Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 26

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 25 December 27 December >

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. Unanimous consensus for Keep, after research/improvements, nominator requested that the sources be integrated to improve the article. (non-admin closure) Salvidrim! 04:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclemania

edit
Cyclemania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost no information on page, one reference. Although a Google search will give multiple hits, most of the pages are blank or say that there is no information on the game. Delete per WP:GNG. Jucchan (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional meaning of accolade refers to a ceremony conferring knighthood, so that's where the Wikilink directs because that's presumed to be the most common use. However, there's also a Accolade_(disambiguation) page which includes a link to Accolade (company). --Mike Agricola (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC) EDIT: I found the time to rewrite the article using Computer Gaming World as a reference so that it's now a "proper" Stub. The Accolade link now directs to the game company, not the knighthood ritual. It still needs more references, so I added the "single-source" tag. Hopefully someone can access some of the other magazine reviews listed in Mobygames. --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Appears to fail GNG for sports. He hasn't played in any major games (yet!) SarahStierch (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norhadi Ubaidillah

edit
Norhadi Ubaidillah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested procedurally as the article had been previously deleted by PROD on similar grounds. The delete rationale remains valid nonetheless. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus of policy-based discussion was that the subject fails notability guidelines. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cammarata

edit
AfDs for this article:
Michael Cammarata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Removed PROD per WP:PROD (previous AFD exists). Reason given in PROD was: Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. Illia Connell (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, if you look at the AFD discussion they're talking about a firefighter that died during the Sept 11 attacks. The creator of this person's bio first used "Michael T Cammarata", and then this time around just reused the title without the middle initial since it was available. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please demonstrate how this meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. reddogsix (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please demonstrate how this meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. reddogsix (talk)
Comment - Why? Please demonstrate how this meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. reddogsix (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kubigula (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KBFR (pirate radio)

edit
AfDs for this article:
KBFR (pirate radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete This article is incredibly poorly written. The external links listed in the article are not all active. Of those that are, several of them point to various social media accounts (e.g. twitter account) which are no longer active. There are absolutely no inline citations in the entire article. The article needs a complete rewrite in order to comply with both Wikipedia standards as well as to be coherent in general. The article is clearly written as a personal opinion, at one point criticizing the FCC of using "Gestapo tactics." A box calling for additional citations and verification has been active since 2007 and another box calls for a complete rewrite since the beginning of 2009. Thus, the article has been in serious trouble for over just about four to five years now. It is apparent that there is no interest in this article and that it will not be fixed any time in the future, it needs to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhakan (talk • contribs) 08:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep This article reflects a very real social phenomenon (Pirate Radio) and is more relevant today than ever with the advent of Low Power FM (LPFM) kicking into gear Oct. of 2013. The history of why we GOT LPFM come from pirate radio, such as KBFR. The Prometheus Group (who have been the ones that are making LPFM possible in the US) is made up of people that started as pirate radio operators just like KBFR. Also keep in mind that pirate radio is BY THE PEOPLE.. it is not polished or sophisticated. "Badly written" is a subjective idea IF the content is highly valuable (which this content is). Lastly, I know one of the original founders of this station and will ask him to look at and update links in this article to improve it's overall quality. Possibly, he can also update/cleanup the text of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.102.183 (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. Malformed nomination and discussion moved from previous Afd discussion page[1] Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Contrary to the anon IP's assertion above, the fact that pirate radio exists as a notable concept does not mean that every individual pirate radio station in existence should necessarily have its own separate article — rather, individual pirates are only notable if you can add reliable sources which directly attest to the notability of that specific station in its own right. Conventionally licensed radio stations are a different story, but that's because the relevant broadcast regulator (FCC, CRTC, OFCOM, etc.) issues publicly accessible licensing documents which count as reliable sources — it is not because either class of radio station is automatically entitled to an article just because it exists.

In its current form, this article is very poorly referenced and makes no credible claim of notability; rather, it claims existence and then bogs down in deep trivia of the type that wouldn't warrant inclusion in a Wikipedia article even if this were a real licensed radio station. Accordingly, it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources and the article makes no claim of notability, just existence. Supplied references are either dead links, dont mention this pirate radio station at all, or mention it only in passing. Same of any other references I was able to find, either go to self-published blogs, or mention the subject of this article only in passing. Changing my !vote to week keep. I'd still prefer to see a reference other than local weekly newspaper. If this is such a strong example of a pirate radio station, has it received any attention from outside the area? Worth noting that the notability of the subject of pirate radio is not at issue here at all, this particular station is. RadioFan (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as subject is the focus of multiple in-depth articles in multiple reliable third-party sources over a sustained period. These include this 2001 cover story from Boulder Weekly, this 2002 Boulder Weekly profile, and this 2008 article in Westword. Does the article need a lot of work? Heck yes, but AfD is not cleanup. (Pardon me for repeating myself from the original AfD but the same strong sources are still available and the basic policies about notability have not changed.) - Dravecky (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Other sources than the ones Dravecky lists can be found, as the comment in the first nomination shows. Cirt, who is not one of those admins who show up from time to time to Keep something that they are interested in, but rather a steady deletor of more articles than he keeps, saw fit to close this Keep two years ago. Anarchangel (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dravecky. FurrySings (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Mistress (mixtape)

edit
The Mistress (mixtape) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NALBUMS this compilation did not receive notable coverage from independent reliable sources and there isnt anything substantial aside from a track listing. Can mention at artist's discography and page. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 20:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Jay Sean discography. The Bushranger One ping only 01:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hit the Lights (album)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Hit the Lights (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NALBUMS this compilation did not receive notable coverage from independent reliable sources and there isnt anything substantial aside from a track listing. Can mention at artist's discography and page. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I can easily see where this is heading (non-admin closure) JayJayWhat did I do? 05:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Florence International Boarding School

edit
New Florence International Boarding School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - senior high school and boarding school. No evidence of WP:Before due diligence being carried out. We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Nepalese schools because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. TerriersFan (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no need for me to repeat TerriersFan. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per the three comments so far and my own view. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese style of crossing road

edit
Chinese style of crossing road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not completely sure what to say about this, but it seems more like a blog post or essay. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Normally such an article would default to keep, however, given the interplay of paid editing/COI/ in the article creation and sockpuppetry in this discussion I will delete the article. No prejudice to speedy recreation with reliable sourcing, and I will userfy a copy of this article on request. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ray Fry

edit
Robert Ray Fry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:CRIME or WP:BIO for that matter; most likely created as a "companion" article to Fry's lawyer Stephen Aarons in an attempt to boost his perceived notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Meets the notability criteria under Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Criminal_acts was convicted of multiple separate killings. WP Bio: A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. - Known and verifiability convicted - which is available in government court records in three separate trials - Also is a Serial killer, and the subject of a book on his crimes. And is currently the last person schedule to die ever on death row in New Mexico, which makes Fry important to Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States, where repeal has been debated quite heavily. Meanie (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Confirmed Sockpuppeteer Hasteur (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no significant depth of coverage from reliable sources. Your other opinions on why he is important are irrelevant to Wikipedia guidelines on notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So State court records are irrelevant? https://caselookup.nmcourts.gov/caselookup/app?component=cnLink&page=SearchResults&service=direct&session=T&sp=SD-1116-CR-200000542 - 4 Charges in one trial - 4 convictions
https://caselookup.nmcourts.gov/caselookup/app?component=cnLink&page=SearchResults&service=direct&session=T&sp=SD-1116-CR-200000513 - 4 Charges in another trial - 4 convictions
https://caselookup.nmcourts.gov/caselookup/app?component=cnLink&page=SearchResults&service=direct&session=T&sp=SD-1116-CR-200001055 - 7 Charges in another trial - 6 convictions
https://caselookup.nmcourts.gov/caselookup/app?component=cnLink&page=SearchResults&service=direct&session=T&sp=SD-1116-CR-200001103 - 2 Charges represented by Aarons - 2 Dismissed
https://caselookup.nmcourts.gov/caselookup/app?component=cnLink&page=SearchResults&service=direct&session=T&sp=SD-1116-CR-9700788 - 5 Charges in another trial - 3 Convictions

19 convictions for violent crimes in New Mexico - all of which were the subject of intense media scrutiny and a book. Meanie (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Confirmed Sockpuppeteer Hasteur (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Had you really read WP:BIO or WP:Reliable sources, you'd know that government records don't apply, and neither does a book by a non-notable author. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia Secondary Sources:Law "Legal writers usually prefer to cite primary sources because only primary sources are authoritative and precedential, while secondary sources are only persuasive at best.[25]" For wiki law the rules are different - Or do I misread - are court records not the authoritative voice? Its why we can say XYZ is a convicted criminal. Meanie (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Confirmed Sockpuppeteer Hasteur (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Court records are fine to verify a statement, but court records and similar records do nothing to boost notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the Court records verify the criminality - I totally agree. Media sources also corroborate this.

