Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 September	10 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was WP:CSD#G5. Jayron32 01:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whitemouth River Road East

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

This article offers no explanation of the subject's notability, as per the requirements of WP:GNG. And Adoil Descended (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable for the THOUSANDS of people that live on or near this road. --Kijoorete-Bahnhof (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 10 September 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. Close per WP:SNOW. The one dissenter is an indef-blocked sock puppet account. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lumber Avenue

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

Originally given a PROD tag that was removed by the article's author, this ultra-short article offers no explanation of the subject's notability, as per the standards of WP:GNG. And Adoil Descended (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax. It is not a major route in Steinbach, Manitoba, and http://geodepot.statcan.ca] was unable to find such an avenue or street or road in Steinbach with that name. --Bejnar (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be kidding me. This ^[1] proves that this avenue even exists. Perhaps User:Bejnar should not rely on one source for all of his claims. --Kijoorete-Bahnhof (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not a hoax according to Google Maps, but it's an unremarkable local road, and I can't find any coverage of it beyond addresses and a police blotter. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Thousands of people live on this road and tens of thousands of people know of it. --Kijoorete-Bahnhof (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a hoax. I actually did G-streetview for the entire length of this road. It's 1km long of mostly single family homes spread apart. Nothing remarkable at all. The contention above that it "thousands of people live on this road" is dubious. If it is decided that WP is about everything that's verifiable, then perhaps this wouldn't be a problem. But WP is not like that. --Oakshade (talk) 01:16, 10 September 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 by IronGargoyle (talk · contribs) as vandalism. Goodvac (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Shabalanga

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

The article falls short of the standards of WP:BIO. The lack of references beyond a single blog does not help to secure WP:GNG requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering removing this deletion template, I ask User:And Adoil Descended if he understands what the blog says before he claims there is a lack of reference? --Kijoorete-Bahnhof (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the deletion template -- this AfD is now open for the input of the Wikipedia community to discuss. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask again, User:And Adoil Descended, if he understands what the blog says before he claims there is a lack of reference? --Kijoorete-Bahnhof (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs (unless they're written by an expert or are some sort of primary source) are generally unreliable. I could start a blog and say all kinds of things, especially on Blogspot, where it's super easy to get your own blog. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you didn't link to a specific post, just to the main blog. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indicated already, the only reference here is a blogspot blog which means its self-published by a random person. Even if it a reliable source one blog does not prove to be enough to satisfy minimum WP:BIO standards for WP:GNG. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Purplewowies : The whole blog is about Fantastic Shabalanga, and it is worth noting that the internet is not as widespread in Uganda as you might think. We are talking about a man from a small town in Uganda and sometimes a small blog is the only source available. Now I ask any of you, please prove to me that this blogspot blog is NOT about Fantastic Shabalanga.

Also worth nothing that isn't EVERYTHING self publishing? Including your own comments and claims? --Kijoorete-Bahnhof (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if the blog was a reliable source, and everything sourced to it was true, there is no indication whatsoever that this person meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. being a civil servant isn't notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOT TRUE- In the western world, being a civil servant is not notable, however in Africa, being a Civil Servant is incredibly notable. Keep in mind that Uganda is a very poor country, and Civil servants are notable to entire towns. Not to mention that he is a member of the board of directors of the Uganda Railway.

It is not notable to the average Joe the Plumber in America perhaps, but it is notable to Ugandans and Africans, as well as everyone that is interested in African politics. --Kijoorete-Bahnhof (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am neither a plumber nor an American. You have provided no evidence that this individual meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Have you even bothered to read them? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 10 September 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Samuel Berman

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

Person doesn't look notable; Googling on Google News archives for "Marcelo Samuel Berman" turned up these articles, but they are all from the same publication (Paraná Online), and are thus considered a single source by the general notability guideline. Searching on WorldCat for books on Berman yielded these. Of the thirteen, eleven are authored by Berman himself, while the two listed as having been authored by Paul V. Kreitler appear to be compilations of scientific papers (some of which must have been authored by Berman) which Kreitler merely edited. The sources present in the article fail to establish notability, as well, so Berman doesn't appear to meet the general notability guideline or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). CtP (t • c) 23:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Looks somewhat like a resume. --Nouniquenames (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Written by subject for one thing.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edition war on the article is actually a family dispute between father and son, namely, Marcelo Berman and Albert Berman. It is morally wrong and completely against all standards of Wikipedia to propose a delition motivated by strictly personal or family issues. Deletion proposal made by Albert Berman against the article on his father is preposterous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waren Beat (talk • contribs) 19:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC) — Waren Beat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I made the nomination, and I have no connections with the Bermans whatsoever. Your point is moot. CtP (t • c) 21:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C1. Three articles with over 100 citations each (and an h-index of 13, searching Google scholar for author:ms-berman and counting only the cosmology-related hits) is enough to convince me that he's made a scientific impact. By the way, Waren Beat (talk · contribs), the single-purpose account who left the comment above mine, removed the AfD notice from the article; I restored it, and left a warning on his user talk page, but he did it a second time after that. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Keep the article, for Marcelo Samuel Berman is an important physicist, and the proposal for deletion is purely motivated by a dispute between him and his son.--Waren Beat (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that the deletion nomination was motivated by a family dispute is, again, a complete falsehood. If you look to the top of the page, you'll see that I was the one who made the nomination, not Albert Berman. Being from Massachusetts, I have no connections with the Bermans and simply didn't believe that Marcelo Samuel Berman met Wikipedia's general notability standards, which you can read here. CtP (t • c) 19:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. GS h-index is low for a well-cited field but highly cited papers take it over the line. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 13 September 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 below is that there is nothing useful to merge in the article. If a redirect is desired it can be set as an editorial decision. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standard YouTube license

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

This does not appear to be a subject that warrants an encyclopedia article. There doesn't appear to be any significant coverage in reliable sources about the standard YouTube license. GB fan 22:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable (although I wouldn't oppose a redirect to YouTube). Google News archives only have two articles, which focus on YouTube adding a Creative Commons license option rather than giving significant coverage of the standard YouTube license. Yes, there are hundreds of Google Books hits, but in my experience, Google Books is notorious for pulling up false positives (note that the first Google Books result is an 1889 novel by Charles Dickens, which obviously doesn't discuss YouTube in any way, shape, or form, for example). WorldCat is probably a better alternative for searching for books, and it has nothing on this license. I concur with the nominator that significant coverage in reliable sources for this license does not appear to exist. CtP (t • c) 23:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / merge with YouTube - I don't think there's enough content for this article to stand on its own, but it's worth mentioning in its parent. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to YouTube. It's currently a stub, and YouTube is an obvious target. I'm sure you'll find coverage of this somewhere (e.g. EFF publications) but it's pointless having a separate page for every website's license. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What is there to merge? The bulk of the article, meat of it, is a direct quote from the license agreement. I'm not convinced that quoting the license agreement is appropriate, and even if it is, it can be done directly in the main article without need of keeping a redirect for attribution history. -- Whpq (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable terms-of-service clause. Nothing to merge up to Youtube. TJRC (talk) 20:52, 14 September 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. Advertisements on TV are not independent of the company, and so we can't use them as evidence of notability per the general notability guideline. Also, notability requires verifiable evidence. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 00:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amigo Loans

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT --Hu12 (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed, all of the sources I found with Google News were either small mentions or promotional. Unsuprisingly, I found nothing with Google Books. Considering that the company is British, I searched with Google UK but also found nothing significant for a Wikipedia article. SwisterTwister talk 23:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's poorly sourced and written like an advertisement. There are quite a few like this on Wikipedia, but this doesn't quite make the bar, in spite of the numerous (repetitive) sources. – MrX 02:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The company advertises on prime-time UK TV, I don't believe notability can be an issue when this is the case. They seem to have been recognised and rewarded as an employer, more than a consumer brand, but still appear notable. An argument for editing to neutralise a little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.216.105.12 (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising through a television network is not notability. Although the company appears to have achieved several awards, an article consisting solely of awards would be considered as promotional. Aside from awards, articles must contain reliable especially third-party sources to establish notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:01, 10 September 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) 21:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libertad: The Dark Untold Story of Castro's Cuba

