNG to rest. Dolovis (talk) 23:09, 13 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 20:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madla (name)[edit]

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

An utterly useless name article. Hruza doesn't appear to be notable, and I can't find anything on the supposed film Madla sings Europe. The only legitimate entry appears to be Frank L. Madla, which, appropriately enough, isn't listed. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 27 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) 02:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – useless article, no encyclopaedic value. C 679 21:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The correct name of the film is Madla Sings to Europe (1940) and it is a very famous movie. There's also another Czech film - Madla z cihelny (1933) and play by Olga Scheinpflugová (spouse of Karel Čapek). I would say that Madla Vaculíková, wife of the writer Ludvík Vaculík, is a notable bearer of that name. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:23, 5 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. Sandstein 20:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sungenis[edit]

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

I believe this article fails WP:BIO. Sungenis is mainly active in promoting his own self-published books and going on promotional tours. He has a somewhat large internet presence, but no presence in reliable independent sources that are published by third parties. I think this lack of independent sources mean he probably does not deserve a Wikipedia article. jps (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete him! (per nom, etc.) DocumentError (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I count seven independent secondary sources in the citations currently provided, though a search through Google Books and Proquest news archive leaves me little doubt that this article could in time be expanded and improved considerably. His name comes up fairly regularly, often in connection with some of his more controversial views but also as part of exchanges with other active apologists. As far as general notability guidelines go, I believe this individual clearly passes.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mainly for the reasons given by CurtisNaito. As a personal disclaimer, I'm not a regular editor, but was looking for information on this man and found the page usefull (altough I guess that won't really count :P). He seems to be quite prominent in the geocentrism 'debate' and there is also a documentary scheduled to be released April 2014 based on his writings ("The Principle", or something like that).WijzeWillem (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:02, 28 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) 02:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable author on the Sola Scriptura from a Roman Catholic apologist perspective.[36] Has also entered into the creationism debate, among other things. As a side note it is the most "objective" (secular) article about him available anywhere, the alternatives are bios like this at Creation Wiki which of course contains no criticism. It would be a loss if the article was deleted though Sungenis would probably be delighted. -- GreenC 21:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. CurtisNaito makes a clear case. The article certainly stands to be improved. Reducing the biographical material would seem to be appropriate. But deleting goes too far. An advocate of pseudoscience and arguable anti-Semite with any significant following is somebody people have reason to look for commonly circulated information about. pdbowman 01:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdbowman (talk • contribs)

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. Guerillero | My Talk 06:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Tompkins[edit]

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

Notability questioned in 2011, but not followed up on. This is way out of my area of expertise, but the impression I get from the article itself, despite its lengthy list of exhibitions, is certainly not that the subject is actually notable. My opinion is delete, but certainly views from people more familiar with art would be greatly appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The articles in the Los Angeles Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (I fixed that link), plus all the exhibitions, establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient depth or breadth of otherwise RS to establish notability; further, the number of little exhibitions at which an artist has shown isn't one of our WP:ARTIST criteria - I booked 8 shows last year alone (none of which were in Palm Desert) and I'm not lobbying for a WP entry DocumentError (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepSkylar Jean (talk) 11:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see any substantial conformance to Wikipedia:ARTIST in the article. --gilgongo (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - though he only graduated 10 years ago he's had a major write up in the LA Times in 2007. The article needs much improvement in terms of sourcing however. Reviews of his other exhibitions are hard to find! Sionk (talk) 17:33, 29 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) 02:18, 3 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. Guerillero | My Talk 06:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Risk based auditing[edit]

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

Proposed for deletion by me, with the reason of "No references, not written in the style of an encyclopedic article, reads like a business buzzword". This has been removed by the article's creator without an explanation. (The user has continued to expand the article, but it is still unreferenced - Wikipedia can't recursively use itself as a source.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:31, 28 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) 02:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment Unquestionably a real thing, but I too doubt that this text can be salvaged, and I don't have the subject knowledge needed to stub it. Mangoe (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like an essay. If this is a real and notable thing, it'd need a rewrite in encyclopedic style from the ground up. Sandstein 19:56, 11 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. Guerillero | My Talk 07:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Shelton (painter)[edit]

