Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 April	5 April >

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 merge to Iron Man in other media. J04n(talk page) 15:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 April 15, the result has been overturned to no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man franchise

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

This article is a WP:CONTENTFORK from Marvel Cinematic Universe, combined with a lot of info reproduced from the production sections of the articles Iron Man (film), Iron Man 2, and Iron Man 3. It is all redundant material. Fandraltastic (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion with a redirect to Iron Man in other media. First of all, it doesn't seem to be really about the franchise, it seems to be about one particular sequence of films in the franchise with the development section virtually copied verbatim from Iron Man (film)#Development, Iron Man 2#Development and Iron Man 3#Development. It's a totally redundant article: it is unnecessary to reproduce all the details from the film articles, and the films are already covered collectively within the context of the Marvel series at Marvel Cinematic Universe and within the context of the Iron Man franchise at Iron Man in other media. Betty Logan (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CONTENTFORK states "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article." Merger is not achieved by deletion. The title Iron Man franchise seems a more plausible search phrase for the topic than Marvel Cinematic Universe and would better cover non-cinematic aspects of Iron Man. Warden (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man in other media already covers non-cinematic aspects of Iron Man, while the Marvel Cinematic Universe is the correct title for Marvel's series of films as per COMMONNAME. Iron Man franchise would encompass everything from the comics to the films to video games, so is not a suitable title for any of the articles as they stand. All the content has been copied from other articles, so there is nothing to merge back. Betty Logan (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whilst there may in the future be merit in discussing the three Iron Man films in their own right in an "Iron Man (film series)" article, there is nothing here that isn't better covered elsewhere, and content is best suited to Marvel Cinematic Universe. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to ~~Iron Man (film series)~~ Iron Man in film and refine the scope to focus on aggregated content across the three films (basically dropping or simplifying "Development" as too detailed for this scope). I would relegate "Crossovers" to a simpler section (no sub-section headings) at the end of the article. The "Cast and characters" and "Reception" sections are standard sections for a film series article. I would also drop the film infobox from the article; it was never designed to accommodate film series articles. Its use here is painful to look at. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The aggregated content (development, cast and characters and reception) is already included over at Marvel Cinematic Universe, in the context of the wider film series. This article is essentially the equivalent of making a "Star Wars prequel trilogy" or "Daniel Craig James Bond film series" page - splitting out a portion of a wider film series article, where there doesn't seem to be enough content to make it anything other than a retread. -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is worth having different scopes, and I think that it is possible to have this Iron Man-centric scope. Actually, instead of Iron Man (film series), we could do Iron Man in film, which would more adequately capture the "Crossovers" section and still focus on the character. I think that these films are a delineated strand in the tapestry of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. For example, critics reviewed Iron Man 2 and compared it to Iron Man. They'll likely compare Iron Man 3 to its predecessors. In addition, we should consider critical analysis of multiple films (in the academic sense). For example, I found this, Fantasy Film Post 9/11, with the chapter "Wounding, morality and torture: Reflections of the War on Terror in Iron Man and Iron Man 2". This makes sense because the Iron Man films have recurring themes regarding terrorism and military technology, and this kind of article would be a good place to put it, especially if the aforementioned chapter analyzes both films together. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we can and should allow different scopes, but the Iron Man-centric scope is already covered in Iron Man in other media, just without the review/box office/cast tables as those already exist in the Marvel Cinematic Universe page. It's true that the in other media article currently has no critical discussion of the films, but it very well could, it would just need to be added by anyone so inclined. If that section became too long, not because of material reproduced from elsewhere (like the article we are discussing now) but because of new content, critical or otherwise, relevant to those films as a series, then I could see and support an Iron Man in film article. But I don't think we are at that point, and I don't think we will be anytime soon. -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot say what work would actually be done on an article that focused on Iron Man in film, but I believe the topic is notable enough to be stand-alone. Unlike the other categories at Iron Man in other media, I see a relationship between the films that warrants its own space. I think you are arguing against redundancy, which is a valid case to make, but I think this particular focus is beneficial. Comparisons have been made and will be made between the Iron Man films in reviews, box office analyses, and academic discourse. I think greater detail can be achieved in an established type of article (film series/in film) that would otherwise be drowned out at Marvel Cinematic Universe. Subsequent Iron Man films are being made because of the blockbuster success of this set of films. They didn't go from The Avengers straight to The Avengers 2; they're obviously going back to this series. Lastly, I think that "Iron Man in other media" is merely a list of media appearances (heck, just saw that the lead sentence says that) which I think constricts contextual growth, which is what this topic needs. To me, it's worth creating the space (because of the interrelated outside coverage I've mentioned) and going from there. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any sort of guideline about a list not being contextually deep, or being prose-free. In fact, I would think that a few paragraphs about the overriding themes and reception of the films would be extremely helpful to the Iron Man in other media article, and would make for a more useful article. And my concern is that an Iron Man in film article would be a plot blurp from each film and smaller versions of the tables from Marvel Cinematic Universe, which is what the article consists of now, and then maybe a few sentences on the themes of the film series. And I don't see that necessitating a standalone article at this time. I agree that it may be notable, but I don't think we should be spinning out articles until we actually have the material that calls for it. Just my two cents, cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - serious WP:CONTENTFORK issue, should be merged to Iron Man (film series) per Erik. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your own argument for a merge would not call for a deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a time-has-finally-come article and WP:MOVE to title to either Iron Man (film series) or Iron Man in film as per Erik. While certainly the franchise films can and will be mentioned elsewhere (such as within the entire franchise of comic books, animations, and toys AND films being discussed at Iron Man in other media or Marvel Cinematic Universe), that does not somehow mean we cannot discuss the Iron Man films in a separate article as a viable and now-proper content fork. We're building an encyclopedia folks, and a merge does not serve the project nor its readers. Erik's analysis is spot on. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the consensus is for the information to stay, I feel that the article should be moved with Iron Man (film series) as well. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Iron Man in film. The current scope is redundant to Marvel Cinematic Universe. However a larger scope will allow for more content such as the animated films and separate it from the Marvel Cinematic Universe article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of information about the franchise beyond the films. Not sure how you'd work those into the film article. Mkdw ^talk 00:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Iron Man in other media.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Material is already covered in articles Iron Man in other media and Marvel Cinematic Universe. Richiekim (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Educational and good resource, covered significantly in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The title is a bit of a misnomer, which should actually point to Iron Man in other media. The content however, as it covers the Iron Man film series, should have its page moved to either of its current redirects Iron Man (film series) or Iron Man in film. Marvel Cinematic Universe covers the entire Marvel film series, of which Iron Man is a notable part of, but I think this is a valid content fork in its own right as discussed in WP:RELART. The page could do with quite a bit of improvement, like Erik suggests, but I don't think that a poorly composed page is a valid reason for deletion. Funny ^Pika! 14:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RELART is definitely a useful read. I think this passage applies here: "Another example [of articles not being part of a content fork] is where two articles cover the same topic, but are clearly directed at different audiences." Erik (talk | contribs) 13:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move as per the other proposals, to Iron Man (film series) or Iron Man in film as those would be more appropriate titles. To keep the article with its current name would require a lot more editing to change the nature of the article. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of information about the franchise beyond the films. Not sure how you'd work those into the film articles. Mkdw ^talk 00:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs a lot of work, but the concept of a prose form of Iron Man in other media that would talk about the franchise itself is not uncommon and, in my opinion, does not seem close to CONTENTFORK of Marvel Cinematic Universe; "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject." The two are completely separate subjects. One is about the Iron Man franchise, the other is about every single Marvel film. Mkdw ^talk 00:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who created this article intended it to be about the film franchise; the very first version confirms this. It might have been named "franchise" instead of "film series" due to the crossovers, but I think "Iron Man in film" is the proper scope since it is not so license-based. As for an article about the overall franchise, I am not sure if Iron Man has received that kind of overall attention like Superman and Batman have. I'm okay with Iron Man in other media as a list article; I just find the film portion of his appearances more unifying than other aspects. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any unduplicated material with Iron Man in other media per WP:CONTENTFORK. Miniapolis 14:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khaybat

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

Only one source in the article, the Angelfire site, actually mentions Khaybat as a goddess, and it isn't an RS. None of the sources I have on hand—which include everything in the "works cited" section of the article on ancient Egyptian deities—mention such a deity. I've consulted other members of WikiProject Ancient Egypt (see the project talk page), and we've concluded it's almost certainly a fabrication. And even if we're wrong, Khaybat must surely be too obscure to pass notability guidelines. A. Parrot (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject seems to be the mythical wife of Anubis, but at least one reliable reference book on the subject of Egyptian mythology explicitly states that the wife of Anubis was never named. And, so far as I can tell, there do not seem to be any particular myths relating to the wife of Anubis, or data on her, which could not easily fit in other articles, like the one on Anubis himself. That being the case, I cannot see any reason for this separate article to continue to exist. John Carter (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the sources that say "Anubis' wife is never named" are referring to the "Tale of Two Brothers", in which a human named Anubis is one of the characters. The god Anubis did have at least one mythological consort, Anput, whose name is simply the feminine form of Anubis' name. There's nothing to exclude the possibility that Anubis had more than one goddess as a wife (Amun may have had as many as three over time) but there is simply no evidence for the existence of this wife of Anubis. A. Parrot (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I screwed up. Honestly, that probably isn't really news around here. Thanks for catching the error. The point of lack of clear notability of this name apparently still remains. Now, for all I know, there may be somewhere some sort of neopagan revival of old Egyptian mythology which has such a named character, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence on the page that this might be referring to such a revival of old Egyptian mythology, so I think we have to take it as a given that this is referring to the older stories about Egyptian mythology. John Carter (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. Petrie does say on the references page 92 "The khaybet was the shadow of a man..." (got the book free at Amazon.com's Kindle bookstore). Dougweller (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only reliable source appears to be misrepresenting what is stated in that source. Appears to be a modern made-up goddess being retroactively added to existing Egyptian mythology. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Partially impudent fake: the mentioned sources, that were used to alledgedly proof the texts, reveal that Egyptologists explain the lemma in a contradicting way. The other sources are far away from credible, one of them even is a private essay of a fictious person! More impudence isn't possible. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds that (1) the Egyptian myths have been known for three thousand years, and we should not mess with them without good reasons (i.e. clearly documented reasons, like finding a new wall of hieroglyphs that redefines who was who in the pantheon). (2) It is reasonable to defer to the judgment of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, and (3) I don't want to give the impression that I always want to keep everything :) Listmeister (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn and kept--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling (horse)

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

Declined CSD. Not sure about this one, appears to be a real horse from the 1870s, although the article doesn't give any dates. Some RS coverage [1][2]. Spinning Spark 23:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lear's Princess and Lady Sterling (horse) are similar articles created by the same author, also CSD'd which should maybe be restored if this one is kept. Spinning Spark 23:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely zero notability for this horse. Safiel (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User Random Effort has posted in their sandbox what appears to be a keep rationale:

Hello,my name is Random Effort,literally.My first name is Random and my last, Effort. I have been creating articles that nobody cares to make,usually about horses. I firmly believe that those horses deserve just as much recognition as the famous horses. What would have happened if Bold Ruler hadn't been around to be the sire of Secretariat? There would be no Secretariat.I will change my articles if you tell me what is needed to be changed.I SWEAR TO IT.-Random Effort.