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

I found nothing covering this which is odd for a movie with "critical acclaim". Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I too had problems finding any coverage for this in any independent and reliable sources. There's plenty of links going to places to purchase the film or view it, but no actual coverage of this film. There wasn't really that much coverage in non-reliable sources either. This is ultimately a non-notable film and considering that this was released in 2000 it's unlikely that it will pass notability guidelines any time soon. It is possible that this got some coverage in sources that didn't make it to the internet, but there's barely a whisper out there for this film which like Lenticel said, is a little odd considering that the article claims the film was critically acclaimed.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per failing WP:NF. The thing exists. It can be rented or purchased, and has received positive customer reviews... but seems to have fallen completely off the radar as far as critical review and commentary are concerned. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:02, 15 September 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 incubate. The article can now be found at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Flight of the Butterflies. We can move it back to the mainspace after suitable sources are available. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 00:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flight of the Butterflies

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

I found no reliable sources covering this October film in any sort of detail. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are a fair number of websites [1], [2], [3], [4]. I think it is OK to keep. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The first is unreliable, the second one is a press release, the third source is from the company, and the fourth one lists a showing of it. From the third source's About page - "The site allows individuals, organizations, guilds, unions and companies working in stereoscopic and computer-generated 3D to publish their details in an online, searchable database, which can then be viewed by anyone searching for Ontario-based 3D expertise or services." SL93 (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  You are right SL93, but the film is not released yet. I think it's very likely to gather some 3rd party interest after release. I know this is not a "recommended argument", but why delete something only to have to recreate it again? JoshuSasori (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Actually, an early version of the film already screened at the Maryland Science Center on March 31, 2012.[5] and with release on the full 3D IMAX version due to take place in less than 4 weeks, we DO have suitable options other than outright deletion. AFD is not for stating "keep" or "delete", but for discussion of how and when to apply whatever alternative that best improves the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/potential redirect to Fred Urquhart. There's some notability issues with the scientist's article, but this could best serve as a potential redirect to him. So far this is a very, very newly released IMAX film that has received little coverage in any reliable and independent sources. I've found mentions on sites that wouldn't be considered independent and/or reliable as well as several mentions of showings and a few press releases, but not nearly enough to give this film notability. This is very new so it's possible that it could one day become notable but this just isn't there yet. I have no problem with anyone wanting to userfy a copy of the article to work on.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... or Incubate for two weeks. In following up on User:Tokyogirl79's work, I have begun addressing other issues with the nominated article. Firstly, the film is not "by" Dr. Fred Urquhart, as her version stated,[6] as he died ten years ago, but is rather an National Science Foundation funded film that covers Urquhart's 40-year investigation, directed and co-written by Mike Slee with actor Gordon Pinsent in the role of the older Urquhart. Secondly, principle filming completed last March and the film is due to premiere in less than 3 weeks.[7] As new sources are popping up almost hourly, there is no need to give this imminent release the bum's rush. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to neutral/keep/incubate. I don't see a problem with incubating it for a while since more sources are popping up. I'm a little leery about using routine notifications of film showings as trivial sources, though.09:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokyogirl79 (talk • contribs)

Your misgivings are understood. The notifications listied at the moment are simply to re-assure those that feel NFF is failed that the thing WILL have its IMAX premires quite soon... not years down the road... and only offered temporarily. The edit summary when these were added to the article specifically explains that Wikipedia notability is by no means dependent on the confirmations that it going to debut soon. I have this one on watch and whether "kept" or "incubated", will address that concern after the thing receives the expected significant coverage, commentary and review. I anticipate that this will nicely meet WP:NF within mere weeks, and we can then have a decent reception section. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:46, 13 September 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) 21:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsanullah Shafiq

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

This is a biography whose only source is a link to his martial arts school. I found no independently supported claims of notability. A comment under a youtube video says that he died last month, so this may have been written as a memorial. Papaursa (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't found any relevant and significant coverage with Google News or Google Books. As I've mentioned at other debates, it is certainly possible that any reliable sources may not be English, considering that the subject is from the Middle East. However, martial artists rarely receive any significant coverage. Also considering that the article claims he was acting for a British film, I searched with Google UK but also found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 23:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The lack of any independent sources is the important thing. If the claims in the article could be supported, then he might be notable. I'm not sure how important those tournaments were or what divisions he won. The claim he entered 98 major events and was 93-6 needs evidence and makes me think the tournaments were small since that's just over 1 fight per tournament. Mdtemp (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 13 September 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Farms

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

Company fails WP:GNG: Companies and organizations. No indication as to why this produce company is notable. Tinton5 (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the proliferation of paywalls, I did find two references, which I've added to the article, which support notability. The company is reported to be the largest salad and fresh-cut vegetable processor in the world. Further, it was notable in 2011 for its involvement in very large recalls of food due to suspected salmonella contamination. Though the article appears to have been created by a single purpose account, the company is nevertheless notable due to its reported size and widely noted involvement in food recalls. There are additional references out there and the article can use some more work, of course, but I think the subject meets notability standards. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 21:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject has been the primary subject of multiple reliable sources and thus is notable per WP:GNG & WP:CORP. Additionally it has multiple passing mentions in other sources. The article does need to be drastically improved, however deletion is not a replacement for improvement.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this deletion, based on its current status with the sources added and notability inherited. Tinton5 (talk) 21:59, 16 September 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 WP:G12 copyright violation. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowstring Puppet Theatre

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

The notability of this theatre group seems difficult to assert. I can only find one source http://www.tropiquaria.co.uk/page28.html from which half of the stub article is copied. — Rod ^talk 20:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyright violation. So tagged. Reyk _YO! 04:30, 12 September 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) 20:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turkic vocabulary

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

This page is not an article; it is a unsourced table of lexical comparisons between languages of the Turkic family. A notice on the talk page of WikiProject Languages since December 2011 has failed to solicit any improvements of substance. Fails WP:NOR, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Shrigley (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The content of the page is similar to Swadesh list articles, several of which have been discussed at AfD over the past six years. Many of these discussions ended by transwiki-ing the content to Wiktionary, but the most recent discussion ended with no consensus and the page was kept in article space. None of this should necessarily prejudice the handling of this page, but should be considered by discussants and the closing admin.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swadesh lists closed as "transwiki all", October 2006
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levantine Arabic / Sawdesh List closed as "delete", November 2006
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romanian Swadesh list closed as "delete", December 2006
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swadesh list of Tsezic languages closed as "delete" with a note on transwiki, April 2010
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swadesh list of Slavic languages closed as "no consensus", June 2012

Cnilep (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The table in this article is not a Swadesh list, which can be found in other sources, and which serves a useful academic purpose. Whereas a standard Swadesh list could expose the areas where Turkic languages significantly diverge in basic vocabulary, this list shows an hand-picked selection of cognates, essentially making the case (WP:NOTSOAPBOX) that the languages are more mutually intelligible than they really are. Shrigley (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Shrigley says, this is not a Swadesh list as such. There are no sources cited and no explanation of why these words were chosen. It appears to be original research. I don't think the content meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion, so transwiki would not be appropriate. Cnilep (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete topic is inappropriate for a separate articleCurb Chain (talk) 06:53, 16 September 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. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the Bacon

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

Non notable podcast - Article apparently created and edited by those involved in its production. No independent sources. noq (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Mean as custard (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? CtP (t • c) 23:26, 9 September 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) 20:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G 57