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

Not finding enough information to prove notability. There is some information at Keene State College], but not finding her in books, news, HighBeam, AskArt - nor easily finding reliable sources through google web search. She's had 50 people read her article in the past 30 days. When looking for Ann Shelton sources, please note that there is an Ann Shelton in New Zealand/Australia who was born within a few years of this Ann. CaroleHenson (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article was created by a single purpose acct and most of the WP:OR in the original version still remains. Except for an unsourced statement that she has had many "exhibitions throughout New England", there's no real assertion of notability. Can't find mention in Google Books or GS. WorldCat has some works, but it seems to be the Ann Shelton born in 1967, not this Ann Shelton born in 1964. I simply can't find anything. Agricola44 (talk) 17:54, 7 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. Guerillero | My Talk 07:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Science Inc.[edit]

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

A CSD A7 was declined. A NASDAQ quoting does not alone notability assure. A comany such as this should have some independent sources. None have been found. Fails WP:LISTED, WP:ORG and WP:ORGDEPTH. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:35, 28 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) 02:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete Due to the name it is not easy to demonstrate that this company is or is not notable, but the AFD has been open for over a week and the article has not been improved. Recommend "soft delete" rather than "no consensus" due to the fact that even if this company is notable, the "net gain" to Wikipedia for having this page as-is vs. not having it is close to zero. HOWEVER, if there are significant updates that demonstrate notability made after the time of this comment, then you can disregard this comment as I would likely change to "neutral" or even "keep." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can find some routine press-release coverage of their EndoSheath product but nothing in depth on the company itself. A firm going about its business but no apparent claim to notability; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Can be recreated if substantial coverage emerges.Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:12, 4 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) 01:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reality-based community[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence that this term has acquired any degree of notability since it was coined in 2004. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's needed for a term like this to be notable? My instinct says that transwikiing it somewhere would be more sensible than deleting it. Uses of it by reliable sources in the last two years in headlines: The American Conservative, Salt Lake Tribune, Washington Monthly, Politico, The Guardian. So I emphatically disagree with deleting it as a non-notable phrase. I'm just not sure whether it belongs on Wikipedia per se. Neonchameleon (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It's not ultra-prominent, but it is notable, given that it shows no signs of going away after nine years... AnonMoos (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It doesn't matter whether this phrase has become part of the language. It's important that Karl Rove coined it. Because it makes him sound ridiculous, his supporters probably want to delete it. It should be not only be retained, it should be included in the wiki entry on Karl Rove. User: Schoolwell —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 30 December 2013

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) 02:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Another recent use of the phrase in Rolling Stone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.78.10 (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Neonchameleon's list is quite good, thank you. Although I would also not object to a redirect to a sub-section in Karl Rove or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelkvance (talk • contribs) 23:31, 3 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) 01:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noisia[edit]

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

Apparently fails WP:Artist - no indication of notability, nothing resembling a reliable source in the whole screed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Noisia are at the forefront of the drum & bass/neurofunk genre. A household name for bass music lovers; I'm willing to do whatever it takes to establish notability and scrape through WP:Artist. Can't back it up with chart success but they've produced for high-profile British artists and remixed for equally (if not more) notable acts. Couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this article nominated for deletion, but maybe that's just my gut instinct. --DJUnBalanced (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some reliable sources and tried to salvage the screed. Can I change your mind? DJUnBalanced (talk) 15:58, 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) 02:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My opinions still stand; Noisia are one of the pioneers of neurofunk, they've released with Skrillex, deadmau5 and Jay-Z's record labels and they're at the forefront of the bass music scene as well as having produced and remixed for some globally recognised pop stars. Hopefully my newer references and revamp of the old 2005 article have been substantial in changing your mind. --DJUnBalanced (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there seems to be some coverage in reliable independent sources. It would be better to have more in the way of reviews and hard news coverage instead of interviews, but it looks like enough. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noisia has appeared at numerous large electronic music festivals including Electric Forest and Electric Daisy Carnival. They are a significant and well known entity within Electronic Dance Music. BBC music DJ's appear to play their music quite frequently. ^[1] Their body of work in MusicBrainz appears to be quite extensive.^[2] With cleanup I see no reason why this page should not be kept. 24.14.56.64 (talk) 19:00, 6 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, with a distinct possibility of a merge. A merge discussion can continue on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syriac Military Council[edit]