The point being made here I think is that the notability of horses used for stud largely revolves around the achievements of the offspring they produce. This is not really a case of WP:INHERIT. I am not saying this horse is notable, just that it needs looking at a bit more carefully. Spinning Spark 11:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reject and userfy until it can be Wikified, referenced, etc, and at least looks like a proper encyclopaedic article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment I would persist in my delete viewpoint. In addition to the lack of notability, we would be opening up a Pandora's Box for a veritable flood of articles amounting to a "Horse Registry." The sire or dam or both of a truly notable horse can be mentioned at the article of the notable horse. But I don't think that a horse that was clearly not notable for its own performance should be granted an article. Safiel (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - As an actual racing horse, there does not appear to be much of a claim of notability. And although WP:NOTINHERITED should be considered, I would say that a horse could be notable as a stud if the coverage exists to substantiate that versus inferring it from the results of the breeding. Gvien that this horse predates the internet age by more than a century, it's fair to assume that sources available online will be rather rare.[3], and [4] provide coverage of Sterling's use for breeding. I also note that the article hews very closely in structure to [5], and the author should be aware of potential issues of WP:PLAGIARISM. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment C19th newspapers are available online via the British Library, and also The Times is available from 1785-2006. Both of these are subscription services but should be available free to holders of UK library cards. Userfication would allow time to thoroughly research these sources. Mjroots (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - Userfication hides an article from the view of other editors a defeats the purpose of collaborative editting. Addition of references would be better served with marking the article for additional sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. I looked in The Times archive and got a number of hits in the racing columns, but nothing much more signifacant than what we already have. But it is hard to find useful search terms without being overly restrictive with a name like Sterling. If only they had called the horse Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel it would make this so much easier. However, the obituary of Young Robertson Graham, founder of the Yardley Stud, thinks the horse is notable enough to include in the obituary "Oxford and Sterling were the stud's most celbrated sires." Note that the Yardley stud appears in two of our articles, Isonomy (horse) and Paradox (horse) and Sterling is mentioned in the latter as the sire of Paradox. Spinning Spark 01:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Not enough information there to even evaluate the horse's significance. It needs the horse's birth and death dates, or the date of the 2,000 Guineas race. Links to articles about the other horses mentioned would be useful. The article is fixable with more information, but lack of notability is probably a dealbreaker. Sorry, Random, but I appreciate what you're trying to do. Listmeister (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep on condition the article is incredibly improved. The article is horrible. This is a good ref. I've asked Tigerboy1966 for input. Tiger only does horse article, including English horses from Sterling's time period. Maybe Tiger could help Random out on how to write a horse article. An example would be Lord Lyon, who won the Craven Stakes a few years before Sterling. I thought it interesting that the Craven Stakes has been held since 1771. Bgwhite (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep certainly viable. I have added an infobox and will get onto the improvements later today. Tigerboy1966 09:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination and keep on the basis of the source found by Bgwhite. That together with the what we have already found plus a knowledgable editor now working on it is enough for me. Spinning Spark 09:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.—Kww(talk) 15:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]

God of Emptiness

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

Unsourced, did not chart, no assertion of notability, has been tagged for over 3 years. Google books found one result that might be worthy of inclusion, but at most this should be included in the album's article. An attempt to redirect this to the album article was undone, but nothing was done to improve the article. I suggest it be deleted, and if a redirect is deemed useful, that the article be re-created solely as a redirect (to prevent further undos). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. It has sourcing issues, and does not meet notability requirements, especially the charting ones. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Covenant (Morbid Angel album) and page protect to prevent further shenanigans, agree that the subject does not meet notability guidelines for a stand-alone page. J04n(talk page) 10:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banks based in Utah

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

Article does not follow Wikipedia standards, is neither a list article, nor about a single subject. In fact, it appears to be a collection of still existing and previously deleted articles about non-notable banks. In fact, the creator admits this in their edit summary "Creating article. It consists of the contents of the Central Bank and Trust and Zions Bank articles, plus the Merrick Bank article I created which was deleted due to non-notability. I have merged all three pages together." Yworo (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Moved to List of Banks based in Utah as a start - worth setting into and giving some love. Humblesnore (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination, article has been moved and made into a proper list article. Yworo (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 10:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner José Velani

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Oleola (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the actually notable Brazilian players receive big news coverage. This one is just a regular player who plays, it is not famous in Brazil. Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Algébrico (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, failing WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 10:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Figueiredo

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Oleola (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - best I can tell, the three appearances he allegedly made in the Hong Kong First Division were actually on the substitute's bench, and he has not played in any other fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for the article to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the actually notable Brazilian players receive big news coverage. This one is just a regular player who plays, it is not famous in Brazil. Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Algébrico (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sir Sputnik. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, failing WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 10:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Naumčevski

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Oleola (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not gone fully pro.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, failing WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 04:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 10:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Ruck

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

Autobiography of local vanity self-publisher and gadfly; fails to meet requirements for substantive coverage. Orange Mike | Talk 22:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Orange Mike for taking the time to look into this guy, he has built up a substantial online presence, including Wikipedia, to give lazy reporters the idea his opinion is worth getting for articles on Welsh Culture- of which he has some pretty archaic views. He is pretty active on the web, so I expect some more tampering from him soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyhorse185 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:AUTHOR, as evident in search results above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Lack of independent sources. All links provided are to blog posted and press releases by the subject or local papers that quote them. Most editing appears to be from same person, potentially the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.23.96 (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity bio lacking in real sources. Local newspaper columnist and self-published author. seems to fail WP:AUTHOR; for all his campaigning, would also seems to fail WP:SOAP. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 17:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable self-published author. Lack of secondary sources establishing sufficient notability. Gamaliel (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - spectacularly fails WP:AUTHOR. ukexpat (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the subject fails both WP:BASIC requirements and higher thresholds reserved for WP:AUTHORs. JFHJr (㊟) 00:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- columnist on a local rag; self-published author; campaigner. Nothing to lift him above NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 10:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John MacArthur bibliography

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

List of works by author. Neither the author, nor the works themselves, have sufficient notability to justify a standalone article--only 1 seems to have an article now. See the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists: No evidence the works have been "discussed as a group or set." It's just a list of works, the most important of which can be merged into John F. MacArthur. Not every author needs a list of works article. GrapedApe (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE, since this has already been discussed, and both the author and the works (as a list) are notable enough to justify a standalone article. Author bibliographies, as well as Category:Christian bibliographies. Ἀλήθεια 14:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the first AFD for this article. A 2-person talkpage discussion from 2009 isn't a strong indication of consensus to keep. Also, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not a good reason to keep.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom. Commentary for individual books of the Bible without a publisher is hardly notable for a stand alone article. The subject has clearly published books by a known Christian publishing house, but this is article is a poorly formatted CV. SalHamton (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - what do you mean "without a publisher"? All of his major works have been published by well-established publishers - Moody, Victor, Thomas Nelson, Zondervan, Crossway, etc. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge back to bio article. Clearly an important theological author. Both Moody Press and Word are major Christian publishers. Any criticism that much of his output is commentaries is misplaced: these are a major aspect of theological writing. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - please don't merge this back into the main article. There is a reason it was split out, because MacArthur is such a prolific and influential author, with more than 100 published books alone. Also, this list includes two sources indicating the notability of his writing specifically. Although this list should be better sourced, including more reviews of his books (these sources abound, they simply haven't been added to the article), this isn't a good enough reason to delete. It should instead be tagged for additional citations (specifically about his books). Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Nom is incorrect when he says that the author is not Notable enough to have a standalone article. He's one of the top five most influential preachers in Christian radio, in a league with Chuck Swindoll and Charles Stanley. My Church library is loaded with his books, I've even read one or two of them. Now, the Bibliography is much to extensive to shoehorn into the main article. Yes it needs to be cleaned up, expanded, fleshed out, perhaps add a few reviews, but not deleted.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit that I am a fan of radio preachers generally but doesn't that very fact put me in a position to evaluate his Notability? By analogy, if you want to know who is an important basketball player, you ask a basketball fan.Listmeister (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please re-read nomination. The list of his works isn't notable enough for a standalone list article, I do not say that he is not notable enough for an article on himself. --GrapedApe (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Neither the author, nor the works themselves, have sufficient notability to justify a standalone article," you said. I believe you are incorrect on both points. He is Notable enough for an article, and a list of his works is also Notable enough for an article. Listmeister (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.—Kww(talk) 15:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly Garden