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

Not notable, no reliable sources cited, only 1 GNews hits, no GBooks hits, not able to tell on GHits due to search terms and social media. Declined PROD without significant improvement to article. GregJackP Boomer! 16:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The nominator misrepresents the state of this article, frankly. While there are no inline refs, the two of the three external links seem to be reliable sources indicating notability for this group. (The third, BBC, does not refer to the group of signatories as a single entity.) And given the apparent prominence of this group within Nigeria, I'd say WP:NGO applies, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quite unremarkable group, the sources show only passing mentions, not enough for notability Seasider91 (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not passing mentions. The group is a primary focus of the two African news stories, and appears in both the headline and the lead. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Frankly, I'm shocked. First, AllAfrica is not a newspaper or publisher, it is a reposter of other articles. In this case, there is a headline about G-53 and a blurb, the rest is behind a paywall. The article is originally from ThisDay, but is not longer obtainable through them. The entire article from ThisDay is available through Lexis, but does not support a link to G57 without either another citation showing that G53 became G57 unless one synthesizes information that was not in the article. AllAfrica is noted in WP:RSN as being useful only as a convenience link, not as a reliable source in and of itself. The original publisher, ThisDay, has nothing that indicates its editorial policies and does not appear on the reliable sources noticeboard. As far as I can tell, it is not a reliable source, particularly given the OpEd pieces supporting the Goodluck Jonathan faction.

The next reference is Vanguard (vanguardngr.com) which also does not indicate its editorial policies, nor does it appear on RSN. It may or may not be reliable.

Finally, the BBC ref does not refer to either "G53" or "G57" - and the sidebar article speaks of the Nigerian media rumor mill and the unreliability of conventional Nigerian media for fact-checking. The sidebar, Lies, politics and Nigeria's great rumour mill clearly puts doubt on the reliability of the information in the first two refs, in addition to the facts that I pointed out. Perhaps I should have spelled out my entire reasoning in the nom, but in my time on Wikipedia, I have been used to answering questions about where I was coming from and not dealing with one who apparently does not understand the principle of assuming good faith. Hopefully this will change. GregJackP Boomer! 23:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, why should we regard a failure to find online indications of "editorial policies" as a reason to disregard sources? When WP:NEWSORG states "News organizations are not required to publish their editorial policy or editorial board online. Many major newspapers do not publish their editorial policies." Second, the absence of a news org on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard -- which is a discussion, not an all inclusive list -- does not mean that it can't be RS, surely. Third, yes, I think you have been too cursory on some of your deletion rationales, and you're going to have to explain things a little better -- at least imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have a source of impeccable reliability such as BBC go to the point of publishing an article on the lack of fact-checking and adherence to the truth by conventional Nigerian media, stating:

"The mill in Nigeria is so powerful that it has permeated the conventional media. Many newspapers and magazines publish products of the rumour mill as authentic news." Lies, politics and Nigeria's great rumour mill

When you have this type of information, from such a legitimate source, if you are to truly interested in due diligence, then you look for editorial policies - to refute the claim that the source is not reliable by another source. The absence of the source from RSN does not mean that it is not a RS - like you stated it is a discussion board. It does mean that you cannot assume that it is a reliable source in the face of evidence to the contrary.

As to my deletion rationales, thankfully the community does not agree with you. 80% of the time, my AfD noms are deleted. The percentage is higher when you consider merges and redirects. Of this month's CSD noms, 87% were deleted and 13% went to AfD - and those at AfD are currently looking at either deletion or merge. So I don't think that I need to explain anything, least of all to someone that doesn't have the courtesy to ask nicely. GregJackP Boomer! 01:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting article. But it can't be used as a 'guilty until proven innocent' argument against all Nigerian media, as you seem to want to do. Plus, the BBC piece seems to suggest that a lot of rumour mongering aids Nigerian establishment interests: this is the opposite. Until demonstrated that these Nigerian news sources are not RS, I'll continue to hold that they are, and point out that there is no proof, just suspicion. US media has its share of critics, too. One of the great opportunities here is to get more content from Africa and the rest of the developing world into Wikipedia. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A cursory Google search for "G 57 Nigeria" offers a number of news stories about continued national level advocacy by this group as the primary subject of articles, enough to meet WP:NGO. Over the next couple days I'll write text to include based on found sources to introduce to the article. English language Wikipedia based on its contributions is in a de facto state of being Euro-America centric, but by including articles like this on national groups active in African politics we can broaden the geographic scope of Wikipedia's coverage. It is important to avoid approaching articles on the politics of other nation-states with a colonial mindset. Mr Wave (Talk - Contribs) 03:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination was not done by GregJackP in good faith as it is clearly an attempt to win an argument He started when he nominated the article on Reno Omokri for deletion. Seeing his arguments there demolished by objective wikipedians he has extended his vendetta to this article that has existed for 2 years without being disturbed because it was referenced in the article on Mr. Omokri. I urge others to go to the article for deletion discussion on Mr. Omokri to see where this is coming from. There's nothing wrong with this article and GregJackP has to come to terms with the fact that his opinion are not facts. Etauso (talk —Preceding undated comment added 05:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - article fullfills WP:RS, WP:GNG and WP:NGO (an additional online search will reveal several more reliable sources). The nominating editor is kindly advised to please respect Wikipdia's Content Guideline on News Organizations. Repeatedly discrediting national daily newspapers, calling their websites "not reliable", is a direct violation of WP:NEWSORG. If the nominating editor continues to discredit Nigerian daily newspapers, he will be reported to the Administrators board. Amsaim (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So report me. If you look directly below WP:RS#NEWSORG you find WP:RS#Questionable sources which states: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts...." I've cited a source that shows this for the papers in question. GregJackP Boomer! 11:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The BBC News article in question is part of BBC's "African Viewpoint", and as the name implies does not represent the viewpoint of BBC News. The source you mention is merely the private opinion of a retired Nigerian freelance journalist. You are using this BBC News article to discredit the entire Nigerian newspaper industry, concluding that Nigerian daily newspapers are not reliable sources in Wikipedia, and all this based upon 1 BBC News article which merely reports the private viewpoint of a retired freelance journalist. Apart from this, the BBC article does not refute the existence of the G 57 Transparency Group. What you should have done is to balance the G-57 Wikipedia article by introducting a separate section into the article addressing the rumours using the BBC article as a reference, instead of sending the article into Afd and discrediting the entire Nigerian daily newspaper industry. Again, I'm kindly asking you to please stop discrediting Nigerian newspapers in Afd discussions. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you Amsaim for standing up to GregJackP's overbearing behaviour. I would also suggest that a similar warning be issued on the article on Reno Omokri for which user GregJackP has raised, without just cause, repeated objections and nominated for both deletion and NPOV all in a bid to win an argument that disparages African newspapers and news sources. Etauso (talk

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 13 September 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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deeper Christian Life Ministry

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

Non-notable obscure church wit no credible references รัก-ไทย (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - sending a well-referenced notable article to AfD with this type of nomination rationale, suggests that the nominating editor disregards or is unaware of Wikipedia's Deletion Policy, which stipulates that editors are required to conduct several steps BEFORE nominating an article for deletion. The article contains enough reliable sources, including newspaper articles & notable books. Just a simple Google News search will reveal the huge amount of available reliable sources on the Deeper Life Bible Church. This Afd appears to be a bad faith Afd, as the nomination rationale discredits reliables sources such as BBC News, Vanguard, The Daily Herald, Daily Champion and belittles them as "no credible references". I would therefore like to ask Administrators to close this apparent frivolous bad faith Afd. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Definitely not a "bad faith AFD" — this is a poorly footnoted and rather promotional piece. Notability is on the borderline, I have no firm opinion one way or the other here. But it's definitely not a Speedy situation... Carrite (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has received coverage in multiple independent sources. Not your ordinary church. St Anselm (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep for this incomprehensible nom. References from multiple reliable publishers like University Press of America are right there in the article. -- 202.124.89.138 (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep -- While this is not an article of the ideal quality the subject is clearly notable. It appears to be more like a denomination than a church. The quality of the citations, some of which look like academic works also sets this apart from the typical church. CErtainly not "obscure and wiwth no credible referneces"! Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 13 September 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 Userfied. to User:Herbkr/Service-ability. In this case, given the difficulties the article creator has had and their apparent good faith (see discussion on their talkpage), I've chosen to IAR and close this early. More sources may be available after the book is published in October. If anyone thinks I've overstepped here, I won't contest an MfD applied to the userpage; however I'd suggest not biting the newbies too hard... Yunshui 雲‍水 08:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Service-ability