In ONE paper in the state Robert Fry is brought up in 19 different articles, including by a candidate for governor in the state in the discussion about the 2009 Repeal and its after affects. August 9th, 2012 - Death Penalty Challenges Still Haunt NM Courts - http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/08/09/news/death-penalty-challenges-still-haunt-nm-courts.html
August 9th, 2012 - States Look to NM on Executions - http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/04/09/news/states-look-to-nm-on-executions.html
January 28th, 2011 -AG's Office Argues for Penalty Phase - http://www.abqjournal.com/news/metro/28238174864newsmetro01-28-11.htm
Dec 10, 2010 - Astorga Death Penalty Trial Can Proceed - http://www.abqjournal.com/news/metro/032332537958newsmetro12-03-10.htm
June 8, 2010 - Dueling Over Death Penalty, invoked by candidate for Governor - http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/082335485340newsstate06-08-10.htm
April 5, 2009 - Law Leaves Room for Executions - http://www.abqjournal.com/news/xgr/05104724state04-05-09.htm
Case related stories - 54 Hits in ABQ Journal Archives December 9, 2005 - Killer's Verdict, Sentance Upheld - http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/414937nm12-09-05.htm
May 25, 2005 - Court TV show Will Look at NM Killer - http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/354061nm05-25-05.htm

And this is without getting into the Santa Fe New Mexican, the Santa Fe Reporter and the ABQ Tribune. It could be argued this case was as big in New Mexico, as Paul Bernardo was to Canada. In the Media Court TV : Forensic Files
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0986733/plotsummary
MSNBC Lockup
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/14346975#14346975 Meanie (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Confirmed Sockpuppeteer Hasteur (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Never mind the bestselling dimestore paperback about this serial killer, the 8 unsolved murders believed to be his, or the fact he is the first defendant in US history to face three separate death penalty trials. Focus on one inescapable fact: the NM legislature and governor struck a political compromise by abolishing the death penalty for all future cases but keeping Fry on the chopping block. Can the government pass a law contemplating the execution of one person? It is a unique constitutional debate sure to drag on for years in the courts and wiki debates... Steve Aarons (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC) — Aar095 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First, he is not a serial killer. Not a spree killer, not a massmurderer, but a killer. He has a few murders under his belt, but so do a lot of people. If he, and his case, was so in need of an article why was it created now? It would appear that this article was created to provide a foundation for the lawyer's article which is also up for AfD. Regardless, this does not meet WP:CRIME and as a WP:BIO (ignoring the crime) he fails because of WP:BLP1E. PeterWesco (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cant believe you the fact this is the only person in the united states ever to have three separate death penalty trials, and will be the last person EVER to die on New Mexico death row, and is one of two people exempt from its 2009 repeal. By your logic Paul Bernardo is not a serial killer, and isnt notable. Meanie (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Confirmed Sockpuppeteer Hasteur (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment Paul Bernardo meets the term of serial killer because: he had a target profile (young girls), it was sexually related, he has a body count, etc. I find it comical you are comparing Fry to Bernardo. Fry does not meet any criteria of serial killer. "He will be the last person to die on NM death row" UNTIL the law is changed in the future. There can't be a "last person to die" on death row as the world is not over, laws can be changed, etc. He had three separate death penalty trials - That is noteworthy. It should be noteworthy under: "Botched police investigations" "Botched murder trials" "Wastes of tax payer's dollars". This is simply a case of a guy who did not get caught on his first killing, but was eventually caught and he was charge and sentenced. This is another example of why he also does not meet the serial killer label. PeterWesco (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was tempted to go through the crime project and flag anything for deletion which didn't have at least the notoriety of this guy in their state. Though that would likely be half of the project as most of them are notable for one act. Especially the 50% of death row inmates in America who have wiki pages. But Ill not do that because they are houses being built. This article is a week old - a multiple murderer who the media has been on about for years - and in New Mexico and surrounding areas they know him. Wikipedia:Don't_demolish_the_house_while_it's_still_being_built. I'd like to remind you, and Jamie in good faith of the aforementioned Wiki Ideal. This is a new article. Give it a chance to become something - and if its not notable and not well cited in a month lets get rid of it. But it was created last week. And I do do this for coffee money - I have a real job - I just like writing. But I wouldn't do it if I didn't think it didn't have a place. Meanie (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Confirmed Sockpuppeteer Hasteur (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Wiki defines Serial_killer as "three or more" separate murders. Fry has been convicted of four separate murders and suspected in eight or more others in Four Corners. It's not just numbers: same target profile; same signature MO (pick up homeless Navajo person leaving bar, drive out to remote lands, rape if female, bludgeon to death, keep trophy). How can crime scenes spread out over years be WP:BLP1E? Recommend you ask Serial Killer Task Force for input, or delete Serial Killers as an independent basis of inclusion. Steve Aarons (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seem to pass WP:CRIME, per fact that he has gone trough three separate death penalty trials. and is likely to be the last man ever executed in New Mexico. Also good sourcing which indicates notability beyond an "everyday criminal".--BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As cited before. Meets notability. Three separate death penalty trials (only person in US history), 4 different murders, over a number of years with convictions. Save a change in the law he will be the last person to die on NM death penalty under the post 71 restoration of the death penalty. Further was subject of fodder in the campaign for governor and has been subject of major media attention from his first trial through to the present. Boatingfaster (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • ATTENTION AfD CLOSING ADMIN - There are 2 SockPuppet investigations going on with editors in this AfD discussion. Please do not close this AfD until all are identified/cleared of sock/meat puppetry.
  • User: Steve Aarons Was part of a WP:COI/WP:PAID with the striked out sockmaster. He was pleading for this article to justify his own notability (his article has already been deleted) PeterWesco (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment However well intentioned may be Mr. Wesco's zeal, lining out everything said by Meanie and attacking me as well is a logical fallacy known as ad hominen. WP:NPA. "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia." The lined out content remains uncontradicted: WP:NOT (a) Three separate death penalty jury trials; (b) four murder convictions over four year period; (c) prime suspect in eight other signature murders of Navajos in rugged Four Corners desert; (d) last man on death row in New Mexico (e) political football in gubernatorial election; (f) in line for the dubious distinction of being first man in US history to be executed AFTER his state abolished the death penalty (law specifically grandfathered him in) (g) subject of a bestselling dimestore novel by a notable true crime author. Compare articles in categories Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force and Stub-Class Serial killer-related articles SteveAarons (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meanie et al were deemed sockpuckets. As such, sockpuppet comments and votes are routinely stuck from discussions. The striking through, and notes to the closing admin, are done as a service to the closing admin so they know that this discussion was tainted with sockpuppets, WP:COI, and WP:PAID. PeterWesco (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meanie voted once and his sockpuppet boatingfaster voted once. I would line out the second keep; lining out all of his extensive citations is an attack on the person not the content. WP:COI AND WP:PAID are false and, again, personal attacks. What about the only relevant issue regarding deletion, Mr. Wesco - WP:NOT. Is this notorious serial killer "notable"? SteveAarons (talk) aar095 07:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not engaged in personal attacks, I am involved in stating facts. As I stated above, the comments, votes, and opinions of sockpuppets have zero value in the discussions. WP:NPOV is not possible with WP:COI. You can continue to argue this case, it is your choice, but I have already stated my views on the topic and no amount of lawyering is going to change that opinion. There are numerous other instances on Wikipedia where I have completely changed my opinion, when faced with facts presented from people I respect, and I have yielded my vote and left the AfD. To repeat: people I have respect for, people who's opinion means something, and people who are presenting facts from a NPOV. You are far from neutral on this topic, so your opinion on the matter means less than zero to me. Good day sir. PeterWesco (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Icewind Dale Trilogy#Plot summary. And merge from history as deemed editorially necessary. The "keep" opinions do not address the policy-based deletion rationale, i.e. a lack of reliable independent sources discussing the topic.  Sandstein  12:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crenshinibon