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

Apparently never released, and notability is very thin. There are several short articles on Joystiq: http://www.joystiq.com/tag/butterfly-garden/ http://www.joystiq.com/tag/butterflygarden/ and a short interview and follow-up on TheXboxDomain. However, there doesn't seem to be in-depth coverage that would meet the GNG. Atlantima (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 4. Snotbot t • c » 22:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Atlantima (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was also an interview in episode 133 of a podcast called GamerTagRadio, but I'm not sure whether this would even be a reliable source.--Atlantima (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an unreleased video game by a non-notable game developer that was entered into a competition but didn't reach the finals. Add to that minimal coverage in reliable sources. J04n(talk page) 10:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Due to low community involvement in this discussion, will treat the nomination as an expired proposed deletion, with the understanding that anyone who contests the deletion may request undeletion for any reason J04n(talk page) 10:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Kucinich

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

Notability is not inherited, and nothing suggests this individual is notable independent of her father. An employer biography isn't independent coverage. Neither is this. Nor is a wedding announcement. Given the visible lack of independent, in-depth coverage, we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a run of the mill journalist who only recives any notice because her father is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants to merge any of this I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 11:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major gods

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

"Major" is not a valid categorization of "gods". Every single god listed on this page is covered by their ___location in list of gods by function. Furthermore, "major" isn't a function that can be performed, so this page does not belong in the category list and should not have its own category, which consists only of this one article. The article's list is choppy and incomplete, and the see also: list of deities at the top of the page better covers its contents. Penitence (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I disagree that "major" is not a valid categorization of "gods", at least within the scope of any one family of religions, this list is rather indiscriminate, subjective, and covered by "List of deities" much better. Even if this list were to be kept, it needs to be renamed to "List of major deities". The category is a different issue that should be brought up at WP:CFD. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 23:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete as indiscriminate list. Mangoe (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as superfluous. Twelve Olympians has information on the Greek pantheon. I don't know much about Aztec mythology, but Aztec creator gods covers the same subject. So this could be reduced to 2 links. But List of deities and Pantheon (gods) already offer links. I don't think the topic of "major gods" has a sufficiently consistent meaning between mythologies to merit even an improved version of this article, but if necessary lists of major gods could be added to List of deities. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have List of deities and the Pantheon article, and I agree that "major gods" as an overall list can't be defined. Lots of problems with this editor, see User talk:Giggette. Dougweller (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being unable to satisfy notability criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, no clear method of defining. I could see how this might be useful if Hinduism was brought up, but it is not, so no reason to go there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cant imagine any major argument for keep, as the inclusion criteria will always be too imprecise. An article on the head god (or gods if a pantheon has equally shared rulership) for each religion might fly though.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Deities. Currently it just has Greek and Aztec deities, but it could be expanded far beyond this. I've been looking for a source that compares the various mythologies of Indo-European cultures, this idea could be carried much farther. The List of Deities page only has categories, Sky Deities or Baltic deities. To list all the deities on one page--or even in a table--would be an excellent and interesting article indeed.Listmeister (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karel of Pardubice

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

Procedural nomination of declined CSD. Claimed to be a hoax on the basis of List of bishops and archbishops of Prague. Spinning Spark 22:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I too think it is a hoax (one of the oldest I've seen here). Jan Očko of Vlašim was named Prague's Archbishop on 12 July 1364 (after Arnošt of Pardubice) and remained in the office until 30 November 1378. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax, per Vejvančický he was not the Archbishop of Prague. Also add to the List of hoaxes on Wikipedia - second place. C 679 07:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum The claim that Karel of Pardubice inherited the town of Pardubice in 1373 is dubious. Páni z Pardubic (Lords of Pardubice) owned the town from 1327-30 to 1384. The house included some important personalities of the Czech history, such as the above mentioned Arnošt of Pardubice or Smil Flaška of Pardubice, however, Karel of Pardubice is not mentioned among them. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably a hoax. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, claims that a one year old baby "encouraged the monks and nuns to donate to the Charles University, enhancing the prestige of the education in the institution" yeah sure, delete. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 14:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. SalHamton (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the author seems to have been confused about the exact name and life dates of Arnošt of Pardubice, there is no other way to explain the strong similarities in the two articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't imagine why anyone would create this as a deliberate hoax, but mistakes can be made, and I think that without anyone standing up to defend poor Karel, we must conclude that he never actually was. Listmeister (talk)

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

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

The result was speedy close. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling (horse)

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

Completely non notable horse. No references. Prod declined without explanation by article creator. Unfortunately, not eligible for A7. Safiel (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Smacking my own head.) Yes it is eligible. Damn. Safiel (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

XHUAT-TV

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

Declined CSD. Claimed to be a hoax, but if it is, it was not obvious enough for me to delete without confirmation. Spinning Spark 21:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not exactly a hoax, but it doesn't appear to exist (yet) [6] [NOTE: MACHINE TRANSLATED PAGE]. So, even if it did exist, it is not notable in any way. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article in Spanish Wikipedia was also delete for it being a hoax. XHUAT does not exist I live on the Texas-Tamaulipas border and travel throughout the border and I know for a fact its supposed repeater stations at Nuevo Laredo, Reynosa and Matamoros do not exist. If any of them do exist they would be on COFETEL's list of television stations: here. UAT TV on the other hand is a 30 minute University news program distributed by other commercial television stations: here. UAT TV is not a network but a 30 minute news show and XHUAT-TV and its supposed repeaters do not exist. -AMAPO (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chuba Akpom

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

PROD contested by an anon with no reason given. The reason this article was proposed for deletion is because the page fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. These reasons are still true after the PROD was contested. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he is regularly playing for the first team, he is NN. STatements about his prospects fail WP:CRYSTAL. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he has not passed the notability requirements for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, failing WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails policies as mentioned in nomination. C 679 13:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, along with indefinite blocks for Lanebard, Cantsco, and plosoren.—Kww(talk) 15:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Bhola

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

Anonymous IP removed a PROD with a photo posted by the subject himself and with a PR sounding post. No sources provided other than links to a search function in a couple of local newspapers which do not point to articles on the subject. IP also spammed several other articles with info on this subject. Alexf^(talk) 21:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom -- Alexf^(talk) 23:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable person Uncletomwood (talk) 05:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the article with content moved from Cerebral palsy , in the hope that the contributor may find reliable sources suitable for demonstrating notability. If notability hasn't been demonstrated in the next five days, per our guideline Wikipedia:Notability, then I will support deletion. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is pretty well sourced, and the subject does seem reasonably notable.plosoren (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— plosoren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Subject does not appear to meet notability standards, despite somebody's multiple attempts to spam his name across several articles. --auburnpilot talk 21:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –The article is well sourced, supplemented with authentic newspaper reports, United Kingdom Accreditation Service certification of Spastic Society of Gurgaon. Additional information added on related pages of 'spastic', 'cerebral palsy' etc are not to be termed as 'spam' as those are bonafide and genuine additions to the information base of Wikipedia. However, the same additions which were termed as 'spam' have already been deleted. Reputed Indian national newspaper and periodical viz. Tribune and Friday Gurgaon links are attached, the link of official website of Spastic Society of Gurgaon is also given which are relevant references adequate enough for retention of the article.Cantsco (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Cantsco (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Subject meets the notability guidelines as there are pertinent references. I will support keeping the article. Lanebard (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Lanebard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 11:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Aquino

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

PROD is being removed by IP users. Deletion rationale: "Only notability is derived from family members, and notability is not inherited." Ducknish (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a minor claim of notability in the words "prominent opposition figure" (if that was, indeed, talking about Aurora. It was hard to keep all the references to "Aquino" without first names straight), but that claim is not supported by any sources. I agree that most of this notability, if there is any, is inherited. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I, too, had trouble keeping the names straight. I took a look around at some US-centric articles for guidance. It appears parents of Presidents usually get articles, but not grandparents of Presidents or parents of Senators. An article similar to Family of Barack Obama might be in order for this family. Location (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as notability is not inherited. However, it can be said that the Aquino-Cojuangco family is notable as a whole, due to there being a lot of coverage for the family itself, so if an article can be made for the family, then she can have a mention there. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Naruta, etc. The family is notable as a whole, but this woman was not. Bearian (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Doctor

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

PROD was removed. Rationale: "Non-notable person- he's of only local importance, and not the subject of significant coverage in a variety of reliable sources." Ducknish (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fixing fans is not in and of itself a notable thing. Coverage is not broad enough. If kept it should be renamed to the actual name of the person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Based on comments at the talk page, this may be a school assignment of some sort. In addition, it's rather interesting, and sort of sweet: I could imagine a profile of this gentleman showing up in the pages of a magazine like National Geographic, and in any event this material ought to have a home somewhere on the web. However, that's not the test for whether an article belongs in Wikipedia. We don't keep original research; we need to see independent reliable sources that show that the subject is notable in Wikipedia terms, for example, to show that his "fan hospital" is recognized as a sort of popular culture landmark in Hong Kong. The source at footnote 6 (Google translation here) might qualify, marginally. So might this one [7] depending on the provenance of the website. I tried searching the string <"fan doctor" "Hong Kong"> but that seems to be almost impossible to get useful results. <"fan hospital" "Hong Kong"> was not much more fruitful. Will wait to see if more can be identified by Chinese speakers; otherwise, interesting as this is, it seems destined for deletion.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Rozich

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

Non-notable artist lacking GHITS and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:N and WP:ARTIST. reddogsix (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being an artist who has done a show does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seraph Alamdari

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

Delete This actor has only been in one notable work, while the requirement for notability is being in multiple notable works in major roles. It is unclear that he even had a major role in the one work he was in. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)*[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 4. Snotbot t • c » 20:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Insufficient details in the proposed article to determine notoriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirat (talk • contribs) 08:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced, notability not established. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanco S.A.