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

I did a google search and found almost no sources; the results that do exist are spin-offs from the wikipedia page. It also does not meet wp:notability. Pass a Method talk 01:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mostly on an WP:IAR basis. This organisation does exist and is currently active, with a growing fighting contingent large enough to control territory. That it is sparsely mentioned in mainstream media is probably more indicative of the generally abysmal news coverage of this part of Syria, combined with the group's own information security. Better sources for this group will absolutely emerge in the near future, I have no doubt, and it'd be best to keep this around rather than recreate it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I added this to clarify my position. Similar content already exists on the "Assyrian people" page at the end of the history section. I don't see why (if any new sources pop up) content cannot be added to that page rather than have a seperate article. there are literally hundreds of rebel groups in the Syrian war. there are scores/dozens with much more memebers than the Syriac Military Council. if we set a precedent and allow this to stay as a stand-alone page, then we'll have to do the same with many more articles - a nasty slippery slope we shouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole. If this is kept, then what about equally sized groups like Gamloon Warriors Brigades, Slaves of the Merciful Brigades, Murabiteen Brigades, Bedouin Brigades, Sunnah Supporters Brigades, Ahul ul Bayt Brigades, Martyrs of Atarib Brigades, Coastal Defense Brigades, Ain Jalout Brigades, Tawheed Supporters Platoons, Mujahideen Platoons etc? This seems like promotion/favouratism to me. Pass a Method talk 16:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saying we should shunt this into Assyrian people makes as much sense as saying that we should include information on those other groups in Arab people. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Syriac Military Council is not just 10 troops, they are fighting along the YPG against al-Qaida Terrorists in Northeastern Syria. They have have several battalions.

https://www.facebook.com/SYRIACMILITARYCOUNCIL?ref=ts&fref=ts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW4un8kx1ZM Elvis214 (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to be a growing force and quite frankly (WP:SNOW), there are many more less important in this conflict who have their own wikipage. They are also part of ongoing YPG offensive in Tal Hamis as reported by pro-PKK Qandil Post [37] so I do not know how they do not meet notability criteria. They are established in Syriac areas of Hasakah province, they take part in combat and policing of their community. I don´t really see why not have them. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from what I understand from my personal contacts in Syria that group seem to be nothing than more than Facebook activism. They do have a few people with guns on the ground but so do tens of groups in Qamishli, I'm not sure whether they pass WP:ORG.--Kathovo talk 17:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kathovo, if you would know the Dawronoye movement you would know that this group is not just facebook activism. The facebook page has been made a few weeks ago, but this group is fighting on the front against al-qaida terrorists, and every day more and more are joining the SMC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHjLsXhtpvA Your cntacts in Syria are im sure ADO loyalists which spread fake propaganda against the Dawronoye. But the people are tired of party and organisations who only speak and do nothing. Elvis214 (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That could be the case. It might also be that they are not active in Qamishli where my informants live. Anyway, this is all speculation and that's why I couldn't give my opinion here.--Kathovo talk 14:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think they have much of a presence in Qamishli city; as far as I am aware, the only major Assyrian/Syriac group there is a splinter branch of the Sutoro which the Syriac Union Party has apparently disowned due to perceived infiltration by the government. The MFS operates alongside the YPG in Assyrian/Syriac areas around Qahtaniyah, Malikiyah, and Tal Ma'ruf, and the YPG reportedly turns over security and administration of Assyrian/Syriac villages to MFS and Sutoro units once the frontline shifts far enough away. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Elvis214. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & probably Merge. According to the SMC & reports, the SMC had joined the YPG. So perhaps the content of this article could be included in the YPG article.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't necessarily have to be merged. The statement issued by the MFS as well as other sources suggests that the MFS will retain its organisational structures even within the YPG. Just as we have United States Army as well as United States Army Central, we can still have a separate article for this unit as a distinct subdivision of the YPG. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Syriac Military Council did not "joined" the YPG, but began a cooperation with it. It is a wrong translation, the SMC did not "joined" the YPG, the SMC joined the FIGHT of the YPG against al-Qaida and allies in Northeastern Syria. The SMC is not under the command or under the control of the YPG. The SMC is autonomous and independent.Elvis214 (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know about that. After the unveiling of the interim constitution for Rojava, the MFS issued a press release which strongly suggests that they have become operationally part of the YPG. At this point it seems as though it will be treated as a distinct branch which will be specifically responsible for Syriac matters—kind of like the British Army has the Scottish Division or the Brigade of Gurkhas, though MFS will probably retain more autonomy. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:43, 12 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 Science Fiction (Blackmail album). Sandstein 19:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do Robots Dream of Electric Sheep?[edit]