edit
Crenshinibon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional artifact. Claritas § 15:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation of your reasoning. BOZ (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:AFDFORMAT, a keep recommendation can only come after sources are provided. You cannot preemptively keep or preemptively validate any source that might be presented, otherwise that means you are casting a vote.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 17:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Universal Description Discovery and Integration#Green Pages. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Pages

edit
Green Pages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has the same content as that of the UDDI Page section titled 'Structure' Compfreak7 (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 17:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per lack of deletion arguments / nomination withdrawal. Will explore discussed options on talk page. (non-admin closure) Erik (talk | contribs) 15:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring anthromorphic insects

edit
List of films featuring anthromorphic insects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Wikipedia's notability guidelines for stand-alone lists, "Notability of lists (whether titled as 'List of Xs' or 'Xs') is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I have not been able to locate any reliable source grouping films that feature anthropomorphic insects due to the narrowness of the topic. However, I do think that List of films featuring anthropomorphic characters could be created. Recent precedents of such lists following the guidelines are films featuring home invasions and films featuring diabetes, both well-referenced lists that easily survived deletion attempts. In the meantime, here I had proposed deletion and offered an alternative solution where the three films could be listed at the fourth film's "See also" section. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Saint James, Beroun

edit
Church of Saint James, Beroun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not clear how this is notable. It's clear from the article that it is WP:VERYOLD but not much else. References provided are to travel sites including a hotel website and the town website. Not the kind of significant coverage in 3rd party sources WP:GNG calls for. A search on the English and Czech names brings up a number of travel guides that make only passing mention. RadioFan (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frank n Dank

edit
AfDs for this article:
Frank n Dank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted PROD per WP:PROD (previous AFD): Not notable according to WP:MUSICIAN Illia Connell (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Superstar Santhosh Pandit

edit
Superstar Santhosh Pandit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

does not meet wiki notability criteria, Shrikanthv (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Salih (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Salih (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was . Article will be userfied per the consensus of this discussion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The National Currency Foundation

edit
The National Currency Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional content lacking established notability in accordance with WP:ORG or general notability guidelines, which require significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Note that the sources provided in this article relate to numistatics and affiliated organizations. A search for reliable and independent sources has been lacking. Cindy(talk to me) 13:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cindy-

  • Your points are well made. I beg to differ on a few, but in general I understand what you are saying. The only reason I provided citations for the names of those in the field was in an attempt to demonstrate their qualifications and lay some historical context for the NCF’s work. Under Educational Goals (really just the subsection about Visual Exhibits) my intent was not to promote but to provide examples of NCF’s work, but it is possible the end result was the same. I think this could be re-worked in order to make it more encyclopedic and less of a list of available exhibits. Perhaps the only link/citation in that (re-worked) section would be to the Exhibit page of the NCF site and let readers figure it out from there.
  • It may be that this organization is simply too young to have acquired the necessary coverage to meet the notability requirements; therefore fixing the issue above would still not resolve the discussion over deletion. I reviewed the notability criteria again and realize that the supporting material is largely circumstantial and a bit thin.
  • So I (as someone who will continue to write entries) have a better understanding for the future, and using the present article as an example, would the following generally go towards notability: 1) Listing of the NCF on the Smithsonian Institution’s Affiliates Website? This would mean that the NCF would be approved (with an appropriate exhibit space) to borrow objects and create exhibits; 2) a detailed description of the NCF’s activities in a numismatic publication? 3) A detailed description in a non-numismatic publication? When I mention publication here I am referring to either peer-reviewed publications or the main stream newspapers (e.g., New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal).
  • If this is going to be deleted, may I revise and resubmit when there is more support for notability? Thanks- Godot13 (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - (1) Being an affiliate of the Smithsonian does not establish notability as that is not inherited. (2) Notability in general requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Without actually seeing the souces, it is a bit of a guessing game. If there multiple articles, and the publisher is deemed a reliable source, and the author/source of the article is independent of the organsiation, then the answer is generally yes. (3) See answer to 2. As for resubmitting in the future, there is no bar to creating the article later if the organisation gains coverage over time. -- Whpq (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am amenable to Userfy until such time (which may not come) as this article and the organization meets notability criteria. Godot13 (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black Watch S.C.

edit
Black Watch S.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Children's football team which is not notable. C679 11:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 11:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sport Club do Recife. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arena do Sport

edit
Arena do Sport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Future stadium for which construction has not yet begun. C679 10:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 10:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Herrljunga Cider

edit
Herrljunga Cider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable product with no independent assertion of the claim to be the country's best selling cider. Bob Re-born (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Herrljunga Cider is not only a product, it is also the name of the more than 100 year old company that produces the cider as well as several well known brands of beer and other beverages. The company has an annual revenue of 150 million Swedish kronor. /FredrikT (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional info: according to this newspaper article Herrljunga Cider was the 7th largest brewery in Sweden in 2011. /FredrikT (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not an expert in Swedish, still less in the Swedish beverage industry. There's a little press coverage in English[3][4] and of the big beer review sites, it features on RateBeer.com[5] but not BeerAdvocate[6]. I don't think that's quite enough, but there may be more. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation. JohnCD (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harley Huggins

edit
Harley Huggins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG Hack (talk) 08:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist Solidarity Day

edit
Atheist Solidarity Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nonnotable (as of yet) awareness day, references given are to parties directly involved in the event, or are passing mentions in literature of the movement. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage is limited to atheist blogs. For an event like this, we'd have to see coverage in mainstream publications (newspapers, TV, major radio, etc) to indicate it has some kind of wider impact or national importance. (There's not a specific Wikipedia policy for days as far as I know, but policies on organizations and events are relevant, as are the general guidelines.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search for "Atheist Solidarity Day" on High Beam yielded no results. Donner60 (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as A7 by User:Jimfbleak (non-admin closure). Vulcan's Forge (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damodar lal vyas

edit
Damodar lal vyas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG ●Mehran Debate● 07:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CLOSE, wrong venue. postdlf (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yuna (Album)

edit
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yuna (Album) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yuna (Album)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blank article. Pratyya (have a chat?) 06:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Bonhomme

edit
Pierre Bonhomme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject fails WP:BASIC criteria for biographical articles; he also fails WP:CREATIVE. Even in past versions bloated with COI detail such as this and this, it's hard to tell what the claim to notability even is. JFHJr (㊟) 06:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Three relistings already. WP:NPASR Courcelles 00:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pegah Anvarian

edit
Pegah Anvarian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article contains no claims or references supporting notability. Google search gives some retail links, but no editorial coverage. Fails WP:ANYBIO Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've found some sources and linked to them, but there's not a whole lot out there that is anything other than a trivial mention. She certainly seems to be incredibly close to passing Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but there isn't enough yet to where I'd say she is overwhelmingly so.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: OK, I am coming straight from the Daniel Hernandez AfD, but after arguing a (very weak) keep for him, I have to vote keep for Ms. Anvarian based on the online sources. I am seeing hits for her in magazines going back to 2004 on Google Books, so she has been around for eight years at least (and is still around). The article is appropriately neutral in tone and the sources are sufficient to pass minimal notability. As she is still working, further reliable sources will come along to support the material that is already out there. Mabalu (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as copyvio, with concerns about promotional nature into the bargain. Peridon (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Natalee (Taylor) Jukes

edit
Natalee (Taylor) Jukes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely non-notable radio DJ who has not accomplished anything of importance. Article seems like it was written by the subject herself and there are no sources. Thankyoubaby (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely unreferenced promotional blurb with no proper claim of notability — radio personalities are not typically entitled to articles on here if their prominence is limited to a single mid-sized or small media market, and even a genuinely notable radio personality would not be entitled to keep an article that used fluffy PR descriptors like "passionate, talented and enthusiastic" right in the introduction. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tagged as G12, copy violation - While trying to recover her personal website at archive.org, it came to my attention that this biography is a copy violation, this was archived in February 2011 and this article was started that April. Her website was redesigned but there isn't much and her LinkedIn profile suggests she is currently working as Assistant Brand Director at Virgin Radio Vancouver. Multiple Google News searches have provided nothing useful aside from one press release. Although radio personalities can be notable local or national, it seems this one has not received the attention required for Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 00:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IBall Slide i9702