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

Non-mainstream Neologism. Prod removed by author. reddogsix (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article turns out not to be about a term, but a book. However, it does not seem to meet the criteria of WP:NBOOK, nor does it seem to qualify for presumption under WP:GNG. Plus, the way it was written (and the fact that the author joined, seemingly to write this article) put it borderline for WP:G11. -- BenTels (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - might benefit, if nothing else, from the addition of (book) after the current title. That said, looks like it might struggle to meet WP:GNG, so that might be a moot point. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:18, 10 September 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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

University of Minnesota Libraries

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

Article about the University of Minnesota Libraries, an organization of which I am unsure of whether or not it has enough notability to have its own article. Several sources cited, but most are primary (from the University of Minnesota) and of the others only the ones about the Sherlock Holmes collection are more than passing references (or tertiary sources). Not sure what to do with this one -- wondering what the community thinks. BenTels (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's an integral part of the university and it's a rather large library system. We have a similar one at University of Michigan Library (which covers the whole system, not just one) for comparison. I also much prefer a single conglomerated article on the various libraries, some of which may be too small to warrant their own article, rather than a chaotic mix of articles about specific library buildings. This isn't to say that a small university without a notable library system should have an article (in case someone gets the idea to make a libraries article for every university), but this is one meets the notability test. Shadowjams (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Encyclopedic content. Libraries are community landmarks and the heart and soul of institutions of higher learning. Keep under the policy of Ignore All Rules — use common sense to improve the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even though this is part of the university it is a large organization with several million items in stock. Sources outside the information published by the university are going to be few for most academic libraries. This content could form a section in the article for the university but that would just make it unnecessarily long.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The library systems of major research universities are usually notable . The basic justification is as a first order division of the university. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge in Kautz Family YMCA Archives, which is a unit of the library system which seems unlikely to be notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools rather than Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education appropriate (in many English speaking countries higher education institutions are not referred to as schools, though a "school" can be a subdivision of a university)?--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:38, 13 September 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 Sanjay Leela Bhansali. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chenab Gandhi

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

No longer in production/cancelled. Smarojit (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If it has been cancelled, then it will definitely never meet WP:MOVIE. -- BenTels (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sanjay Leela Bhansali where his failed projects might be considered in context even when not meriting a separate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:17, 10 September 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) 20:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arevik Udumyan

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

Unreferenced article, fails according to WP:GNG, looks like advertisement. Kondi (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ooohhh, cute girl! Absolutely no sign of notability at all on Google (at least not in languages I can read), but very cute! -- BenTels (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm pretty sure "cute" establishes notability. The article may not be, but the girl sure is! Яεñ99 (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this: Yes Journal, which looks to be a suitable source, and this: AV Show Production, which I think is not independent, but it's hard going (Google translate is helping). I have a query over the copyright of the picture as it appears in both sources. Unless more significant coverage in reliable, independent sources can be found, I'm inclined to delete per WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:22, 16 September 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) 12:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Knežević

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. The claim that he has played 47 matches for FK Radnički 1923, as asserted by the infobox, is not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: According to transfermarkt he has so far made two appearances in the Serbian SuperLiga which are FPL from last I checked so he passes NFOOTY but because of this guys past history before his current club I would expect a lot more info and more references so he does fail GNG. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that source says he's made two appearances in the Bosnian Premijer Liga, which FPL lists as not fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom one, Pokal Serbian. This is part of the weak keep because when I clicked on that it gave me teams that were in the Serbian SuperLiga like Partizan etc and his current team. So I guess the Pokal Serbian is also the Serbian Superliga. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pokal Serbien is German for "Cup Serbia". If you look at his stats for the 11/12 season, you'll see that he made his two cup appearances for a First League and not a SuperLiga club. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody hell, how could I not see that. Yep. Fine, delete then. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG, due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't played in FPL Seasider91 (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails WP:NFOOTBALL. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:16, 16 September 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 St. Michael's Convent School. There is no evidence of the independent reliable sources necessary for this to satisfy the general notability guideline, and arguments of WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:LOCALFAME are not valid in deletion discussions. We can mention the subject in the main school article, however. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Michael's Debate Championship

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

Article about a debating championship that does not, as yet, seem to have gained notability. Current sourcing is primary. Directly available sources on Google, GNews, et cetera, are all primary or Facebook. BenTels (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't even noticed before: there is an undeclared WP:COI since the author of the article is also a founder of the championship. Not a huge problem, though. -- BenTels (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. St. Michael's Debate Championship is one of three grand parliamentary debating events in Karachi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.57.29 (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps... but it still needs sourcing. -- BenTels (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to St. Michael's Convent School; probably useful information, but doesn't seem to have enough sourcing to establish notability. Zujua (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The event is one of three grand debating events in Karachi. I know, I am the founder, but the event is quite notable; refrences to it are available on websites of the institutions that have had participated, as highlights of their co-curricular activities. I will find and add neutral sources. IMHO this article does qualify to be on Wikipedia, and that's the reason why I wrote it. I am not promoting the event in any way, its just an informative page about this event. I would be creating the articles about the other two in some time. Ahmer Jamil Khan (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with the nominator in this case. This is a school-level competition with no evidence of how it is notable at the national level. It should be redirected to (and discussed at) St. Michael's Convent School, which is the main school article. Mar4d (talk) 08:05, 13 September 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Amadi

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

Nothing found about him outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. Rafy talk 10:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC. Ubelowme _U ^Me 12:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not seem to meet WP:ACADEMIC from easily accessible h-index calculations. But he has a lot of older papers, so I'm open to contrary arguments from ___domain experts. -- BenTels (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article claims that in the 1970s he was president of the University of Sulaymaniyah. If so, I think he would pass WP:PROF#C6. However, I can find no reliable sources for this fact. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the case that the above claim it's true, we'd still need a source for it. Otherwise, this should be deleted as no sources to bak up notability have been found. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:17, 16 September 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Schoemaker

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

Person does not meet Notability requirements. DanHoelck (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This person has already had an almost identical biography removed for failing to meet notability criteria. The previous article used his alias, "Shoemoney". See Articles for deletion, Shoemoney

The current article was edited to avoid speedy deletion by adding references to articles by noteworthy publications focusing on this individual - specifically a link to a Slate magazine article. The article in question focused on blogging for profit, not on the individual in question. He was referenced in one sentence of the article, along with a dozen other bloggers, as an example of bloggers who make a profit. DanHoelck (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. -- BenTels (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO. No reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As failing WP:BIO. Sadly, no reliable sources have been found. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:18, 16 September 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Krystian Witkowski

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

PROD contested by article creator. This player fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant, third-party coverage - transfer news is simply WP:ROUTINE - and he also fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully-professional league. Giant Snowman 08:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league. As such, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes another article about an MLS rookie that must be notable for just signing with the club even though he fails NFOOTY and GNG. Get ready for when the MLS Draft comes back. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG, due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whilst the references and links are probably not quite enough to meet GNG, generally comprising brief news mentions and non-independent sources, the article is probably closer to meeting GNG than the majority of Wikipedia's footballer articles. Eldumpo (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are more about him being drafted. Take those out and that is around 7 references left and the other few are about pre-season and a bench appearance. If you want we could delete now and then when he plays we can just restore it. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:23, 16 September 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 Speedied as spam. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus L Howard