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

Couldnt find any source. Unjustified as a standalone article, will forever be like the state it currently is in as small and NN. Beerest 2 talk 23:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While we have an article on the Science Fiction album a merge there seems logical as this is a remixed version of that album. The Science Fiction (Blackmail album) article isn't in a better state, however, so ultimately it may depend on whether that article can be improved. --Michig (talk) 10:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Science Fiction (Blackmail album) for now, to allow improvement there. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:19, 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) 00:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Science Fiction (Blackmail album). It'll still need improvement after the merge, but that'll happen over time. Novusuna ^talk 20:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems reasonable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:25, 4 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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Voss[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO since nominations have been stripped as a sign of notability in the guidelines. No independent reliable sources in the article and there seems to be no significant coverage of her in the available reliable sources online. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:ANYBIO. ANYBIO states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." The AVN Best New Starlet Award is a "well-known and significant award" and one of the few adult industry award categories with it's own WP article since it passes the GNG. One of the arguments made in favor of removing nominations from PORNBIO was the high number of nominees in each category, but the XRCO Awards are more exclusive than the AVN and XBIZ awards. Zoe Voss was nominated for New Starlet by XRCO and she was one of only five nominees. This clearly demonstrates that she made a big impact on the adult film industry in her debut year. Rebecca1990 (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:) Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. PORNBIO #3 states "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." How many is enough for "multiple"? So far, I found one mainstream appearance by Zoe Voss and I added it to the article. I'll keep searching to see if there's any other ones. Rebecca1990 (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno that body-double work is what that is all about. The credited crossover work of Traci Lords, for example, is what that means to me. Carrite (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG and the SNG low bar for porn bio. Carrite (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's very sound analysis. Also agree with Carrite's point about body-doubling. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She's done mainstream work as well. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with nominator's assessment. Single mainstream appearance does not confer notability. Finnegas (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and PORNBIO as nominator states. My own search for reliable source coverage yielded a brief book mention and an interview in a website of questionable reliability. Mainstream credit as body double/Waiting Room Girl falls way short of "featured multiple times in notable mainstream media". • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Gene93k. David in DC (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject does not pass the general notability guideline, as noted by others. In the interests of improving the encyclopedia, the multi-nomination aspect of wp:pornbio is deprecated as far as I am concerned. Tarc (talk) 16:54, 8 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) 00:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Willits[edit]

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

Most of his work was self-released, and the rest are released on independent labels with questionable notability themselves. The assertions of working with a few notable musicians gave me a bit of pause, but it is unclear the extent of the collaboration or his contributions to the projects. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article already cites coverage from Pitchfork and PopMatters, and there's further coverage from Allmusic (bio and several reviews), SF Examiner, FACT, tinymixtapes, Exclaim, URB, Stylus, The Stranger, The Wire, all of which were easily found from a Google search despite the unavailability of the GNews archive. --Michig (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as Michig notes, at least two pieces of non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources are already referenced in the article. Additional evidence of the musician meeting WP:MUSICBIO is shown in the above sources. Gong show 20:34, 6 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.

^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/ec22a32b-acab-432e-a88c-ffe6ae68fa16
^ https://musicbrainz.org/artist/ec22a32b-acab-432e-a88c-ffe6ae68fa16/recordings

[1] ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/ec22a32b-acab-432e-a88c-ffe6ae68fa16

[2] ttps://musicbrainz.org/artist/ec22a32b-acab-432e-a88c-ffe6ae68fa16/recordings

[1]

[2]