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

WP:NOTABILITY not established through WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of the reliable 3rd party references required to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, either in the article or from searching elsewhere. AllyD (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - spectacularly fails WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Philadelphia Toboggan Coasters. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Turns (Hersheypark)

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

This article contains information about a roller coaster that never existed. It was a design concept, in which very little information exists. I have imported the information into the main Philadelphia Toboggan Coasters article, so this one can be safely deleted. GoneIn60 (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

confirm Merge then Delete. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support a speedy merge and delete, though some of this information will be incorporated into the Hersheypark article, as well as the PTC article. Does my contribution to this discussion speed up the process since I was the primary contributor to the article? (I believe all other edits were of a grammatical or technical nature.)--hmich176 04:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with keep - The contents have been merged and as such requries that author attribution be maintained which is acchieved by keeping the soruce article for its history and redirecting. See WP:COPYWITHIN. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I was careless about the way I merged the contents, not realizing that proper attribution should have been used in the edit summary. I will be mindful of this in the future. I agree that using a redirect instead of outright deletion is a better solution to preserve the source's history. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Đuka Galović. And delete (copyvio history etc., all info now at target article) Sandstein 18:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graničari stari

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

Could not find reliable sources that would establish the song's notability per WP:GNG. While it is possible that the song meets WP:NSONG #4, this has to be reliably confirmed. Apart from that, the article is mistitled (the song's name is actually "Odavno smo graničari stari"), unreferenced for 5 years, an orphan, and violates copyright, so its value is marginal and WP:TNT is a valid option. GregorB (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nowhere to be merged to, appears to fail NSONG, and the copyvio lyrics section just got nuked by me. Unless a Croatian-speaking editor can convince me otherwise, I don't think it's notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in the prod, the song's author Đuka Galović is quite probably notable, but the article does not exist yet and even if if did, there would be next to no content to merge in the first place. GregorB (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase (partial or full, regardless) is a search term, so redirect to a new article about Tamburica songs and mention it there. This could be a section in the Tamburica article at first. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I created Đuka Galović, there's newly sourced material on the song, as apparently one of his 3 best known, there. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good. I think it's the best solution. GregorB (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree; the song is significantly more notable than its author. I'm going by google search+books hits as well as anecdotal experience - I sincerely doubt most people who know about the song have any idea who wrote it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, when I said "the best solution", that was according to the standards of Wikipedia notability (WP:GNG, WP:NSONG, what have you), not real-world notability (which is not the same). If the song is indeed notable in the former sense, than it should be possible to find out (with WP:RS support) who wrote it and when, when it was first performed or released, and which notable musicians performed it. Otherwise, the article might not even be salvageable as a {{R from song}}, as its title is off, as noted above. GregorB (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - But why do you think it is impossible to verify that? For example, when you google it, you can see that a popular rendition is one by Zlatni Dukati. A few clicks later, you can find that it appeared on their album Hrvatska pjesmarica in 1989. Anyone who has a copy of that can verify this information, and apparently it was a popular album so it shouldn't even be very hard. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I never said this was impossible to verify: in fact, this (by "this" I mean WP:NSONG #4, as already noted) would be the easiest avenue to defeat the nom, but it requires multiple artists, not just Zlatni dukati. GregorB (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Zalewski

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

My search doesn't show that the subject meets WP:AUTHOR, WP:MANOTE, or WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real secondary sources describing his work as an author, no book reviews, nothing at all. Just a citation of someone else using his work as a reference. That doesn't add up to notability. Gamaliel (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The previous AFD was not helpful in shedding any light as to why it would have so many keeps despite the lack of reliable sources. Considering that WP:AUTHOR has become more rigid since then, and despite his large body of work, there has been no real substantiated assertion of notability. As such, I'm inclined side with delete unless someone is able to track down multiple reliable sources. Mkdw ^talk 20:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources required to establish notability under WP:GNG. The best I was able to find were interviews on blog sites, which are WP:PRIMARY and lack the editorial oversight required to make them WP:RELIABLE. Msnicki (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete not entirely comfortable with that...as I can verify that the book written by Robert Ellwood in 1993 and cited in article exists[8] AGF on content and that he was inducted into the NZ hall Martial Arts hall of Fame [9] in 2000, Hall of Fame does indicate notability within the Association and should be sufficient in establishing notability but WP:NSPORT doesnt make that leap for any sport. Given both of these sources add to it that he competed pre-internet makes it difficult. International_Traditional_Karate_Federation article does match the [letter=N#text the ITKF site] but neither show NZ as a member, which is troubling in that a non-member country is unlikely to be able to compete, though I do concede membership can wain over time. Gnan garra 00:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Book by Professor Robert Ellwood has no mention of Pat Zalewski within it.
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There needs to be more sourcing and the article needs to be pared down, but there should be enough secondary sources out there, as far as this particular niche goes. His work is cited in many books on the subject. Anyone familiar with this subject area knows Zalewski is notable in the field. ^^James^^ (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self promotion by author.

Keep I agree with ^^James^^ that the article needs paring down, but here is a preliminary list of secondary sources. They should be added to the article as refs.

Tree of Life, (Regardie, ed. Cicero) - Citations to Secret Inner Rituals of the Golden Dawn, 2 endnotes.
Godwin's Cabalistic Encyclopedia (Godwin) - Bibliography/Reading List, Secret Inner Rituals of the Golden Dawn
Tarot and the Magus (Paul Huges-Barlow), five in-line references: 2 References to Z1- 0=0 Neophyte Ritual, 1 Reference to The Equinox Rituals of the Golden Dawn, Paragrpah quotation from Z1, Paragrpah quotation from Secret Inner Order Rituals of the Golden Dawn.
History of the Occult Tarot (Ronald Drecker, Michael A.E. Dummett), Reference, Z-5 Secret Teachings of the Golden Dawn

I believe this is enough to satisfy the requirement of WP:AUTHOR for 2nd party references in printed books by commercial publishing houses, in particular the first two. JMax555 (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since these are not online and available for inspection, could you be so kind as to update your citations to identify the publishers and add some quotations from these sources to give us an idea what they have to say about the subject? It's one thing to be a minor footnote and another to run for several pages discussing his life. Msnicki (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, those refs were obtained through Google Books (search for "Pat Zalewski" and check the books not authored by him), so all the publishing info and page numbers can be obtained on line, with a little digging. I'm happy to do it, and actually planned to in the text of the article itself. It takes a little doing, one has to find the refs in Google Books, note the page number and re-type the text from the page scans, and then go find the ISBN numbers and publishing info by looking them up on Amazon or Barnes & Noble. (Two of those cites are several quoted passages from Zalewski's books.) But doing all that work will take time, and I have a real life, so if this AfD stays open long enough, I will try. "Several pages discussing his life" is not a necessary criteria for notability (though it certainly counts); if an author's works are referenced and quoted by multiple 2nd party sources, the ref doesn't need to be biographical per se. Of course, biographical info used in an article must itself be properly sourced (for example, a bio that's part of the author's published book is generally satisfactory, since it was created by the publishing company's editorial staff.) I think that footnotes and cites, while not notable individually, indicate notability if there are a lot of them in many other author's works. JMax555 (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found book references 1,2, and 4 at amazon.com and Zalewski is not mentioned in the text in any of them. In book 1 he's quoted in the introduction and has a source in the 7 page bibliography for it. In book 2 his only mention is among 60 or so books in the bibliography, and in book 4 he is mentioned twice in the hundreds of footnotes that take up 42 pages and once in the 7 page bibliography which has 100+ references. None of this looks like it meets WP:AUTHOR nor did I find anything to show he's notable as a martial artist (WP:MANOTE) or has the significant independent coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I went and searched Google to find the links and look at these sources. 1 is just a couple of endnotes citing a few pages in one of the subject's books without comment. 2 just includes his book at the end of a long list of other books, also without comment. 3 has 5 hits inside the book (click view all); one says his books are useful, two offer a couple sentences about something the subject believes about the Golden Dawn and the General Exordium (whatever that is) and the remaining two just list a couple of his books. 4 is just yet another bare citation. These are the essence of trivial mentions. They're far from the in-depth coverage it takes to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite the WP guideline in WP:AUTHOR that defines what constitutes a "trivial mention." What's being established is that Zalewski is mentioned and referenced many times by many other authors and publications. If all that could be found is one or two mentions, I might agree with you. But the search for his name (in quotes) on Google Books pulls up 1,650 hits. Let's assume that 90% of them are bogus or obscure. That leaves 165 real refs and citations going back to the 1970s. I believe this is strong evidence of notability in this particular field of Golden Dawn ceremonial magic. Israel Regardie, the other main exponent of the modern Golden Dawn movement, has a WP author page that no one challenges for deletion, and actually has a smaller body of work (most by the same publisher as Zalewski.) JMax555 (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, thank you Msnicki for debating the actual content and notability instead of impugning the other editors and hinting at sock puppetry. JMax555 (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the size of the body his work that matters, or even, since notability isn't WP:INHERITED, whether others have taken note of his work, it's whether they've taken note of the individual himself. I don't think you've got enough here to establish his books as notable, much less him as notable. Also, WP:GOOGLEHITS is an argument to avoid. Israel Regardie, otoh, does appear to be satisfy WP:Notability (people). Though our article doesn't cite it, I had no problem finding a whole book about him, Crowley's Apprentice: The Life and Ideas of Israel Regardie. Msnicki (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on the author's body of work AND the secondary source citations offered by 'james', I vote for keeping the article. Kheph777 (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on the author's body of work AND the secondary source citations offered by 'james', I vote for keeping the article. Pat Zalewski is a noted researcher in this field and has a substantial body of work and lots of references can be found. For example he is also referenced in

King over the Water (Nick Farrell), Reference, Golden Dawn Rituals and Commentaries
King over the Water (Nick Farrell), Reference, Talismans and Evocations of the Golden Dawn
King over the Water (Nick Farrell), Reference, Inner Order Teachings of the Golden Dawn Magus007

Same request for you, too. Since these are not available online, could you please identify the publisher and provide quotations from these sources so we know more clearly what they have to say about the subject? Msnicki (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found these, since I own the book:

King over the Water (Nick Farrell), Kerubim Press (February 29, 2012) ISBN-13: 978-1908705013