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

An autobiographical article with no or few external sources about a non-notable person. Fails several policies such as WP:OR, WP:AUTO and WP:NOTABLE. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails to establish notability and subject lacks GHTIS and GNEWS of substance. reddogsix (talk) 10:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pure weapons-grade vanispamcruftisement by a WP:SPA with obvious WP:COI issues ... violates WP:AUTO and lacks sufficient WP:RS coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 70.21.7.150 (talk · contribs) _{17:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete per IP. GregJackP Boomer! 04:58, 10 September 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Pope (footballer)

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

Previously deleted as per first discussion footballer has not played at a fully-pro level of football so fails WP:NFOOTBALL and fails WP:GNG. Ytfc23 (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Ytfc23 (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still not notableCurb Chain (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Soccerbase says he never played for Bury's first team, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - This article still fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A nice lad who I know from his Bury Town F.C. days. Unfortunately not notable yet. League Octopus (League Octopus 09:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:12, 16 September 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) 12:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Online Film Actors & Dubbers Award

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

Self-claimed famous prize given each year by an unknown group of cinemagoers. No external sources setting apart some website which published some press release. I wasn't able to find any further info on the official website. Vituzzu (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This award exist from three years and there are a lot of reliable sources. Mr. Taddeo (talk) 20:52, 8 September 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) 07:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Existing does not give notability and years of existence almost never gives notability. The only times that it does extend notability to organizations is when something has been around for hundreds to thousands of years. This, of course, would have to be established via multiple independent and reliable sources. The issue here is that there just isn't enough coverage in independent and reliable sources to show that this award is ultimately notable. Most awards aren't and this one is no exception. There's really no coverage in any sources that are both independent and reliable. There's some blog talk, but other than that there's nothing. Just because the awards might be given to notable people or because notable critics might serve on the judging panel does not extend that notability to the awards. It's fairly common for non-notable awards to be given to notable persons, regardless of whether it's likely for the celebrities to attend or not. I did a rather thorough search and this award just isn't notable. It might be one day, but not at this point in time. On a side note, I've seen where the Italian Wikipedia has already deleted this award for notability issues.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced. and no claim for how notable this is amongst the industry. fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:23, 13 September 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rayo de luna 2008

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

Non-notable YouTube film, previously delete via PROD under Rayo de luna BOVINEBOY2008 19:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 4 September 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) 07:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability in the article or outside Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search brought up no sources that would be considered independent and reliable sources that gave in-depth coverage of this short. This is ultimately one of many shorts made that year that does not pass notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:48, 9 September 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 Boldly redirected. Series hasn't started yet, WP:TOOSOON, etc.. what's the harm in a redirect, especially if no one can be bothered to !vote? Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Code Lyoko Evolution episodes

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

Empty list of future episodes of a TV show which has yet to air. I think WP:CRYSTAL applies here. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 07:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The article should be merged into List of Code Lyoko episodes. --TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 07:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 3 September 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) 07:43, 9 September 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pamu pamorada

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

PROD was contested. No reliable sources. Yeknom Dnalsli (expound your voicebox here) 07:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Somebody subsequently created essentially the same article with the correct capitalization: Pamu Pamorada. – Wdchk (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional redirect to Pamu Pamorada (if the other article is kept) or Delete ~~(if the other article is also deleted)~~. Well I am from the same province as her, so maybe I shouldn't be too harsh on her. Nevertheless, there aren't enough reliable sources about her just yet (except Push.com.ph, which is an ABS-CBN affiliated site but is nevertheless considered reliable), so at most this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the conditional redirect part above was dependent if the other article would be kept naturally, as I was unaware that it had already been PRODed, and later AFD'd, I will now strike out that part of the !vote. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm also adding the other article (the one with proper capitalization), because if this one goes, the other one must go as well. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete both. The only fact which is sourced to anything other than Twitter and Wikipedia is that she is to undertake "her first acting project". That does not constitute evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Same with JamesBWatson's reason.--Renzoy16 | Contact Me 17:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both ~ Andrew Kurish (talk) 22:11, 14 September 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 per WP:CSD#A9 -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Side Effects (music)

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

Unreferenced article, might have been created for advertisement. Fails WP:GNG Kondi (talk) 06:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:33, 9 September 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. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Cure For Gravity

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

The article is unreferenced, might have been created as for advertisement. Kondi (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

also fails as per WP:GNG. Kondi (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If I read it right, the article states that this is a new band whose debut album isn't out yet, which doesn't exactly suggest that the band meets our inclusion criteria. I found this from a Google search but that's about it. --Michig (talk) 08:12, 9 September 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 per criteria 1. The nominator not only fails to give a reason to delete the article they have specifically said they don't want the article deleted. If an editor disagrees with a Prod they only need to remove the Prod template. If they disagree with a redirect, the bold, revert, discuss cycle takes over and they can revert the redirect and discuss it. GB fan 14:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution (JLS album)

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

I contested the PROD and redirect. If you see the page history, User:Pigsonthewing cites WP:CRYSTAL and lack of reliable sources.

I disagree with this because:

There are 2 songs out already. It's more than confirmed :P
The lack of sources is related to the fact that it's only a small page yet.

I thought it might be better to get community thoughts on this. Yeknom Dnalsli (expound your voicebox here) 06:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You haven't cited reasonable criteria as to why this article should be deleted. Although you mention "I thought it might be better to get community thoughts on this", you should explain why you think the article should be deleted. November is only three months away and it is certainly possible that the album will be released if supported by a reliable source such as Digital Spy. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is lol, I don't wish this to be deleted. I thought it might be better to have people's opinions on AfD rather than having a big PROD tag on the page. Yeknom Dnalsli (expound your voicebox here) 07:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I really don't understand why people create articles like this when there's little or no content to put into them. This can be covered quite adequately in the JLS article until there's enough content for a separate article. It's probably far enough from release that it would be appropriate to redirect this to the band article for now. --Michig (talk) 08:16, 9 September 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stutter Bunny

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

This article has been tagged for notability for nearly two years, and for citations for over three. There is no coverage of this band to indicate that they meet Wikipedia:Notability (music) – Muboshgu (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see any evidence of notability. Google throws up almost nothing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No major label, no significant chart position, no significant sales, no gold/platinum certifications, no awards, etc. Does not meet WP:GNG and does not meet criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. Яεñ99 (talk) 09:26, 16 September 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Naas

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

Fails WP:GNG, seems like she could be famous but IMDB is not a reliable source and I can't find any other significant mentions. heather walls (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable for now. Google News archives produced several relevant sources but they are small mentions such as dating Tommy Lee and a former boyfriend of Madonna. There are also articles mentioning two pregnancies. Aside from that, there aren't any other significant sources. Google Books produced a book about Paris Hilton with several mentions to Erin Naas but all of them are trivial. Google Books also produced this book with two mentions but they are also trivial. It appears that she dated several celebrities but notability is not inherited. Perhaps she will establish herself as a better known model later. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent sources, as required by WP:GNG. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 13 September 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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shavparosnebi