edit
IBall Slide i9702 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a non-notable product, with no apparent in-depth sources available. - MrX 02:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —Theopolisme 19:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Ramsey

edit
Geoff Ramsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SPIP, fails notability test. Very limited outside sources or citations. Only notable for contribution to Red Vs. Blue which has its own page that also covers him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Milestones1975 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep Easily passes notability guidelines. Also, I feel you are a little too new to assume an article requires deletion. RAP (talk) 5:14 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Easily meets notability guidelines the article however does need more cites than the four it currently has. Kyle1278 20:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Linguist (University of Birmingham)

edit
The Linguist (University of Birmingham) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

student journal; no indication of notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Northcott

edit
Blake Northcott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some of the subject's accomplishments is her novel written but only remarkable in Amazon. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Mediran (t • c) 06:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've taken out a lot of info from the article that was being sourced through Amazon, IMDb, and her own website. I did manage to find a mention in Mashable, but so far I'm having a lot of trouble showing that she and her work have been mentioned in RS. All I'm finding are predominantly blog posts, semi-primary sources (such as a profile for an appearance at a comic book con), and random "junk" hits. I think I'll probably have to vote delete.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did a search and while she does seem to be more talked about than some of the other indie authors out there, she hasn't been the focus of enough independent and reliable sources to show notability. There is the potential for her becoming notable if any of the plans for her books to become TV shows or movies ever pans out, but we can't keep the article based on crystal balling that these books might receive more coverage or get an adaptation in the future. A lot can change, after all. I have no problem with it getting userfied, but I do want to warn the original editor that the previous incarnation of the article had issues with neutrality and reliable sourcing.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There doesn't seem to be much interest in outright deletion, but I'm not seeing a strong consensus about what to do with the content. So no prejudice towards the opening of a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's Tower Road

edit
Devil's Tower Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was proposed for deletion by User:Drmies at Template:Did you know nominations/Devil's Tower Road. I have no opinion on the proposal, but am putting the article up for AFD in order to test its notability before continuing with or closing the DYK review. Gatoclass (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies' statement at DYK - "But there is, in my opinion, a big problem with the article itself. The most substantial and best-sourced part of it deals with the tower--for the rest, the road as a road has only generated coverage because of the redesign; it's the equivalent of BLP1, in a way, and sources do not substantially discuss the existence, history, meaning, etc. of the road. Note also that all the newspaper articles and websites that cover this issue is very, very local, and consider that Google Books, for example, offers nothing substantial on this road. In my opinion, this is a candidate for AfD (or merge into Devil's Tower) more than for DYK" Statement copied by TheOriginalSoni (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. The nominator rationale is unconvincing, as the biographies of living people policy doesn't apply to non-living things such as roads (duh). Notability deliberately isn't concerned with the reasons why reliable sources note topics, only that they noted them. Diego (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need to read what Drmies said again, more carefully. Xe used BLP1E as an equivalent situation, pointing out that this is a road that isn't notable in itself, but that is merely (and literally) tangential to actual notable subjects. It isn't actually discussed as a subject on its own merits, but only in respect of other subjects that it is merely one facet of, such as the plans for the road access to and around an airport, which logically belong in the article on the airport (especially since this wouldn't even have been the road under one of the plans). Uncle G (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Uncle. Of course equivalent is the keyword here: a misreading of my words only obfuscates the argument. The bit about the reasons why reliable sources note something is odd: I'm not interesting in attempting to perceive intentions of pieces of writing, which would be an impossible thing to do. My point is that none of the sources discuss the road as a road: they mention it incidentally. It's a simple fact: not all roads are notable. You know, the house I live in was formerly owned by Wayne Greenhaw, and thereafter by Karen Riley and Richard Lee Young (these are valid topics). That doesn't make the house notable, let alone the street I live on--but it seems that my equivalencies are unequivocally rejected. In short: this article is not about the street. It's about a couple of things that are on the street, and really just one. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The AfD process is not a notability test; notability would be though. The article is well written, well sourced by reliable independent sources, and has enough material to warrant a standalone article. Furthermore, per WP:ROADOUTCOMES, "An article that explains the social, cultural, historical or political context of a road in depth is more likely to survive AfD than one which merely describes the road's physical characteristics." Mkdwtalk 01:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what you meant by "the AFD process is not a notability test", when deletion policy clearly includes under "reasons for deletion" Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth). Gatoclass (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think he's referring to your words that you're "putting the article up for AFD in order to test its notability". So far nobody really has stated or believes that this article's content should be completely deleted by lack of notability; thus, a merge discussion at Talk:Devil's Tower Road would be more appropriate. Diego (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well actually, Drmies described it as "a candidate for AFD" so I took him at his word. But thanks for the explanation. Gatoclass (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • A notability test would be you going through the points of WP:N and checking whether the article met the requirements. You 'test' the article against the policy. As you pointed out, "whose subjects fail to meet", which in order to fail must have undergone a check or test prior. If you have no opinion on the article and have not done the steps required in WP:BEFORE, then you should not be nominating the article for deletion. If, Drmies felt the article should be deleted and had done all the checks and tests required in BEFORE, then he should nominate the article and provide his reasons here for why the article should be deleted against which policies. The AfD process is for editors to discuss their findings from their own examinations and tests of whether the article meets the notability and other pillar policies of Wikipedia. Mkdwtalk 20:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay, thanks for the explanation. In response, I should clarify that I don't nominate articles here just on someone's random comment, in fact I did look through the article myself in response to Drmies' comments and felt his concerns had validity. At the same time, I could also see some valid reasons why the article might be kept, so when I said I had "no opinion" I meant I was undecided. Because the Gibraltar articles have attracted a degree of controversy at DYK, I felt the best option at that point was to put the question to the broader community rather than deal with the matter "in house". Gatoclass (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is the second recent nom on a road in Gibraltar. It has adequate content to my mind. In view of the way this started, I see not reason to criticise nom, except that perhaps he should exercise some independent judgment before accepting the comments of others. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record: I haven't yet come up with a satisfactory solution to the problem that I described above. It's useful content in the wrong place. Uncle G (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think, the reason the problem you proposed hasn't been addressed by the other editors is because they don't necessarily see it as problematic. Invariably in an encyclopedia about everything, you will have overlap information. Many articles deal with the overview. If the sections were titled differently they would have sub-articles headings. Mkdwtalk 22:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't overlap or indeed overview. This is talking about the redevelopment of an airport and the history of a ruin instead of having content about the actual subject. And clearly two if not three people above have seen the same problem, which is in truth a fairly obvious one. It's a classic case of trying to make a non-subject into an ostensible subject by tangent, and some of the more difficult to deal with fallout from the whole Gibraltarpedia fiasco that rewarded editors for creating new articles over contributing to existing ones on the actual subjects. Which is why it has languished so long (three months) at DYK review and finally come to AFD when the DYK people couldn't work out what to do to address the problem. I always try to give opinions at AFD that are what I would do with my tools, on the grounds that one shouldn't opine what one doesn't want done or is unwilling to do onesself. And I simply haven't worked out what to do here, and what I'd do with my tools to fix this. But the problem is quite apparent, simply from reading the article alone, even if one hasn't done, as I have, further background research to see if the world documents this road as a specific topic in itself. Uncle G (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nobody has seriously contested or rebutted the argument that there are insufficient reliable sources for inclusion as an article.  Sandstein  00:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wapsi Square

edit
AfDs for this article:
Wapsi Square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only sources are a.) a dead link to a press release, b.) a review that may or may not be reputable; c.) a podcast

Being published in book form is not an assertation of webcomic notability. Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards are not a sufficient assertation of notability; even though the second AFD kept this comic due to its winning this award, several WCCA winners in the past have been deleted. Likewise the Lulu awards; their page shows a huge amount of redlinks, suggesting that the award is not a paragon of notability.