Ref, p3 and p159 Golden Dawn Rituals and Commentaries
Ref, p68, Talismans and Evocations of the Golden Dawn
Ref, p 298 Inner Order Teachings of the Golden Dawn

JMax555 (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to point out, with out going to SPI, that User:Kheph777, User:JMax555, and User:^^James^^ all came out of editing retirement since 2012 to singularly !vote keep on this AfD on the same day. Kheph777 and JMax555 both use triple repeating digits and despite Kheph777's very small number of edits, has contributed to two similar pages as JMax555. Mkdw ^talk 05:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The additional information I provided was accurate and relevant, and you apparently were not aware of it. That's me being helpful. Ideally when new information is presented opinions change accordingly. ^^James^^ (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kheph777 and JMax555 are two different people and the reason that they contribute to similar pages might be because they are experts in this particular field, and discovered that the page was up for deletion. I monitor a couple of pages and if there are no changes on them I have nothing to say. Magus007

"Discovered"? Something of a coincidence! Could this come under 'Off-wiki canvassing' (if that is relevant)? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor being notified that an article of interest is nominated for deletion doesn't violate any WP policy, so long as there is no sock-puppetry involved. Let's discuss the merits of the article and not the editors, and please try to Assume Good Faith. Thanks. JMax555 (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

actually WP:CANVASS covers the issue at hand. sock-puppetry also covers meat-puppetry which is other people acting on behalf of one individual, while AGF is a primary principle where there are strong indicators of either in deletion discussions noting such is also acceptible. Gnan garra 23:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't seem to meet any notability criteria. See my comment above for a more detailed explanation. Papaursa (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this as an open-and-shut case of failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK and WP:GNG, with no WP:RS to make this person notable as anything. And furthermore, I would like to point out to the closing admin, as well as to the entire community, that the meat-puppetry violations of WP:CANVASS that have gone on during this AfD are a hideous stain on the integrity of Wikipedia's policies and processes. For that reason, the cynically manipulative comments and keep votes of the meat puppets in this discussion should be entirely ignored. Qworty (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while Zalewski is mentioned a handful of times in bibliographies and the like, there is no substantial third-party coverage on the person themselves. I do not believe he meets WP:BIO at this time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence or argument presented for meeting GNG or the appropriate SNGs. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Vetell

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

An MMA fighter with no top tier fights so he fails WP:NMMA and he lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated in the nomination, the fighter does not meet the fighting record requirements nor the WP:SIGCOV required to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Mkdw ^talk 20:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jum sum

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

I have been unable to locate significant coverage of this article's subject. The article itself refers to it as "almost forgotten", which further calls into question whether or not it is the subject of substantial secondary coverage. Andrew³²⁷ 17:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What concerns me most is the fact that Google searches for either "Hongo Book Company" or "Lo Zu, Jill" return zero hits if "Jum sum" is excluded, so at best it is not a reliable source. GregorB (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After being unable to find any information about the cited book in WorldCat, I have tagged it as a possible hoax. Andrew³²⁷ 19:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's almost certainly a hoax. Ducknish (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article has been translated into Portuguese, which should also be deleted. FallingGravity (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, what should be done with the translated article? Is there a way of pushing foreign language messages? Andrew³²⁷ 18:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are actually a lot of obscure old Chinese folk gods, so I wouldn't rule this out. I don't speak Chinese, but someone who does should probably look at this before we delete it; the Chinese name seems to be literally "Pillow God", and the Chinese character name gets numerous google hits (alternatively, these may be referring to the Jade Pillow/Third occipital nerve in traditional Chinese medicine). Magic pillows do actually have a place in Taoist folklore, as in some versions of Lü Dongbin#Yellow Millet Dream. Also, there appears to be a "pillow spirit" character in the recent pop culture A Pillow Case of Mystery--Pharos (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search for the name in Chinese doesn't turn up anything that describes it as a god in folklore. Even if it were authentic, it doesn't appear to be notable, and there's too little to work with to create an article that satisfies WP:V without further sources anyway. wctaiwan (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd very much like to hear what the creator has to say about it. I see that he's autopatrolled, so AGF should go pretty far on this one, seeing as if this is a hoax then we're in "go through all of his contribs, pull his rights, and maybe block him" territory. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I am not casting aspersion on a terrific editor, especially not for a 7 year old article. Even good editors can fall for hoaxes and put them on Wikipedia. I also want input on the theory that it is a hoax, which is why I am going through AFD instead of Speedy Deletion. What really matters, though, is that this article does not appear to meet WP:N and nobody has proposed keeping it. Andrew³²⁷ 16:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence/argument presented for notability j⚛e decker ^talk 16:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Cole

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

Fails WP:NMMA with only two top tier fights and the article lacks any significant coverage to show he meets WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated in the nomination, the fighter does not meet the fighting record requirements nor the WP:SIGCOV required to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Mkdw ^talk 20:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comments--he fails to meet WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. The article's only sources and links are to his basic biographical information and his fight record. Papaursa (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:BIO, with an eye towards the requirement for unbiased sources in a BLP-related article j⚛e decker ^talk 16:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joel D. Wallach

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

I'm not able to find adequate independent, reliable sources to substantiate notability here - especially not sources which meet the high bar set for a biographical article. I believe that this subject doesn't currently meet the WP:BIO notability requirements. MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the first place, he does not pass the notability bar - all I could find at Google News Archive was announcements of his seminars. In the second place, it fails verifiability; I could not find any Independent Reliable Sources on which to base a biographical article. And in the third place, it violates neutrality; the article appears to have been written only to discredit him. Maybe he deserves to be discredited, I express no opinion about that - but the article as written is not neutral and I could not find sources to make it neutral. (I see from the history that there has been considerable edit warring over this, with some people adding positive material and others deleting it for being unsourced. The article in its current state contains only the criticism-type material.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thank you - I think that's exactly the problem. With a lack of independent, reliable sources, the article will remain in a tug-of-war between inappropriately sourced promotion of the subject and inappropriately sourced denigration of the subject. That's not a good situation for an article, especially not for a BLP. MastCell ^Talk 20:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His notability is hardly rock-bottom but it's certainly low, and that leads to another problem: When a subject is controversial, sources tend to take firmly "pro" or "anti" positions, and with just a handful of those sources it's impossible to build a neutral article. bobrayner (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that the notability is marginal at best, and a truly neutral article is impossible at this point given the paucity of high quality independent sources. Yobol (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - I agree with Bobrayner when he stated "When a subject is controversial, sources tend to take firmly "pro" or "anti" positions, and with just a handful of those sources it's impossible to build a neutral article." However, he has recently recieved attention from notable sources: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/al-international-jcof-announces-results-130000091.htmlPottinger's cats (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

actually, I change my position to Delete: unless we have the yahoo finance press release as our main source, Mastcell's comment stands - "Yes, thank you - I think that's exactly the problem. With a lack of independent, reliable sources, the article will remain in a tug-of-war between inappropriately sourced promotion of the subject and inappropriately sourced denigration of the subject. That's not a good situation for an article, especially not for a BLP."Pottinger's cats (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acropolis Cup (boxing) 2002

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

Couldn't find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find significant independent coverage of this event. I would also recommend adding the 2004 event to this AfD. These don't appear to be major events--some divisions had as few as 2 or 3 competitors. Perhaps these events could be combined into an article on the Acropolis Cup (boxing).Mdtemp (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put the 2004 version up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acropolis Cup (boxing) 2004.Mdtemp (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 21:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trisha Paytas

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

Article fails WP:NACTOR, plays minor roles in multiple films but no "significant" role as required by notability requirements. Only WP:RS coverage I can find involves her endorsement of Romney, but nothing that would indicate significant coverage over time. Probably WP:TOOSOON. Coffeepusher (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coffeepusher (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Strangely enough, she's gotten repeated significant coverage from the Daily Mail. [10] [11][12], one of which was reprinted in the Haryana Tribune. [13]. She was also on Who Wants to Be a Superhero?, and Eminem's We Made You video, and the Romney endorsement MSN Huffington Post Different Huffington Post which probably wouldn't have been enough by themselves, but does serve to put her over the notability bar. --GRuban (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find those, but I still think it fails in significant coverage. There is one article there that does provide some coverage of her as a youtube actress, but that seems sparked by her Romney statements and then...well nothing happened. the other are followups on her tanning addiction. This coverage is enough to establish her as an entertainer, but not enough to forgo the notability criteria for entertainers, and she fails WP:NACTOR.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is how one becomes notable for more than one event: one event at a time. :-) She is not a notable actor, she is notable per the classic WP:GNG, with multiple articles dedicated to her from multiple mainstream sources. Not by a wide margin, I'll grant, but I think she does meet it. --GRuban (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agreee with GRuban, Coffeepusher. When someone meets the GNG, we do not need to then find an SNG they might fail. It is only if one fails the primary notability guidline that we look to see if an SNG might be met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's some evidence that she might be notable.[14][15][16] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:BASIC through meeting WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transparency: I did meet Ms Paytas back in 2011 when on set for my brief scene in the Sleepless in Silverlake video covering a day-in-the-life of various Hollywood look-a-likes as shared by Les Savy Fav, Paytas opens the video as a Marilyn Monroe type and, in a short scene in a karaoke bar, I did a pretty spot-on Oliver Hardy dancing with a Joan Crawford look-a-like.[17] I had no idea that she would eventually have the coverage to merit inclusion. Good for her. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know her best for being that tanning addict on My Strange Addiction. That alone should already help meet GNG. And she apparently is another Steve Woodmore! Coffee pusher, please check for some decent sources before nomming. While it may not be a policy per se, it helps to save everybody's time. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bonkers, it is ok to disagree with a nomination, but could you please strike the last part of your comment. I think calling me "sounding stupid" is a personal attack. This page is not here to discuss your opinions of my shortcomings.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I may not have worded it ideally, but I what I truly wanted to convey that it doesn't look good on you or anyone else when you start and AfD and everybody opposes to deleting. Besides, there is really so much significant coverage out there and it seems to me that when you said "Only WP:RS coverage I can find involves her endorsement of Romney [...]", you didn't really spend time to find more. I really didn't mean to call you stupid; who am I to judge your intellect? (IMO, "sounding stupid" isnt really that much a "personal attack" as compared to "you are a retard!".) Sorry, I just wanted to make a point and show my frustration at a growing number of AfD nominations that derive from a lack of guideline encouraged WP:BEFORE but apparently I have selected the wrong wording. So I have gone ahead with your wishes and struck the last line. Thank you for your notification. Best, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - thank you.Coffeepusher (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 21:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Plichota