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

Not notable, only two refs, both in Georgian language. First appears to be associated with the subject of the article, but I'm not sure due to machine translation. GregJackP Boomer! 03:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the nominator's statement, the Georgian Journal ref is in English and does focus on the group in a notable way. Here's another yet another English-language news ref. I'm seeing a pattern of rather sloppy noms and speedies from this editor, I'm sorry to say. Oppose. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ It would help if the article was better written but this appears to be an organization which is maybe one year old with a couple of media mentions. The notability has not been established.Peter Rehse (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are featured in a photo essay and article by EurasiaNet, and I found a blurb on humanrights.ge about a protest they organized. Ya, the article needs hellacious editing, but I think the four sources provided so far are enough to establish notability for an organization. Don't delete it because it's WP:RUBBISH. Braincricket (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep I am changing my delete (see above). Thanks to the rewrite by Braincricket it is much easier to form an opinion and far easier on my literal sensitivities. I say week since it is still a small organization as far as martial arts goes although it does have some peculiar characteristics.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, I crossed out your delete vote (to avoid confusion), but left your comment. Papaursa (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I came across this article when it was first written and it has been greatly improved, both in content and sources. I'd like to see more sources, but I think there's enough (barely) to warrant inclusion. Papaursa (talk) 22:51, 15 September 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Word-Soul

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

This article is about a non-notable new music genre which was initially created as spam to promote the supposed founder of the genre but then stripped of nearly all content to avoid getting speedied with G11. Admittedly, the article is no longer unambiguously promotional, which is why I have taken it here, as it does simply not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Since word-soul was allegedly created in 2011, I performed Google News and Books sources for "Word-Soul" music genre time-restricted from 2011 to the present for my (fruitless) search for any potential reliable sources. The creator of the article has stated that other articles have similar problems and that this creates a double standard, but this isn't the case seeing as though any other articles can simply be nominated for deletion as well if they are, upon closer inspection, found to have similar issues. CtP (t • c) 03:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. I'm not finding coverage for this term. Gongshow ^Talk 17:13, 15 September 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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parents Action League

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

This organization fails GNG, as it is unheard-of outside the Minnesota Twin Cities area. Article is here purely as a coatrack to cover it's SPLC "hate group" listing. Belchfire-TALK 03:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Oh, so Mother Jones is now based in the Twin Cities?[8] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, no, that's not the only national-level mention.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] In light of this evidence, I suggest that Belchfire withdraw this AfD. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Full Disclosure: I am a major editor of the article.

I guess the subject of the article suddenly became non-notable when a couple of editors significantly expanded the article a few hours ago. Per the GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list"

Sources include the (Minneapolis) Star Tribune, Mother Jones, CNN, MinnesotaIndependent.com, Twin Cities Daily Planet and St. Paul Pioneer Press, not to mention blogs and primary sources. In it's short two month life, the article has been tended to by 15 editors. I have to wonder what the real motivation is for this nomination, given the millions of articles on Wikipedia, and so many of them begging to be AfD'd. I'm sure a quick perusal of the talk page and history will reveal some insights. – MrX 03:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of the coverage not local to the Twin Cities is generated by the SPLC listing, without which we have an organization of roughly the same prominence as a local PTA. It's already been established that a SPLC listing doesn't confer notability by itself. Thanks for proving my point about the COATRACK, btw. Belchfire-TALK 04:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the US Justice Department and the US Department of Education might disagree with your assessment, as would CNN. – MrX 04:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You acknowledge that much national level coverage has been generated through the SPLC. That is, you appear to confirm the notability of the topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Anoka-Hennepin Bullying or similar title. Classic coatrack, but still notable. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 04:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also wouldn't object to a move so that the article focused on oppression of LGBT children in Anoka-Hennepin, which seems to be the focus of coverage, rather than the specific anti-gay organization. Retain, however, the information that's currently in the article, including the hate group information. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources shown above. Binksternet (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename & improve; there appears to have been several organizations in the past (books) that have had the name "Parents Action League". That being said, the subject of this article appears to have received significant coverage per WP:GNG, even if it is primarily in local sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean disambiguate? Are there other notable PAL groups that Wikipedia covers in any way? Insomesia (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; and I am unsure. I have not checked if other groups that have used the name have the potential to be notable (not saying that they are or are not).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There only seems to be this group represented on Wikipedia at present. Maybe wait until there is a conflict with another notable PAL? Insomesia (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. A local push group that ended up on the wrong side of history on a case that made it to the national courts, got national news coverage and earned them a spotlight as a designated hate group from the Southern Poverty Law Center. This is the latest front in an effort to suppress that hate group designations from extremist groups who may now be embarrassed that the light of day is shining on their work. There is roughly 12-18 notable anti-gay hate groups and these same battles have been felt on each of them. Eventually they will all be seen for their efforts, delivered in a NPOV way, this is what Wikipedia does better than most. Insomesia (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per significant coverage generated in response to the SPLC coverage as highlighted by Belch. Also the sources highlighted above by Still. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This group has received national news coverage and easily meets the notability requirements for its own article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to point out that at the moment, the majority of the article is not focused on the PAL. This might be a good place to fork most of the content to a new article about the bullying, and keep only the relevant PAL info here (which of course would include the SPLC tag). little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 16:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly couldn't have an article on the bullying and anti-gay policies without also talking about the group and its hate group listing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be narrowly focused to the group, and not the larger issues relating to that group, and it is good that the "hate group" designation is attributed as the designation of the SPLC have been called into ques tion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The group formed for a specific purpose, a bit silly to neglect explaining what that is or only vague insinuating why the group operates and what it does. And, this is a routine clean-up issue. Insomesia (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Certainly passes notability guidelines, and no other coherent reason for deletion has been advanced. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly the subject of significant coverage in multiple independently published sources (Pioneer Press, TCDaily Planet, SPLC, etc.) The piece currently deals very little with the structure and history of the organization as opposed to the controversies relating to them, but this is ultimately an editing matter. Clears GNG. Carrite (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secnodary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only keep it if the coats are taken off the rack. Otherwise, put it out of its misery. Most likely, based on that, I'm leaning toward Delete. --No unique names 04:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move, per the initial comments of little green rosetta and Roscelese, above. The notability here is the bullying and the suicides, not the small local group of nobody-ever-heard-ofs. Though they certainly need to be mentioned as a contributing factor, the emphasis should be on the events. (The school district itself also has an article, but I think the incidents have achieved enough notability on their own to merit a separate article, with the mention in the district's article reduced to a summary.) Fat&Happy (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I had thought that at one point myself but this group has been the subject of numerous articles tied to their activism, and of course the hate group designation. The issue that remains is a clean-up one to describe the policy debate with due weight - which I think we're close on - and allow the reader to decide what to think for themselves. There is also some evidence that this group operated under a different name before coalescing under this title, but I need to confirm a few things before adding that in. Presently I think we have enough on this group to warrant a standalone article. Insomesia (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 06:35, 13 September 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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avijit Lahiri

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

Non-notable, all of the references appear to be reviews or small mentions. I should note that the themedicineprogram.com link is simply a mirror of this article. The nearest acceptable link that the article lists is this CardioVax profile. Google News archives found one Telegraph article here, where he is mentioned twice. There is also another single mention here.

This medical news article focuses with his work but it would be insufficient to support this article. The second page of results briefly continues with other small mentions. Google Books provided results of books that are either written or co-written by him. Google Books also provided two mentions here but the quality of the preview is low and is probably insignificant as well. There is another small mention here from what appears to be a list and the following search results continued to be small mentions. However, I found one biography here but, like the medpagetoday link, would probably also be insufficient. Google Scholar found pages and pages of co-work but I wouldn't know if any of it classifies him as notable. SwisterTwister talk 03:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With a GS h-index of 40+ and 17 papers with over 100 cites, albeit in a highly cited field, he certainly counts as passing WP:Prof#C1. Nominator is advised to become familiar with WP:Prof and standard practice in academic Afds before making further nominations. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Per Xxanthippe, plus text of article which mentions 290 invited lectures; that's quite a lot and a strong indicator of notability. --Lquilter (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wos concurs with an h-index of 40. This is a conclusive pass on WP:PROF #1. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 September 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArcDLA

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

No claim of notability, no secondary sources, google hits all lead to further advertisement pages. The article reads like an advertisement, created with single-purpose account. As a recently established office (2009) and no major projects, unlikely to be notable. ELEKHH^T 02:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 00:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, meets criteria for WP:ADVERT. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 07:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 3 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:40, 9 September 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dormitory Effect (band)