In short, I'm seeing no reliable, secondary sources for this comic, nor could I find any. The second AFD argued entirely on the point of its award win, making no arguments either way as far as the sourcing issues. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 12:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Lulu awards site is outdated because it is historical; the awards have not been presented since 2009 - citing that the website has redlinks *now* as a cause to believe it was not important at the time that it was awarded to the article subject seems poor logic to me. I'm not sure why I'm even trying; I believe most people interested in webcomics abandoned this fight during the last sweep of article deletions when a few editors seemed determined to destroy all webcomic articles based on a belief that only work that is in print and covered by the print media was significant. I think the web and the world of epublishing have evolved beyond that, but perhaps attitudes here have not. Netmouse (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Forgotten Realms deities. Nerge abd redurect are very similar, but merge does the paperwork for copyright purposes if anyone desires to merge stuff in Courcelles 00:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Akadi

edit
Akadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability - no significant coverage in secondary sources. Claritas § 15:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 00:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Premachi Goshta

edit
Premachi Goshta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreleased film. Fails WP:MOVIE and WP:NFF. PROD declined without explanation. Safiel (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:CRYSTAL; it says right there in the source given that they don't even know when it's being released. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain - It is mostly likely that sources are not English but I found this which lists February 2013 as the release date but I don't know how credible that website is. I also found this which lists Kadam Pallavi as one of the actors (I'm assuming actors?) but I also don't know how credible that is and I also found this which provides some details but does not establish the release or at least an estimate. A search at The Hindu and The Indian Express provided nothing relevant but I found two results for "Premachi Goshta" here (Google News) and another here (Google Books) but they seem to be irrelevant, however, the Google Books page suggests this title translates to "story of love" and the trailers seem to be about romance. I would lean towards delete for now but I am considering the possibility of non-English sources. SwisterTwister talk 00:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The date of release 1 Feb 2013 is confirmed from the official trailer from the production house. The actress Pallavi Kadam is unrelated here. She has been in the Marathi play Eka Premachi Goshta (Story of one love). The Google News results gives two links which are also unrelated. The Google books result is for the 1997 play Premachi Goshta . But yeah... the translation is right. I can't yet comment as delete or keep. I have now added some info which Marathi trailers and news channels talk. (i.e. Kulkarni's first romantic film and Hattangadi's comeback in Marathi after long) I cant add those links as references as they aren't released on Youtube by respective News channels. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per available sources as a reasonable exception to WP:NFF as a completed film soon to be released... or if not kept, Incubate for a very short time. research shows film is completed, receiving coverage and Gomolo tells us it is to be released on February 1, 2013.[7] Sure its a stub... but policy allows stubs on notable topics to remain and encourages they be improved through regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Juris Ernštreits

edit
Juris Ernštreits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL (talk). Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Brigade (Washington, D.C. band)

edit
Youth Brigade (Washington, D.C. band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, does not meet WP:NBAND//WP:MUSIC, and only claims to notability are completely unsourced. In short: this was a restored PROD that should have stayed deleted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism hey! 12:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A few additional book sources, which seem to be merely passing mentions: [8] [9] [10][11]. I don't think these serve to establish notability, and they certainly do not back the assertions made in the article. I would expect a lot more from a band created 31 years ago that allegedly had such a huge impact on the genre. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 21:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There seems to be agreement that the sourcing needs improvement, so a renomination is possible if this doesn't happen.  Sandstein  00:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Inuit Dog

edit
Northern Inuit Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Not notable;
  • Unrecognized by all major dog associations;
  • Promotional/advertisement - the only external link is to unofficial 'breed society';
  • No references despite 'citations needed' template since March 2008.

There has been a brief discussion here about this article, also Utonagan and Tamaskan Dog. Utonagan is already at AfD and I'm also tagging Tamaskan Dog now. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep The content of the page could be improved (and Tikuko already improved it since my initial post), but this breed of dog is now relatively famous since their appearance on TV, notably in Game of Thrones - the HBO series. I actually came to this page to learn more about them after I saw them on the show. The "promotion" is questionable bc there are a number of societies and breeders that have the dog or similar dogs (see the talk page - where there is also a lot of fighting...which needs to be resolved). Dog breeders (who may have initiated the article) may not be the best encyclopedia writers or willing to learn or navigate all of the WP rules (one proclaims "stop editing my page" for example)... but with more time, many others can improve this article (and the original editors can learn how WP works). A lot of people have looked at it in a short period of time (28 rated it - and only a small % of people rate articles)...plus there are dozens of questions about this breed of dog on yahoo answers, etc. People are very curious about it since it appeared on TV. It should be improved though...and the Utonagan and the Tamaskan breeders need to resolve their differences w/ this dog breed. Angelatomato (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Essentially the same breed as Tamaskan and Utonagan with minor unimportant differences that consist of "my wolf-looking dog is better than your wolf-looking dog." Also see discussion here. --Tikuko 17:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Soft keep, the breed was in fact featured as a major component of an extremely notable TV show. --Tikuko 10:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I understand that notability is not inherited from the show and I understand that there are few to no reliable secondary sources on the breed so it probably fails WP:N; however the breed is mentioned in a couple academic papers studying wolfdogs in the UK. I can see this going either way, assuming that a source can be found that isn't the breed club itself.--TKK bark ! 23:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless the academic papers cited by Tikuko above are sources for the article. Miniapolis (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are used in the article - but the article needs to be cleaned up & cited better. I'd put a box on top that says "this article needs citations / clean up per wikipedia standards" (etc). The "Tamaskan Dog" recently made it through AFD (I never commented on that one as I was totally unfamiliar) but has a different notice box on top...perhaps that box can also be used. Angelatomato (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Ferguson

edit
Josh Ferguson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fighter fails WP:NMMA JadeSnake (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:MMANOT, WP:ATHLETE and WP:NMMA. Fought in two live UFC events and was a participant in a few fights on The Ultimate Fighter, in which he competed a show that had 1-2 million viewers, in a professional exhibition bout. Though not counted by the NSAC, these are pro bouts, which is what we look for as part of MMANOT. Was also notable for being one of the very few flyweight fighters in the UFC. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:MMANOT more than two fights at top tier. Has not accomplished that.Peter Rehse (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Soto

edit
Alex Soto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fighter fails WP:NMMA JadeSnake (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:MMANOT, WP:ATHLETE and WP:NMMA. Fought twice in the UFC and once in Deep; all promotions on the MMANOT essay. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deep is second tier. WP:MMANOT refers to Top Tier not inclusion in the essay.Peter Rehse (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The second tier is inclusive; otherwise there'd be literally no point in including it. MMANOT has been strongly misinterpreted and he does indeed pass via the essay. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article was speedy deleted per csd a7 by User:Jimfbleak. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 12:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obo shin otten totten

edit
Obo shin otten totten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable game. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGAMES. Sources are unreliable. No significance asserted by the subject, doesn't claim notability either. Mediran (t • c) 03:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allu Sirish

edit
Allu Sirish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per WP:NACTOR Harsh (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maine Cottage

edit
AfDs for this article:
Maine Cottage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous AFD, which I closed, suffered from very light participation and a badly flawed nomination. I am not finding any evidence that this is a particularly notable company. Sources that were included before have been removed, but they were pretty thin anyway as they mostly covered the closure of the company, apparently now re-opened under new management and trying to scrub their image by making spammy edits to this article and removing all mention of the troubles of the past. While that is a problem that can be fixed, the lack of notability is not. An argument was made at the last AFD that all claims of notability stemmed from those troubles, making this an entity primarily known for one isolated event, an event that was frankly not all that notable either. A furniture store going out of business is not exactly a vital encyclopedic topic and the lack of any other claim to notability (outside of the blatantly promotional claims I,have been removing from the article) means we probably should not have an article on this subject at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Having reinvented the wheel by rediscovering the (snippet-view) Business Week article mentioned in the previous AfD, I am convinced that the subject is notable; the very tone of casual references to the company's founders implies that the company is well known to both the writer and the target readership. (See, for example, the ref I added for Carol Bass.) הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 05:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KUBA Ka

edit
KUBA Ka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonnotable musician. No albums, nonnotable singles. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I don't see anything notable here. Maybe in the future, but not now.Zacaparum (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 22:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is a rising star from Poland and have been covered in many Polish news. Please, don't delete. 117.194.207.16 (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he is very well-known in Poland, I strongly suggest adding these sources. If you aren't familiar with adding references, visit Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Lopez (fighter)

edit
Jorge Lopez (fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fighter fails WP:NMMA JadeSnake (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Lullo

edit
Mike Lullo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fighter fails WP:NMMA JadeSnake (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) JayJayWhat did I do? 00:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Albannach (band) née Albannach

edit
AfDs for this article:
Albannach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was deleted at AFD and the close was endorsed at DRV but further sources have been provided that bear further scrutiny.