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

Has written a series of books that appear non-notable. Not significant media coverage. WP:NOTABILITY not established - seems to be coi promotion. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cendrine Wolf. Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was going to say redirect to the book series, but it seems that even the books are lacking in notability. Ducknish (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - http://www.guardian.co.uk/childrens-books-site/2011/nov/07/oksa-pollock-plichota-wolf-review (and similar reviews in French, German, Spanish) In ictu oculi (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Her book has reviews but I don't see how she meets WP:AUTHOR:

'The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.' Boleyn (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oksa Pollock. I've sourced the book series to where it shows notability, as it's gotten a great deal of coverage in multiple languages. However the issue here is that the author doesn't really have notability out of this main series. She and the other author have another series in the works and if that gets as much coverage as this one has, there would be merit in creating an entry for the two of them as a writing team at that point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still keep - or at the very least wait until this weeks Susan Hopper release has time to hit the shelves and garner press notices. No need to duplicate comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cendrine Wolf. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BOOK. Qworty (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The person has created... a work... that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

http://www.lepoint.fr/culture/2010-03-03/interview-les-ingredients-du-fantastique/249/0/429805 etc. etc. etc. etc.

Where does the guideline say "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" have to be in English for a French book? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Oksa Pollock. It's possible that she's notable but we don't have enough references yet: the Guardian review is by a child rather than a professional critic, and the other cited references (Ouest France, Le Point) are interviews, which don't qualify as reliable sources. There's the argument that she's notable simply for playing a large role in the creation of a widely reviewed book, but that doesn't guarantee her an article if there are no other sources. If she was sole creator, she would have a better case, or we could merge her book to her article, but as co-creator the best option is merging her to her co-creation. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being the author of a work that has created "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" is an inclusion criteria, and this author fits this criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Largely WP:CRYSTAL-related concerns j⚛e decker ^talk 16:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Governors of Gorkhaland

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

Non-notable, unsourced list of governors of a proposed state in India. It seems to be an attempt to shoehorn government leaders of an existing administrative area into the role of governor of another, proposed area. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:INHERENT. - Mr X 12:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 12:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 12:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of context.Deb (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the real problem is WP:CRYSTAL, as this position does not exist and might never, and maybe even WP:POVFORK, as pretending that these politicians have already held this position can only support the movement for the state to be recognized. postdlf (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The state does not yet exist (and may never exist) so the list makes no sense in this context. If the state exists in the future, these people still would not have held the psition of governor as listed in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - No such position exists at present. Vandalism. -- Milesandkilometrestogo (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to No. 189 Squadron RAF. MBisanz ^talk 21:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

J. S. Shorthouse

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

IMO fails GNG and WP:Soldier. He is simply among 100s of pilots who won the DFC in WW2 Gbawden (talk) 12:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into No. 189 Squadron RAF. 20,000+ DFCs awarded in WWII, so it does not count toward WP:ANYBIO #1. GregorB (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to No. 189 Squadron RAF if a list of Squadron commanding officers is created, otherwise rank and awarding does not automatically denote notability per WP:GNG. Individual has received passing mention connected to his command of the squadron, but the individual (who is subject of this AfD) has not received significant coverage] in any non-primary reliable sources that I have been able to locate. As the individual is connected to the squadron, if a list of squadron commanders is created within the article, a redirect to such a list should replace the standalone article. Otherwise the subject does not pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:SOLDIER and thus the article can be deleted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mid-ranking officer with a single third-level gallantry decoration. Worthy, but doesn't meet notability requirements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to No. 189 Squadron RAF. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to No. 189 Squadron RAF. The squadron appears to have existed twice, once at the end of WWI and again for a short period of WWII, during which the subject was its CO. He has no separate notability, but the details of his career could usefully be merged inot that article. If we can get information suggesting notability as a RNZAF officer, the resulatnt redirect could be reinstated as an article and exapnded accordingly, but so far we have next to nothing. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge nothing notable comes up. Full name was John Sidney Shorthouse - also flew for TEAL and Air New Zealand until 1975 and then became an instructor. Was mentioned in dispatches. Also flew with 12 and 44 squadrons. NealeFamily (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The dab idea can continue to be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 18:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Email service provider

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

Unbearable page (see also Talk:Email service provider#Unbearable page) ale (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close as one of the least policy-based rationales I've ever seen (apart from those that just say "reason"). Not only that, but it's clearly a notable topic, as things like Hotmail/Outlook, Gmail and Yahoo Mail are email service providers. [18] seems reliable, and a vast number of email providers advertise themselves using this term. Hell, Microsoft themselves use this term: [19] Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No rationale for deletion given; notable topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So fix it -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 00:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unbearable? What, we have to clean out spamlinks every so often, so that's 'unbearable'? No real reason presented for deletion and no major problem exists with the article as-is. I expected it to be a lot worse but compared to some of our 'list of' articles on Internet providers this is downright calm. Also, nobody else commented on the talk page heading contribed by the nom, which seems to be purposefully designed to slant this article towards deletion, when the pros and cons were solely put in front by the nom. Nate • (chatter) 02:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No policy-based rationale for deletion presented. The subject is clearly notable. The article could use some work (needs references and should be expanded and illustrated) but this is besides the point. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to satisfy notability. — Cirt (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The issue seems to be that this article talks about two differnt type of entities that have been referred to as "Email Service Provider". The first type of entity is general email service provided by major companies such as Gmail, Hotmail, etc are obviously notable. The second type is a company providing email marketing. I don't see that there is any good info to merge, so adding a hat note at the top to refer to email marketing would resolve this. -- Whpq (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic is clearly notable and no valid reason for deletion is given. --Boson (talk) 06:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about a disambiguation page? I'll create a disambiguation, as a hat note was attempted before and didn't work. It will contain two items: Email and mailbox provider as more and more often the ambiguous term is being used in that sense. The mailbox provider page may deserve to become a full page rather than a redirection to an ISP section, but links need no change. The second item would be Email service provider (marketing), discussing ESPs. Most links will have to be changed to point here directly. I'll create the latter page by renaming this non-deleted page, because the bulk of the content, the talk, and the history of the page refer to the latter acceptation of the ambiguous term. ale (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support disambiguation page as proposed. Sounds good to me. --Boson (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 21:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nageswara Rao Panditharadhyula

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

No verifiable information on this person. Fails WP:BASIC. Most references point to 404 status pages or are incomprehensible. —Waldhorn (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Give Telugu editors time to add Telugu sources - Panditaradhyula Nageswararao listed as one of 7 most important journalists on that paper probably means there are sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak KeepThe person is definitely notable but the article is ........(badly written),that needs improvement.On the question of notability he i definitely notable Uncletomwood (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does anybody know the other possible transliterations from Telugu? Crtew (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As someone who only works in the area of journalism, this decision is one that I find particularly difficult to judge. The nominator makes a good point, but I would edit the phrase "No verifiable information" to read "Hard to find verifiable information". The problem is whoever created this page or added to it got the information from some source(s) but didn't leave a trail for us. The one cite that is included in the article and the material in the article (although unsourced) would tend to suggest he is notable. In addition, the fact that he is a Telugu journalist makes the decision particularly important for the project as coverage in this area is lacking. He would also be of interest in India History for the fact that his career spans British Colonial rule and Independence. Moreover, there are search problems in this case: Is the transliterated name correct or are there better forms of his name? (I don't know the options.) He was also writing in an era, in a part of the world, and in a language that makes a productive Google search very difficult. When you can bring up a hit, such as in Google Books, you can't get a preview (e.g., Press in India). Because of the order of name parts it's best NOT to use an automated form of search available in places like Wikipedia or quotations. This would be a great project for Telugu editors or foreign-language research librarians. I've added on his talk page my weak attempts to do what someone with more skills, a better database, and access to the paper copies of the monographs/serials could do better. Because of the difficulties in this case, the normal time frame of the AfD process is not realistic for overcoming the obstacles in terms of talents, materials and attention that is needed to save/improve it. It would be a shame if this article could be salvaged yet was deleted. The reason I'm voting "Keep" with all of the qualifications above is the length of his career, his important positions on those newspapers and his suggested place in Telugu journalism, as well as on the basis of the limited sources we have at this time.Crtew (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 16:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thuglak

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

Notability problem. Circulation nr provided by unreliable source and way too low. Dravidian Hero 13:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A very notable newspaper clearly passes notability with "high marks".The nominator was a tad too hasty.Uncletomwood (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Uncletomwood. Skullbird11 (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep see above, Crtew (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Uncletomwood. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems notable.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Uncletomwood. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: After searching in Google English and Google ~~Telugu~~ Tamil, I am convinced of its notability. Even if we consider it a secondary news magazine, it should be kept. --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Tito Dutta (contact) 10:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Google Tamil? Salih (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, corrected with sign! --Tito Dutta (contact) 10:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 21:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright policies of academic publishers

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

After doing some editing on this article, I have become convinced that it does not belong on WP and is not salvageable. My reasons are the following:

~~This is inherently original research: it requires the editor to dig through publisher's websites to find their copyright policies and then summarize them.~~ Much of this is also WP:SYNTH.
If pursued, this will become one huge unmanageable list: the Category:University presses of the United States alone contains 115 publishers. The Category:Academic publishing companies another 108 (and then there are the university presses of all those other countries).
To complicate the already almost impossible task outlined under 2, many publishers have different policies for different journals. Some publishers have both subscription journals and OA journals, for example. Others publish journals on behalf of learned societies and each society can (and will) negotiate its own policy with the publisher.
I am unaware of any secondary sources on this subject. Indeed, all references currently in the article are to publishers' websites (primary sources; except the very first reference that actually has nothing to do with -or at best is only tangentially related to- the subject covered).
I'm not sure that synthesizing a list of publisher's policies actually is encyclopedic and falls within the mission of WP.