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

I tried cleaning up this article but it looks like a lot of unverifiable material and original material. Sources were hard to find and archived sources didn't say much. The main assertions of notability are not really related to the band itself. Citing (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources are either invalid (ie: no web link, book ISBN number, etc) or don't cover the band in significant enough coverage. The line about opening for Black Sabbath is textbook WP:GARAGE. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 3 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No major label, no significant chart position, no gold/platinum certifications, no significant sales, no awards, etc. Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO and fails WP:GNG. Яεñ99 (talk) 10:29, 16 September 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 Suzanne Weyn. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bar Code Tattoo

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

Unsourced fiction article, mostly just plot. Rather trivial book. Us441(talk)(contribs) 15:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page because it is closely connected and related:[reply]

Not too sure why you're nominating for deletion an article on a book series which would appear to be reasonably notable by Wikipedia standards... AnonMoos (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought it could be a problem. I thought it was likely that people would want keep. It was mainly my first impression of the article that looked terrible, an unsourced plot-only fiction article. I then noticed that there was more than the plot, and decided, because it was already nominated for deletion, to leave it to more experienced editors. Us441 (talk to me) (My piece) 10:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it was more a matter for an article talk-page comment, then you should have left an article talk-page comment... AnonMoos (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because it's young adult rather than an old-folks tome doesn't mean it's not notable, which this obviously is. htom (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I hate to sound rude, but that's not a good argument for keeping the article. You have to show notability by way of reliable sources that discuss the book. You have to prove notability. You can't just say that it is. (WP:OBVIOUSLYNOTABLE) I'm in the process of trying to rescue the article, but I want to stress that this argument won't keep the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Suzanne Weyn. This was a pretty hard decision to make. Despite being named one of the ALA's best picks for 2005, there really isn't a lot of coverage for this book in any reliable sources. The book was nominated for two awards in 2007, but it didn't win either of them and the only places that mention this are primary sources and articles that have copied off of Wikipedia. In other words, there's no mention of this nomination in any reliable sources and merely being nominated for an award doesn't give notability. It might mean that it's more likely to find sources, but that isn't exactly a guarantee that they'll be out there. As far as reviews go, I found two from places that could be considered reliable, although the Teen Ink one sort of pushes it since it's hard to verify which exact reviews from that site are considered reliable. Over time the more I've looked at that site, the less reliable it seems. I tried to see if this book was discussed in schools, but I can't see where it's so universally used/discussed/listed as a school read to where I'd be able to say that it'd qualify under #4 of WP:NBOOK. As far as the second book goes, I couldn't really find any coverage at all. This is just a case of two books that have a fan following but hasn't really made that huge of an impact as far as YA books go. There aren't any reliable sources for these books. The ALA "best pick" isn't really anything to sneeze at, but it's not such an overwhelming award that I could say without a doubt that it'd be considered a major literary award. It feels like there should be more coverage, but there just isn't. I have absolutely no problems with anyone wanting to take a copy of these articles in their userspace and working on them until/if there are more RS that come up to show that these books are notable, but these just aren't notable right now and a redirect to the author's page would be best for right now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:15, 27 August 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:10, 2 September 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, Gongshow ^Talk 01:31, 9 September 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) 12:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shirmohammad Balouchnezhad

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

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

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

Fails WP:CRIN as cricketer has not played to a notable enough level: WP:CRIN states they must have played first-class, List A or Twenty cricket (or their international equivalents Test, ODI, T20I), or have played in the World Cricket League up to division five. Balouchnezhad and the other nominated Iranian cricketers have not played to these levels, failing WP:ATH and WP:GNG by extension. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nariman Bakhtiar has played first-class cricket in Pakistan playing for National Bank of Pakistan cricket team and Pakistan Customs cricket team. Salimian has not played first-class cricket however he has played cricket in Karachi local teams for over a decade, he is basically the father of Iran's cricket and helped to establish the sport there. Balouchnezhad is a talented cricketer who made 118 runs in an international match versus China, that's a great achievement for a cricketer who is not from a top national cricket team. If Singaporean, Emirati, Malaysian and other criketers have pages in wikipedia then Iranian national team cricketers should as well. If in Football/Soccer players from low ranked national teams have a page in wikipedia then why the same rule shouldn't apply to cricket? User:rooyintan (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nariman Bakhtiar hasn't played any first-class cricket, if he had then both CricketArchive and ESPNcricinfo would hold a profile detailing that. As ESPNcricinfo is down at the momeny, his CricketArchive profile is viewable here. CricketArchive, maintained by the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians is an authority on cricket statistics. If he had played first-class cricket, they'd have made mention in his career statistics. Playing for local club teams doesn't make a player notable, otherwise we'd have hundreds of thousands of people who could lay claim to having an article (myself included!). Also, being talented doesn't warrant an article, simply put the level of cricket Iran play at is too minor to be of note. China themselves are a pretty lousy team (dismissed for 37 in 2009 by ODI playing Afghanistan). Note though, that Singaporean, Emirati and Malaysian cricketers who all have articles having played first-class, List A or Twenty20 cricket for the UAE or Malaysia (though minus T20 for Malaysia) and for Singapore the players have played domestic first-class cricket in Pakistan, India or Sri Lanka. Bear in mind also that football and rugby place less emphasis on statistics and status of matches, hence the guidelines for the inclusion of cricketers reflect that. A good example of this is the 2011 ACC Twenty20 Cup, where the players with articles have all played one of the above levels of cricket (or played in the higher levels of the World Cricket League). Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whilst my personal opinion is that all players to have played on official internationals are notable, there is a community agreed guideline for what levels of cricket qualify a player for inclusion on Wikipedia. Whilst that guideline can be overridden in certain special circumstances, this isn't one of them. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 26 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 2 September 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, Gongshow ^Talk 01:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:53, 15 September 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kat (pornographic actress)

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

Fails PORNBIO for having only one non-scene related AVN nomination. Fails the general notability guidelines. With the exception of AVN, none of her biography is supported by reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom and fails WP:PORNBIOCurb Chain (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with just one individual nomination. No RS coverage found in search. Porn video sites as references for a BLP? This really needs to go. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:Pornbio is a subheading of WP:Entertainer, so when does criterea #3 ("Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment") come into play with pornographic film actors? In Hollywood films, Gene Hackman has the record with 73 film credits.[17] I'm not sure who has the record in adult films, but in my opinion, having more than 250 film/video credits seems would seem to be prolific. Kat has 332 credits, and 1.67 nominations that should amount to something. I think there should be some parity between adult film entertainers and other entertainers. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PORNBIO is actually separate from WP:ENT. Performing in X number of porn films was taken out of PORNBIO a long time ago. Porn films are produced in large quantities. 300+ is above average but is nowhere near a record. Porn award nominations are also made in large numbers. Editors tightened up PORNBIO taking that into consideration. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen over 900 credits, and I wouldn't be surprised if somebody did over 1,200. My geeky side would want to do a statistical study of all porn actors, even those who appear in a one or two videos, and figure out what the 90th, 95th, or 98th percentile would be and suggest a number that could be considered prolific. When I first got involved in Wikipedia and considered what to do for creating my first article, it was suggested in the helpfile to write about what you are interested in. At that time I thought porn would be interesting, and I wanted to make a point that porn is a part of our shared culture that should be written about encyclopedically because it's an important part of popular culture. It's apparent to me that pornography isn't often discussed in main stream media (especially by respectable newspapers and cable news networks) because it's not deemed socially acceptable. There's a few exceptions, like when a performer is murdered or is arrested for a serious crime. I can go to most any TV series, say List of Star Trek: The Next Generation cast members and find bios on some performers that may have only had 2 or 3 roles ever (they are rare). However, since I'm a Trekkie, not having tons of red links and "once-existent-now-gone" pages really helps the interested fan get, in depth information on their favorite episode.