It appears that much of the coverage of this band is routine and the decision the AFD should probably look at involves whether the weight of marginal content is sufficient in the absence of two really good sources. As the DRV closer my role here is procedural so I take no position. Spartaz Humbug! 02:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Do I understand that routine coverage of this band is insufficient to establish notability, the added sources are not "really good sources" and therefore perhaps this article should be deleted? What kind of source would be a really good source? --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Sources 3 and 4 are the only coverage on that list I'd consider relevant. The rest is either run of the mill "they'll be here and here's a blurb about them" coverage or an event connected to them. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 17:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient coverage to establish notability. There was last time too, but for anyone with doubt, new ones are here, such as the coverage of the band itself in detail at [17] and [18]. Can anyone doubt those sources prove notability? Dream Focus 17:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are already plenty of sources which confirm the essential facts about this band - their membership, style of music, instruments, performances, reception, &c. The more we look, the more we find, and those listed by User:Dream Focus seem ample. Also, I recently noticed a substantial restaurant of this name as I crosssed Trafalgar Square and so have started to flesh out that and other topics of the same name. The band's article is now at Albannach (band). Warden (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
uh no you moved the article during afd. i don't know why exactly but this causes trout slapping usually.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncle G explained the technical history of this issue in a previous case and his key point was that "The prohibition on renaming articles whilst they were being discussed at AFD went away." The guidance at WP:EDITATAFD is now "Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion. If you do this, please note it on the AfD page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing admin)." The convention now seems to be to use the annotation née to show the original title at the head of the discussion. Warden (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:NOTABLE has a specific meaning in Wikipedia. Would they be saying the band was notable for any reasons other than that? Anyway, clarify to avoid problems. Notable because it meets the GNG or one of the subject specific guidelines? Dream Focus 15:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dream, good advice, and of course you're exactly right about my thinking. I meant it's notable due to the detailed coverage in independent, reliable sources. There are even multiples articles entirely about the band, such as this one or this one from the the daily times , which you had already kindly linked to. Interesting to read the band passionately advocates Scottish Independence, which is now a highly topical subject. (Here in UK, but also internationally, analysts have been comparing it with other separatist movements like the Basque which have recently been gaining momentum). WP:GNG does not require even a single dedicated source about our article topics. So Albannach is so far past the notability threshold that I saw no need for a long comment, especially as you had already demonstrated the notability with perfect clarity. Hope no further clarification is needed as have to go to a Christingle and may not be back on Wikipedia for some time. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per my nomination on the original AFD, still fails WP:BAND. I'd held back from recommending a course of action in this AFD until now to see if anything convincing was unearthed but I'm afraid it has not. Under the criteria for musicians an ensembles, would I be right in saying that there is nobody indicating the fulfilment of criteria 2 to 12, leaving us only 1 to consider? In which case we are looking at the band being "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." Looking at the 5 sources listed at the top: 1) is a press release in a university newspaper so running up against two exceptions for criterion 1; 2) is little more than a brief local paper article noting gig details, listing personnel, some broader details of the country the band come from, filled out a little with some quotes; 3) and 4) are noted above as being the more convincing of the sources but although they are more expansive, again it's local press coverage about forthcoming local gigs with almost everything to do with the substance of the band in quotation marks from members, the remainder being Braveheart and shortbread romantic colour or wider details of the event (as an aside, in citation 3) Johnston's wish for the separation of Scotland from a nation state may be attainable but I think he's heading for a disappointment regarding its separation from a land mass); 5) is coverage of a stabbing, the band incidental to this article. So really just 3) and 4) then? Two instances of fairly small beer coverage, largely reliant on (often rather fanciful) quotes from the band. It's not very convincing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I still feel that this is very borderline. There are enough sources to at least have a reasonably referenced article. --Michig (talk) 08:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets (post-hardcore band)

edit
Secrets (post-hardcore band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was deleted once already. It isn't written well, and there is a lot of non-sourced pieces of information or unacceptable sources. Please before you create an article, learn how to write one properly. Intensity254 (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: quality of writing can be fixed by editing and is not a reason for deletion. The important question is whether there are reliable sources to verify that they meet the notability requirements of WP:BAND. The article claims that their album "Secrets" reached #185 in the Billboard chart, but the Billboard reference cited says "This Album has never charted". Better references to confirm notability are needed if this is to be kept. JohnCD (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism hey! 09:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 22:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 01:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 73

edit
UFC 73 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Routine sports event, lack of recent coverage suggest a lack of lasting significance. Claritas § 10:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't know if it matters to anybody, but happened to be looking through some MMA forums, and people are upset about the amount of articles being deleted on Wikipedia because they like to use it as a source as reference. http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f2/wiki-deleted-ufc-155-event-2257217/ Wiki operates off of donations and if people aren't coming to wiki, they won't be getting donations. How about we stop trying to delete everything and work on improving it. Willdawg111 (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge an article 2007 in UFC should be created to omnibus this and other UFC event articles not yet ready for stand alone articles. There is no sourced prose in the article about how it effected anything after the event. Kevlar (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I'm generally in favor of having standalone articles for UFC events at which titles are defended, per WP:SPORTSEVENT, since they determine the champion of a top league, which I consider UFC to be. I do admit it's a bit of a struggle to find good sources for the event after the fact, though. Yahoo has some coverage, but I couldn't find much else. CaSJer (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This would be an article to potentially keep, due to its two championship bouts, if it weren't for its sad state. The article is dominated by fight results, payout results, and bonus award results. Therefore, it fails WP:SPORTSEVENT which requires that "notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats". If the article had its prose fleshed out to discuss the background of the event, what occurred during the event, and the after-effects of the event, then I would have little issue !voting keep. Otherwise, in it's current state, I would merge it into an omnibus article such as 2007 in UFC events. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails the WP:NOT policy, it a professional sports event that only received routine news coverage. Like TreyGeek and Kevlar suggest content could be merged into a "2007 in UFC events" article, but as one does not exist can't !vote for that however no prejudice to a restore for the purpose of a munge and redirect to such an article. Mtking (edits) 02:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. The below debate has not reached a consensus as to whether or not coverage is sufficient to support an article on this subject. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Pedro Luís of Orléans-Braganza

edit
Prince Pedro Luís of Orléans-Braganza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod, not notable. PatGallacher (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This person's claim to notability is very weak, it is that he was expected to become a pretender to the Brazilian throne, but he cannot become one now since he died young. We cannot predict what might have happened if he had lived longer, see WP:CRYSTAL. It is open to question if his family can be regarded as pretenders, since this might imply someone who actively questions the legitimacy of the current de facto government, but this person lived in Brazil and supported the current president. I also note that he was one of two families regarded as being in line to the Brazilian throne. PatGallacher (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to me the article establishes notability already without me needing to do any extra research to find further sources. - dwc lr (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage of the plane crash and its victims was extensive, invariably mentioning Dom Pedro Luis as one of and sometimes the most prominent passenger out of more than 200 killed. In addition, references to him and to his prospects as eventual claimant to a throne which had been the subject of a national referendum as recently as 1993 can be found in plenty of reliable sources, e.g. The Descendants of King George I of Great Britain by Daniel Willis, 2002, p.148; Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, Furstliche Hauser, 1991, p.34; Le Petit Gotha by Badts & Coutant, 2002, p.321,etc. FactStraight (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nom. However, the referendum and plane crash may be notable for their own articles in which the prince could be mentioned. 1292simon (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I concur with nom that this is a very weak claim to notability, that of inheritance (WP:NOTINHERIT) and being one person in a large planecrash (again, notability is not inherited from an event). His own notability as a person seems so slight as not to be worth mentioning. The reason given by DWC LR is "it's obvious" - well it isn't. The reason given by FactStraight is inheritance, which isn't valid. Seems a simple case for deletion to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG - it's not our job as editors to second-guess the reasons why the sources note the subjects; newspapers reported about this person, not because he could potentially be emperor in the future but because he was currently in the succession list (a notable status by itself, as the genealogies ascertain), so WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply. The man has been directly covered for reasons other than the crash (see [19]), so the WP:BIO1E guideline and the WP:INHERIT essay don't apply either; he has been noted for at least two "events". Diego (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep(User has already !voted) Coverage of the plane crash and its victims was extensive, invariably mentioning Dom Pedro Luis as one of and sometimes the most prominent passenger out of more than 200 killed. In addition, references to him and to his prospects as eventual claimant to a throne which had been the subject of a national referendum as recently as 1993 can be found in plenty of reliable sources, e.g. The Descendants of King George I of Great Britain by Daniel Willis, 2002, p.148; Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, Furstliche Hauser, 1991, p.34; Le Petit Gotha by Badts & Coutant, 2002, p.321,etc. WP:INHERIT is a personal opinion, not a WP policy or even guideline -- if it were invariably applicable, so many reliable sources would not have listed Prince Pedro Luís as among the most prominent casualties of the air crash. FactStraight (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
----- please note you can only !vote ONCE per AfD. Thanks Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Tenthani