For these reasons I believe this article should be Deleted. Randykitty (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage in secondary sources, which can replace the synthesis of primary sources. There may be no coverage of the policies of specific publishers, but that wouldn't be original research as the primary sources would be reliable for the purpose. If this is the case for all publishers, such a list wouldn't meet the requirements of the notability guidelines (and there would be no clear selection criteria). There's also the question of whether a list would be the most appropriate format for an article. Copyright transfer agreement and Academic publishing already exist, but I can't find an article that this duplicates. Addition of relevant content to Academic publishing would be useful, but depending on the amount of coverage a separate article (probably not a list) may be viable. Peter James (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is original research: there are references for every publisher, and there are probably some webpages with limited compilations of these policies. The article can be wikified: I propose a first part describing the different general rights given to authors (distribution of preprints, postprints, full distribution, open access content), the historic evolution of these policies, and then a table with the summary of the policies of the major editors (using the same criteria used in other related articles, or just the publication volume), with references to each publisher's policy.

In fact, I believe there is an important overlap with List of academic journals by preprint policy, though this latter one is more limited in scope. Therefore, I propose their fusion. Joaosampaio (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If this list were done properly, it would run afoul of NOTDIRECTORY. As it sits, it's pretty much NOTAYTHING. Carrite (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I agree with the author that as the article stands, it is an OR problem. But I think there are sources appear now, with the Academic Spring and such, which discuss this topic, and which should allow for this to be rescued. As such, I think the topic may be notable, although I agree that the current sources are not sufficient to prove it. Also, this article should not be a list, but rather discuss the trends and such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Divide and rewrite Piotrus called my attention to this. It's tricky. A good page could be written, though this would be only the beginning. There are really two parts to this: the first could be a separate article, Copyright in academic publishing presenting the various factors and the various problems. There are very good sources available, only some of them linked here. It would be difficult to do it briefly because the variations are rather subtle. The second half is the policy of the various major publishers. Here there are two problems: one is the somewhat confusing ways the various publishers state them, and the other is their variability. At the moment, it would be relatively difficult to handle, because the rules are changing, in response to the various open access initiatives. Much of what is available on the publishers sites is not in fact actually the way they do things at present, and there can be considerable discussion about the actual effective meaning. Furthermore, it is not necessarily the same for all of their journals I think the place for that part of things would be the articles on the various publishers--especially because then it would be possible to deal with the changes of their individual policies. I have the impression from the present article that the originator of it may not be fully aware of quite how much there really has to be done here; I'll be glad to help, of course

What I am suggesting is to move the information on the individual publishers where it belongs, and retitle and properly develop this article.

The various points in the nomination are worth discussing--some of them actually indicate the way to handle the topic. (1) It is not in the least OR. The idea that "digging through the publishers websites to find their policies" is OR is quite mistaken--such is the way we construct all WP articles--we dig through the sources, and assemble the information. How do we do articles on sports seasons? on elections? This actually requires much less synthesis and OR than many general topics. Second, even if kept together, (2) That an article would be too long is not an objection--it can always be divided, and in fact, that's what I propose doing. Consider the article on anything where there is variation between states and countries, such as age of consent, or death penalty, or copyright in general. There's always a way to handle it. Normally, in fact, we cover the major divisions first, or whatever the people here are interested in doing.. An objection like this is like saying we can't have an article on IBM, because they have too man products. Or how can we write an article on the US: there are all these different states, and they are each of them not homogeneous. (3) That policies vary for different journals is correct, and that is one of the reason s an article of this sort is appropriate and necessary. It's not too much detail to handle. Nothing is too much detail to handle if there are sources and people to do the writing. (4) I am aware of many secondary sources. I just reviewed one for CHOICE, in fact. What editors want, Univ. of Chicago Press. There's an authoritative website , LIBLICENSE. There are several journals, particularly Learned Publishing, of which I used to be an editor--and many trade and speciality publication. a few somewhat obscure ones. . There are articles in essentially every librarianship journal in the world. (5). The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information. It's just as valuable to present (not synthesize) a list of policies as to present (not synthesize) a list of hurricanes, or anything else. The question in each case is how to do it.--and perhaps in addition to having the main information on each publisher page, we should indeed have a summary article. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Point taken about the OR, I have struck that part of the nom. I also agree that an article about copyright issues in academic publishing would be interesting and sourceable. However, that would be a very different article from the current list-type article, which I think is not salvageable. I think this one should be deleted and, of course, that would have no bearing whatsoever on the creation of another article on a related but different topic (that is, an article on copyright/licensing issues in academic publishing). A list of hurricanes is not comparable to what is going on here: the effects of a 2009 hurricane won't change in 2015. In contrast, as DGG says, copyright/licensing policies of basically all current academic publications are very much in a state of flux and creating an up-to-date list of all copyright policies of all journals of all publishers is an unattainable goal. As for sources, I maintain that there are no secondary sources for the article as it currently stands. The sources given by DGG would, of course, be great sources for another, more general article as discussed above. --Randykitty (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a secondary source, and is linked to in the article (Sherpa/Romeo) Joaosampaio (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a search machine/database and it actually looks like the current article just attempts to copy SHERPA/Romeo. --Randykitty (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sherpa/Romeo is professionally curated by experts , and is considered reasonably reliable, though there are major disagreements about what ought and ought not be included DGG ( talk ) 15:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a mixture of synthesis and OR to me.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think there is a reasonable case for blowing this up with The Holy Hand Grenade of Brother Maynard of Antioch, without prejudice against recreation of a generalized article contemplated by David G. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Nom: )Absolutely agree with this. --Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum, the effort to catalog the specific policies of various publishers which follows the lead needs to go away, in my view... Carrite (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that DGG has made a solid case that this is not inherently OR. I also disagree with the perfectionist view that if a list is very hard or very difficult to compile then it does not belong on Wikipedia. Statements claimed as WP:Synth WP:OR need to be tagged with inline markers and reviewed and rewritten. Also I suppose for some editors tagging/fixing/sourcing the WP:Synth would be a lot easier than a total rewrite. As such I think what is really needed is some expert help (god forbid). I took a college course about 6 years back on academic publishing and an improved version of this article would have been quite welcome however things are changing quite quickly in this area. BO | Talk 18:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless an article is throughly permeated with material that must be removed, or is basically wrong is overall conception & organization, I personally always find it is easier to edit from whatever portion of the material is usable than to rewrite from scratch. In this case in particular, I also think that any rewriting (and certainly in this case moving the material on the original publishers) will use so much of the original or be so closely parallel to it that it is appropriate and even necessary to give credit to those who previously worked on the article--this can only be done by keeping the history & is a reason against throwing out & starting over DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has great potential to be part of a quality improvement drive incorporating secondary sources about its subject matter. — Cirt (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This list will be a nightmare to keep up with. There are whole databases (SHERPA/ROMEO) dedicated to this proposition, and they get out of date sometimes. Bad information on something like this would, IMO, be worse than no information, since bad information could plausibly substitute for someone reading the policy themselves. --Lquilter (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. without prejudice to incubation or future recreation. MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent M. Ward

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

This is not the subject of substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources (see WP:GNG, WP:BASIC). The roles — largely unsubstantiated — fall very far short of WP:NACTOR. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the subject has met WP:NACTOR. He had a recurring role on the television show The Walking Dead and has substantial amount of work prior to receiving the role. Silver Buizel (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What role was substantial? What role was significant in the grand scheme of what series? JFHJr (㊟) 19:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He played Oscar on seven episodes of The Walking Dead. Silver Buizel (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

7 out of 34 to me indicates information on this actor probably best belongs on the Walking Dead article, in the Characters section (recurring, clearly not a main character at all). Not a substantial role; zero biographical coverage by reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 20:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage about him. In particular, if his recurring role in Walking Dead was is significant, this should be established with coverage in reliable sources. I can find no such coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like he mostly worked as an extra or appeared in minor roles. I can't locate significant coverage/roles or evidence of a large fanbase. Hekerui (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: I feel WP:ENT is met, specially as notability is not a popularity contest to see who has the most press coverage. See WP:GNGACTOR. Ward's having more-significant roles in television projects and smaller roles in multiple notable film's is verifiable.[20][21][22][23][24][25] While the WP:GNG is the easiest or laziest (no offense intended) manner through which to allow presumption of enough notability to merit an article, it is not the only way... else there would be no need for any of the various common sense WP:SNG's in the first place. Though it makes our task in informing our readers more difficult, we do not "punish" those perhaps-notables for keeping a low media profile.... But as Ward himself states in a 2012 interview, that despite the non-disclosure agreements he signed (production's means to keep plots secret and stifling spoilers and related coverage) he feels The Walking Dead is the true beginning of recognition for his acting career", perhaps we can incubate this for a while as he now finally gets the coverage he is due. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In what way is WP:ENT satisfied? You link to the NY Times is a directory entry that provides no information that I can see that details his roles that would allow one to determine that the roles are significant. Relying on the information in the article, he has a bunch of single episode appearances in TV shows with only Starter Wife and Walking Dead being an exception. The remainder of the links are to event announcements. That includes the pqarchiver article which is available online here mentioning his name in passing in a list of celebrities. How are these articles demosntrating that the inclusion criteria for entertainers is satisified? They certainly fail to establish anything under WP:GNG. -- Whpq (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The verifiability of significant roles in mutiple notable productions does not require that such verifiability itself be WP:SIGCOV. But as I concluded above, and in not !voting a "keep", userfication or incubation allows the article to be improved OUT of mainspace. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree, but none of the material you provided proves that any of the roles are significant. -- Whpq (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is the incubator at all active? If it is I see no reason not to incubate but I suspect it would be in a perpetual purgatory. Incubate or delete per WP:NOTYET. J04n(talk page) 11:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is somewhat. I know that I try to check in there a few times a year, but I pretty much focus on the movie, actor, and book entries because that's what I'm more familiar with. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, as I keep an eye on those topics with which I have familiarity. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was default keep (incorrect venue). As this is a redirect, deletion or not is a matter for WP:RFD. Feel free to take it there instead (non-admin close). Stalwart111 09:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés Thomas Conteris