For the person who's really into porn performers (a pornee?) there's other places to go I guess. I still think that porn's popularity will largely be under-reported and kept in the shadows. That's probably not going to change. With the growth of Porn 2.0, the old days of popular "porn stars" who star in feature length films is pretty much over. As far as my interest in pornbios, don't expect me to weigh in these debates much in the future. Thank you to all who took the time to read this. -Stillwaterising (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not the subject of multiple instances of substantial, independently-published coverage. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is the saddest excuse for a pornbio I've yet seen; mostly useless, and sometimes disgusting, trivia. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:16, 10 September 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Sehyun Song

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

This article is about a fourteen year old whose claim to notability is that she wrote a novel. However, the book is self-published and ranks over 4 million in sales on Amazon. There is no claim for notability here. The only references used are to Amazon, Twitter and the book's webpage. GabrielF (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be vanity article or autobiography on self-published juvenile author with no evidence found of significant sales, awards, critical attention, very clearly does not meet WP:AUTHOR. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly vanity article with no secondary sourcesCurb Chain (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as WP:ADVERT. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 18:59, 10 September 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 Diamonds Are Forever (film). The argument that this term would make a useful redirect seems strong enough to me to prefer merging over deletion. Editors should consider merging material to both Diamonds Are Forever (film) and Bond girl, and it may also be a good idea to change the redirect target depending on the editorial decisions made. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty O'Toole

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

Failing WP:GNG, WP:JUSTPLOT, WP:V/WP:RS since 2005; I was not allowed to just redirect the article, was told I "should nominate them for deletion" instead. Niemti (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You received bad advice - if the redirect is contested, then a merge discussion should take place. Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works is an essay, and shouldn't be used as a deletion argument - just because the article is lacking references and criticism, it doesn't mean that it should be deleted. In fact, the subject is notable, as Bond girls generally are - a google book search reveals plenty of hits. St Anselm (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, my comments were not advice. The editor had redirected the articles after improperly applying merge tags without discussion. I undid those redirects. In response, he made it clear that he felt those were not notable and should not even be merged, just redirected. For his intended desire, it would be better to go through the AFD process and have it closed as redirect than to create a merge discussion that will never be taken part in. I'll form my opinion on keeping/deleting later. Advertising at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters would probably get some editors who understand the notability guidelines for characters best. Ryan Vesey 02:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about "a google book search" or your feeling about "Bond girls generally" (a great most of them NOT having Wikipedia articles), this is about the Wikipedia article Plenty O'Toole, which was created in 2005 and in the 7 years since then been edited only to this sorry current state. --Niemti (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "it's not about a google book search"? You've appealed to WP:GNG, which says that if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it can be presumed to be notable. The google book search turns up many such results. Remember, the quality of the article is not a reason for deletion - see WP:RUBBISH and WP:NEGLECT. St Anselm (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only "reason to deletion" is that I was forced (told) to go with way, being somehow not allowed to simply redirect a 7-year-old Stub-Class, plot-only and 3KB long fictional character article with a total of 1 reference (to a fansite). --Niemti (talk) 10:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article clearly fails the general notability guideline of Wikipedia, and it does not serve any purpose to have an independent article about a minor character in a single film. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JoshuSasori's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Diamonds Are Forever (film). The article currently reads like the author was beating off while he wrote it. Betty Logan (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There should not be a standalone article for the character but it is a likely search term, and ergo should redirect, likely to Diamonds are Forever (I'm surprised that there's not a list of James Bond girls (there's Bond girl but no list for that)). --MASEM (t) 15:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Minor character who appeared briefly in one film only: the info can sit happily within Bond girl - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Masem. Cliff Smith 19:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable minor character. These pages belong on a Bond fansite, not Wikipedia. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:58, 12 September 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 Quantum of Solace. Most participants felt that notability was not established via sources/GNG, but that a merge was appropriate. While there was a wider question about the possible deletion of the redirect, and on the face of it there's no consensus either way, the last paragraph of WP:ATD-M guides against such deletions. As such, I'm ruling essentially a "no consensus" with respect said deletion, without prejudice to a specific RfD on the redirect and it's history in view of the licensing implications. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Strawberry Fields

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

Failing WP:GNG, WP:JUSTPLOT, WP:V/WP:RS since 2010; I was not allowed to just redirect the article, was told I "should nominate them for deletion" instead. Niemti (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plenty O'Toole. Bond girls are generally notable. St Anselm (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid. This is not about Bond girls "generally", but about the article Agent Strawberry Fields. --Niemti (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant, of course, that there are plenty of books about the James Bond films that give significant coverage to even minor characters. For example, Shaken & Stirred: The Feminism of James Bond. St Anselm (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a proposal to delete any "books about the James Bond films that give significant coverage even minor characters", neither. This is about the article Agent Strawberry Fields, which is not new. --Niemti (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble understanding what you're getting at. St Anselm (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the book Shaken & Stirred, I do not see significant coverage of Strawberry Fields. If there was significant coverage, the article could exist. In this case, the only relevant information comes on page 350 of that book. The book does label Srawberry Fields is the only character of the Revisionist Bond Era, which leads me to believe that there might be more sources that would give significant coverage; however, as it stands, that information should be included in Bond girls. Ryan Vesey 12:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, there seems to be some significant material there. St Anselm (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this very clearly fails the general notability guideline of wikipedia, as the nominator says. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into Quantum of Solace; the notability of the character has not been established. Betty Logan (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Quantum of Solace. There is no establishment of the character's notability. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge + Delete Merge to QoS, or to what I'm surprised doesn't exist List of James Bond girls. The "delete" here is that I understand the naming scheme here is used to avoid disambiguation with the disamb Strawberry Fields, but that is the searchable term - I don't see "agent strawberry fields" being used to search over "strawberry fields" for the same character, so this page is not a valid search target. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Quantum of Solace. Not a noteable enough character. Delete as per Masem (talk · contribs). - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Quantum of Solace and delete per Masem. Cliff Smith 19:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: another reference has now been added. St Anselm (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. These minor character pages have gotten out of hand. They belong on a Bond fan website. Not wikipedia. For what it's worth, wikipedia deleted an article about notable spy author Ted Allbeury! - Fanthrillers (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Quantum of Solace, and keep "Agent Strawberry Fields" as a redirect. I agree with Masem that "Strawberry Fields" is the more likely search term, but "Agent Strawberry Fields" is still possible, and it doesn't fall under any of the reasons at WP:R#DELETE. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - There are about seventy news articles that mention Agent Strawberry Fields. When Gemma Arterton, who played Bond girl MI6 Agent Strawberry Fields, is mentioned in a news story, they apparently throw a sentence or two in the story about Agent Strawberry Fields. Put all that independent, reliable source information on Agent Strawberry Fields together and I think you could have a nice, tight Wikipedia article on Agent Strawberry Fields. Right now, the article merely is some Wikipedian's thoughts on the topic. Nothing personal, but who cares what you think. Wikipedia doesn't. Per WP:GNG, Wikipedia merely is a reconveyer of what independent, reliable sources say about a topic. Until someone steps forward and writes an Agent Strawberry Fields using material only from independent, reliable sources, we should merge. Since the article doesn't appear to include anything from independent, reliable sources, it shouldn't be to hard for the closing admin to merge the little info in the article worth keeping. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in the interest of consensus-building. Article lacks the sources and distinct information to support a stand-alone article, as per the WP:GNG. However, it can be covered in a broader context at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:02, 17 September 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.

^ https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=lumber+avenue+manitoba&sugexp=chrome,mod=19&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[1] ttps://www.google.co.uk/search?q=lumber+avenue+manitoba&sugexp=chrome,mod=19&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[1]