edit
Raphael Tenthani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Person only know for being arrested for an article he wrote. WP:ONEEVENT, unless someone can show that this person is notable in other ways, beyond simply being the author of articles. Travelbird (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- In the article I mentioned his arrest and the media attention from it during the time when Mutharika was trying to crack down on journalists and suppress the media. I added additional sources to show that he not only writes articles, he is has a national following in Malawi , hence reports when he is an auto accident from other newspapers. He is also a columnist for one of two major newspaper in Malawi, and a political analyst on issue in Malawi. I have included references of him being interviewed by other press in the country. He was also the subject of attack for his viewpoint that made national and international media. In addition, he is a famous journalist in Malawi. I have tried to provide additional sources for this...--MsTingaK (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I think we also need to avoid geo-political bias here. Malawi is a small country and he is a national figure in Malawi - reporters ask him for opinions and analysis - just because he doesnt have a following in your country, that doesn't mean he is not relevant in another country. There are countless of people from larger countries that the rest of the world dont know or dont care about, that have pages here. This would be comparable to journalists from larger nations, ie the US that have pages on wikipedia, but are unknown outside of the US, or their fame is relevant only within the confinement of US borders. He is a national reporter in that country, Malawi, not a local one. I dont think wiki should use different standards of fame based on geographical ___location...----MsTingaK (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: Okay he has won a MISA Award , this is a national award for his column in Malawi so it would be equivalent to an award by a National Award within 'Country X' for the "west Europe" journalism Institute etc....See: http://www.misa.org/index.php/2012-04-30-09-04-14/2006/item/351-bnl-times-sweeps-misa-awards/351-bnl-times-sweeps-misa-awards?start=480 --MsTingaK (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you can only vote once.
I am not opposed to keeping an article on him, if it can be shown that he received widespread coverage independent of getting arrested. If I search Google for "Raphael Tenthani MISA" I don't get all that many relevant hits, which seems to indicate to me that the award also didn't receive much coverage either. In that respect I also want to add that not all "national awards" are of equal. Winning a national award of a country such as the US will inherently be more important (and thus make the person more noticeable) than winning a national award of e.g. Liechtenstein, simply because the odds of winning are much smaller - and thus the note-worthiness of the win as such much higher.
The main problem I have with the article is that apart from references to his recent arrest and a few credits and references on article he did as part of to his work for the BBC, he seems to receive no third-party coverage. The fact that he is not noticeable is no judgement on his journalistic capabilities, it simply means that not all people are famous enough to warrant inclusion in an international encyclopaedia. Travelbird (talk) 06:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt know I could only vote once, sorry. I had brought new information so I had re-voted. To address some of the concerns brought forward, the "noteworthiness of national awards by countries", the level of 'importance' by a nation is relative. An award to someone covering an issue from the country involved may have more significance then an award from an outside body. ie. a few dictators have received honorary awards from universities in the US that bare no significance to the nations they come from. Just because the award came from an American university, doesn't make it more relevant to others in the world. We cant assume that everything done in some parts of the world are relevant in everyone else's world, even if its from a larger nation. Wikipedia guidelines are not specific about percentage vs population size. If he won a prize in Cuba (11M), Jamaica (2.7M), and Israel (7M), it would yield different reactions. Im sure an Israeli journalist award winner will more likely make it to wikipedia then one from Cuba or Jamaica or Malawi (15 m)even though Israel has a smaller population. In other words, questions of ethnocentrism ( by this i simply mean putting certain countries at the center of things arise) - some nations have more clout then others and this is not because of population size but because of where they stand in the world hierarchy of nations. So being from a small, poor nations, is different then being from a small rich nation.

The same can be said for the 'third party' argument - Im not sure you mean validation from a country outside of Malawi. There is only that from Zimbio (Zimbabwe), the other sources from other countries deal with the threats. In any case, I dont feel that validation should be needed from outside the country. American Idol contestants have pages, and no one outside of the US is really interested in them at that stage of their career - they dont need a Malawian newspaper to report about it to validate them...I dont know, without getting in too deep in this rant or having a large philosophical debate about hegemony, epistemology and knowledge, I am having trouble with the big country, little country debate about this issue. --MsTingaK (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the article currently stands, WP:BLP1E is certainly not applicable - it may have looked as if it was when the article was nominated, but that was apparently just three minutes after the article's creation. And while I can't speak to the reliability of specific Malawian (or indeed African) sources, the article seems well-sourced and the sources do look reliable (and I'd definitely regard the one non-African source as reliable). PWilkinson (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject fails relevant notability standards, none but article creator advocates keeping article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don Chase

edit
Don Chase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient evidence of notability. This is not a case of a new contributor who has not been through this process before; in the absence of indpendent references, I reluctantly feel I have to start a deletion debate. Deb (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Article is backed up with two online independent citations (both were located by Google!);
  • Citation 1) Herald-Leader Newspaper, Gloversville, NY (see full text of the article that appeared in the newspaper on November 9, 2009) (see link, it has been placed on the article page "Don Chase"). Article in Wikipedia relies on this newspaper article the most, but was not copied. Text that appears in Wikipedia is original.
  • Citation #2) Independent write-up about the exhibit consisting of 165 photos displayed during the month of December 2010 at the Fort Worth Community Art Center. (see link, it has been placed on the article page "Don Chase") plus the photographer's own website.
This artist is notable, as you can see from above two citations.
Please refer to the two independent online - Google found citations above. "RichardFoster1 (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)RichardFoster1[reply]
Can I refer you to the notability criteria for creative professionals? The subject of this article doesn't seem to come anywhere near. Deb (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does that relate to Google's inability to bring back the results? Is it perhaps that you have not dug deep enough past page 1 of hits? Sorry, but the function of an art historian is to make available material that otherwise is not easily found or assembled.

This artist has made a contribution to the genre of Street photography as a teenager before he was seventeen. That seems to have been forgotten. Are you suggesting the content needs to be expanded. Please explain. Furthermore, please check item #3 in the notability guidelines, This is a situation of an artist who has simply not come up on the radar earlier in a big way. He has shown his work and he has received coverage from independent sources for each of the shows. Our job is to be tolerant of various quirks in the road and not act as if we're deciding on one more page in a book to be printed and it will cost too much to print that page. So ease up. And let's be grown up about it. He deserves the article if you saw the work which I had at his retrospective in Fort Worth. I intend to upload 2-3 of his images as soon as he sends it. RichardFoster1 (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)RichardFoster1[reply]

Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. The artist has to get recognized and written about by reliable sources before we can do it. You are welcome to upload images, but please ensure they will be under a free license. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You have ignored my previous posts, citations and independent notations about Don Chase. Please respond to my definite 2 notations. The article in the Leader Herald Newspaper from 2009 was used as the primary source for my article. I would appreciate it if you would not continue to ignore this and the other viable sources that give this artist the credentials to have an article about him appear in the pages of this site. Our exchange was read by a close friend and her comment was, "What has he got against this Don Chase photographer? Is he some kind of sensor?" So in the interest of our intelligent audience please stop from this lack of response and address yourself to the facts. Thank you.RichardFoster1 (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)RichardFoster1[reply]
    • At the risk of sounding like I really care whether Don Chase goes or stays, let me spell this out for you. The fact that this man has had articles about his exhibition in the local press means very little. Frankly, I've had far more articles about myself in local papers, and I have more google hits, but that doesn't make me notable. You've had the guidelines explained to you several times on your talk page as a result of other articles you've created or contributed to that have similar notability issues, but you don't seem to have grasped what was being pointed out to you. In order to avoid this kind of thing happening to you repeatedly, you need to look at the guidelines in some detail and maybe read through some previous deletion discussions. I suggest that you go to the relevant pages, particularly WP:ARTIST, and read it again in order to understand what makes a person notable. You could also have a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Deb (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Richard, my vote was for similar reasons to Deb's. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I didn't have to defend my thesis as hard. But here it for whatever it's worth: I made the correction in the formatting of the article's External Sources, Which I believe are what they are. credible external sources, for instance:

1. A daily newspaper---plain and simple! Please see for yourself (front page story). 2. A site of the Fort Worth Community Art Museum. It's operated by the curators of the exhibition hall.

I therefore am going to hold on my opinion, after reading the Wikipedia guidelines and reviewing the veracity of both sources. The guidelines clearly state that the source must be external and credible.

Thank you, RichardFoster1 (talk)RichardFoster1

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nobody suggests deletion. No consensus as regards keep, merge or redirect, but that is an editorial discussion that should (continue to) take place on the article talk page.  Sandstein  00:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of automobile marques

edit
List of automobile marques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplicate of List of automobile manufacturers. It's not a new article, so it can't be speedied, and I don't feel comfortable with a bold redirect, but this is a lower-quality duplicate of what is also a low-quality article. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Chevrolet make cars, General Motors don't, generally - they are an owner, not a manufacturer per-se. At any rate, there is a severe level of duplication, and this list could be at most a redirect. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read the articles as they make this distinction clear. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had anyway, I still see this as an unnecessary content fork: having one high-quality list, in place of these two low-quality lists that serve basically the same role, would be much, much better. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The two lists cover different topics and cannot be replaced by one. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Presidentman's explanation, this is a useful distinct list (though the article should make this point clearer). הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    At the moment, I'm not seeing how such a distinction is made in this list. While a distinction seems to exist based on the definitions provided by Presidentman above, that the article currently links to various articles of the "automobile manufacturers of X" ilk dilutes that argument. --Kinu t/c 23:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point - I'm well aware there is a subtle difference, but the current setup renders two articles pointless, and I really don't see a need for two lists even without the presence of "national list of automobile manufacturers" type things. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some "keep" opinions are weakly argued, but there are valid arguments for either improving and keeping, or merging the article.  Sandstein  12:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 36

edit
AfDs for this article:
UFC 36 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Routine event, no evidence of notability via recent coverage. Claritas § 21:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to try re-reading that link, Claritas. Stating that the event is notable because it included a title defense, as the poster to whom you were responding did, does constitute an "explanation...for such a claim of notability". -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great argument. --Claritas § 11:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge An article 2002 in UFC should be created to omnibus this and other UFC event articles not yet ready for stand alone articles. The only mention of anything after this event are the two sentences "Afterwards, Barnett was stripped of the title when he tested positive for steroids during a mandatory post-fight drug test." and "Nine past or future UFC champions competed on this card (including at least one in each bout), more than any other event in UFC history." they simply state that something happened, not how it effected anything after the event. Kevlar (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. There's plenty of material out there that can be used to flesh this article out. Couture's autobiography (Becoming the Natural: My Life In and Out of the Cage) would be a good start - he writes extensively about the event and in particular his match with Barnett. It was a significant turning point in the careers of both men. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An autobiography would not be either reliable or independent. Mtking (edits) 09:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. Per WP:WPNOTRS, primary sources "can be both reliable and useful in certain situations". This is one of those situations, as long as the passages used are selected with appropriate discretion. Furthermore, the source counts as independent so far as notability is concerned, in that a) it was co-written by Loretta Hunt, a journalist affiliated with CBS Sports and the Los Angeles Times, b) it was published by Simon and Schuster, a major publishing house with no connection to the UFC, and c) Couture is retired from fighting and has no current connection to the UFC. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 00:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Between the two championship fights (which I would argue make this notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT) and the steroid controversy, you can make a good argument for this event being non-routine. The article needs expansion, but that's not a reason for deletion. CaSJer (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand - Meets WP:SPORTSEVENT as the event determined two champions of a top league. Also, nine past or future UFC champions (including two UFC Hall of Fame members) competed on this card, therefore passing WP:EFFECT. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER does not apply, it exists to prevent people from copying from their newspapers. --LlamaAl (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC) WP:NOTNEWSPAPER does not apply, it exists to prevent people from copying from their newspapers.[reply]
  • Comment This would be an article to potentially keep if it weren't for its sad state. It cites only a single reference, and that is to show that Mir's submission over Williams was a "Mir lock" and not another kind of submission hold. The article is at least half pure fight results. Therefore, it fails WP:SPORTSEVENT which requires that "notable games should have well-sourced prose". If the article had its prose fleshed out to discuss the background of the event, what occurred during the event, and the after-effects of the event, then I would have little issue !voting keep. Otherwise, in it's current state, I would merge it into an omnibus article such as 2002 in UFC events. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article has now 5 references, including two of non-routine coverage. --LlamaAl (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as per Kevlar above. 1292simon (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CaSJer. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CaSJer brought up very good points. Just by a little searching I've found several sources discussing, even recently, the effects this event had. Especially with the steroid scandal with Barnett which is cited to this day as one of the main reasons Barnett hasn't been back into the UFC since. The event has had lasting significance due to that and there are sources from this year (meaning in the last 5 days, ala here) bringing up UFC 36 and discussing the steroid scandal to back that statement up. As mentioned, the article could use a bit of fleshing out but deletion isn't the right course of action. THEDeadlySins (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Kanu

edit
Bryan Kanu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that improvements had been made to the article. This does not change the fact that the claim that he has played in the USL Second Division and the Nigerian Premier league are not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the 2007 roster which he was on. I provided evidence, and I included it on the wikipedia page, and cited the source. Blueheffner (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 2007 roster does not include Mr. Kanu. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me until December 27th, 2012 to bring back a reliable source as I will have to dig up some research from some books or from the collection of news clippings that I have and bring them back to you. The 27th was the original date I was given to fulfill wikipedias criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueheffner (talk • contribs) 23:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sent an email to the USL League to search their archives because bryan kanu was apart of the 2007 USL2 cincinnati kings team. I received an email back saying it will take 1-2 weeks, so please hold on and I will come back with valid evidence showing his professional status. Please wait until january 12th, 2013 to delete as with the holiday it is unlikely that they will be able to find it until at least the first week in janurary. Blueheffner (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't they just look at their own website, which lists no-one of that name on the 2007 Kings roster?

I've just been looking back at the article history of Cincinnati Kings. The roster in that article was regularly updated during the 2007 season, and no-one named Kanu was included in it. He didn't appear in All-time Cincinnati Kings roster, which was created in 2009 by a reputable editor of US soccer pages, until you added him a few days ago. It looks to me that either there's a hell of a conspiracy between Wikipedia, the US Soccer Leagues and the relevant media to keep his appearances in USL2 secret, or you're mistaken in your belief that he appeared in it.

Just to point out what you may be unaware of, that there's no need to keep the article live for as long as it takes for your evidence to arrive: it can be re-created at the touch of an admin's button once there's any genuine proof of his professional appearances. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure). StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean planet

edit
Ocean planet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I would like to hear the communities' opinion. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]



The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/vanessa-hudgens-ashley-tisdale-animated-movie-371542
  2. ^ http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/risky-business/big-time-rush-kendall-schmidt-logan-henderson-370437
  3. ^ http://pro.imdb.com/name/nm3148735/clients_rank
  4. ^ http://www.pollstarpro.com/search.aspx?ArticleID=53&id=research&ArtistID=243157&ScienceArtistID=184845
  5. ^ http://www.pollstarpro.com/search.aspx?ArticleID=29&id=research&CompFunctionID=&ScienceCompFunctionID=122346
  6. ^ http://www.parade.com/celebrity/celebrity-parade/2012/08/05-big-time-rush-head-of-class.html
  7. ^ http://web.archive.org/web/20000511104323/http://www.ub2k.com/
  8. ^ http://web.archive.org/web/20010607001507/http://support.ub2k.com/forum/UltraBoard.cgi?action=Read&BID=1&TID=941
  9. ^ http://web.archive.org/web/20010223164000/http://www.gamespy.com/movies/gamingMV/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_December_26&oldid=1142635596"