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

There is no notability for the man. He started Democracy Now's Spanish language version. I nominate for deletion. Ricksantorum2012 (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence/argument presented for notability j⚛e decker ^talk 17:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frida Berrigan

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

Only superficial information is known about her, there doesn't appear to be any notable information–outside of the fact that she is the niece of Daniel Berrigan–and the only source cited is her own organization, which is not independent information. Ricksantorum2012 (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even an assertion of notability in the article. Writting one article that is namable and being a peace activist does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources provided are from institutions with which she is directly associated and a piece which she wrote herself. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - speedy deleted by Deb with our thanks. (Non-admin close). Stalwart111 10:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment Technician Certification Program

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

Ghorpaapi (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need for nomination - this is clearly vandalism and I will speedy it Deb (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence/argument presented for notability j⚛e decker ^talk 17:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harprit Singh Kang

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

As it stands now, article is written like a resume. I don't think cleanup/rewriting will do any good, as the subject appears to fail WP:BIO. Simply being a designer for notable TV channels, etc does not make him notable by default and I'm unable to find any reliable sources that discuss him independently. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 08:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I speedied this as spam, and although the new version is less promotional, it still reads like a nn-CV Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no question, this is promotional.Deb (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Lacking coverage of any sort, this individual fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cornell University Glee Club. MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cayuga's Waiters

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The only independent sources providing coverage were essentially performance announcements, which we don't really consider enough of a source for bands and shouldn't apply differently for college a capella groups. There was recently an AfD that closed after very little participation, with the only keep argument being that they were compared to a more notable group. Yaksar (let's chat) 01:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources have been provided; every source provided is either associated with the group itself or the group from which it is a spinoff (and I wouldn't consider sources associated with the group's university to be independent, if they were provided). No independent sources have been provided to establish that this group meets any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cornell University Glee Club, already well covered there. J04n(talk page) 11:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per J04n; does not meet WP:NMUSIC. Miniapolis 13:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior AfD, but redirect/merge to Glee Club honestly seems reasonable too.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Branscombeacyloea

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

Appears to be a hoax. (I'm not G3ing since I believe that should only be used for cases that are obvious at a glance.) It gets precisely 2 GHits – this and the creator's sandbox – and the text appears to be largely copied from Amoeba, which is a hallmark of hoaxes (using a well-known article's structure to make the article look well-formatted and thus evade serious scrutiny). — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no article on the family (Branscombe is a town), only Ghits for the genus or the discoverer point at Wikipedia, and such a recently discovered genus would be in reputable, online journals. Chris857 (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Cat Sugar

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

There's no denying that Yuko Shimizu is notable. Unfortunately, this character she created does not appear to be so. A search in English and Japanese failed to find enough significant, reliable or independent coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the character's Japanese Wikipedia entry is currently blanked as copyright infringement. If this article is considered a copyright infringement as well, then it can be deleted as G12. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've revamped much of the page, so I think it'd be just different enough to where it wouldn't pass G12 now. My big concern is that speedying it might be a disservice. This isn't nearly as big as the HK empire, but there have been books, various sundries, and at least one video game out there with this character in it. I'm finding a lot of German sources and some Italian ones. I don't see where she's hit as big over here, but I'm leaning towards keeping this based on what I'm seeing so far. I'd like to improve the article more before officially making a definitive keep or delete statement, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to at least some of the sources you found? If there are indeed significant coverage then I will be happy to withdraw this nomination. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've put most of them in the article. There are a few that I'm somewhat unsure about, so I'll just link them here: [26], [27], [28]. The third is a review of the game, but the other two are slightly more in-depth but I'm unsure of the reliability of the sources. There's just enough to where I'm leaning towards a keep, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checking what's already on the article, they do appear to be reliable. As such, I'm withdrawing this. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously nowhere near the cultural icon that Hello Kitty is, and probably never will be. But it's still a global brand with a book series and presence in many countries. Merchandising characters are tough to guage notability on because there's not a single thing like a blockbuster movie or a hit song to point to. But Angel Cat Sugar stuff of some kind is available in just about every country in the world, and for a character intended to perpetuate a merchandising brand, it's clearly doing what it's supposed to. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3000 Miles (disambiguation)

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

This is not a valid or useful disambiguation page; all of the entries, relative to the primary topic, are unambiguous partial title matches. ShelfSkewed Talk 04:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ShelfSkewed Talk 04:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the nominator, there is no need to disambiguate because the articles don't exactly share the same title. JIP | Talk 05:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Falls foul of WP:PTM, as only one is called 3000 Miles. It's not the name or a commonly used alternative name of any of the others, just a part of the title. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only one of them is actually called "3000 Miles"; the rest just simply have it somewhere in the name. I'm not even quite sure a hatnote on 3000 Miles would suffice. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) per the A7 criterion. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 07:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Syed intiqam ul hasnain advocate muntaqim haideri saithly

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

Unsourced article about a seemingly non-notable poet. I was unable to find any sources, even after checking a couple of lists of Urdu poets and List of Urdu-language poets. - Mr X 03:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 03:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 03:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo Licata

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

How is he notable enough to merit his own article? He is one of many living Italians, and not even among the top five oldest men.Ricksantorum2012 (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because the project has decided that oldest living people is a category that qualifies for articles, I believe that "oldest living man in Europe" is a satisfactory claim to notability. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 4. Snotbot t • c » 03:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sven and because he has been the subject of several news articles --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 05:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to meet WP:BASIC per [29], [30]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. In this case, precedent and consensus are clear that the oldest living people in particular categories are notable enough for articles, provided of course that sources exist. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above; oldest living people are notable enough for articles assuming sufficient sources exist to prove the claim. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep certainly remarkable. Notability seems to hang on case law about notability--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If being the oldest living European and Italian man is not notable, then I don't know what is. Futurist110 (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is the oldest living man in Europe. Old Time Music Fan (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Che Deng

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

No references suitable for Wikipedia were found failing notability Curb Chain (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This game has an article on the Chinese wikipedia and I've added the source I found there. The game may just be lacking sources in English so I don't know whether it's notable, no vote. --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source is unreliable. I've removed it.Curb Chain (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only source for this is a self-published web page. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe this could be a real and notable game, but without reliable sources there is simply no way to prove that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bae Jae-Min

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

No notability, or place in an encyclopedia. Jamesx12345 (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the deletion procedure This was nominated for deletion on 15 March 2013, but the nominator never added the nomination to the daily log. I have now added it to today's log instead since I think that people might risk missing the nomination if added to the log page for 15 March instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about the nomination There was an article at Korean Wikipedia, ko:배재민, which was deleted for some reason. The deletion summary contains the word Tekken (철권), so the article on Korean Wikipedia was presumably about the same person. He seems to have received some media coverage, for example [31], but I'm not sure if it is enough. I'm not an expert at BLP policy. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 07:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Delete~~ This article is poorly written and not notable. Jamesx12345 (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

You nominated the article so it is assumed you favour deletion - no need to !vote twice. Stalwart111 21:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Comment One problem is that most information presumably only is available in Korean, so it isn't trivial for editors of English Wikipedia to access the information or determine whether a source is reliable or independent or whether it indicates notability. I suspect that this person isn't notable (that's probably why he had his article deleted from Korean Wikipedia), but it's not really easy to research due to the language barrier. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trusty google translate says "document was deleted (mischief or graffiti, mistake, or a document created as an exercise: content: 'Tekken pro-gamer in 2011 WCG Grand Final Tekken Tequendama crash Six gold medalist and two-times winner (editors only [[Special: Contributions / Ksrd)" Jamesx12345 (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - okay, so for a start, the article is horribly written with "thoughts" from the author about not being able to find things and some awful translation (or just plain awful prose if it wasn't translated). That's not a reason for deletion, per se, but the article is going to need some WP:TNT if it survives. Sources are not required to be in English but those that are suggest there's not much international coverage that would suggest the subject has notability outside a small group of people in a niche community associated with a single game (from the perspective of WP:GNG). Gamers can be notable, of course, but I'm not certain this one is. This article from the Washington Times suggests he won a gold medal "at the Olympics of the video game world". If he had actually won a gold medal at the Olympics, of course, he would pass per WP:NOLYMPICS. But is the World Cyber Games the "highest level" of his "sport"? There's also random bits and pieces like this, but yes, the rest would seem to be in Korean. If winning a gold medal in that competition is sufficient then he obviously passes - he won and it can be verified. If not, I think a WP:GNG is a ways off. Stalwart111 22:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not independently notable, doesn't pass GNG, even including Korean sources. Winning WCG hasn't made any others WP:BIO notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia either. WCG's comparison to the Olympics is a ways off, though I'm sure they like to market themselves that way. czar · · 17:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The WP:SYNTH votes have it, through weight of argument.—Kww(talk) 16:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 global cold wave

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

This article is original research. It combines information about a number of areas that experienced lower than average temperatures and uses that to state that there is a global cold wave. I've only found one external source describing a global cold wave, and that is from 2010. Some of the sources in this article refer to global cooling going on, but it is not being reported in mainstream media. Ryan Vesey 02:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: Well it was a winter with an unusual confluence of extreme weather events.[32] But I don't know that it's "officially" a global effect; after all there was a record heat wave in Australia. The title decidedly smacks of OR, so perhaps a rename is in order. I'd suggest a rename to a more neutral title like 'Winter 2012 extreme weather events'. Praemonitus (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per Praemonitus. The title is OR, but the unusual cold in many part of the world is surely linked in people's minds. It should have a descriptive title, not one which names the "event" - something like "Winter 2012–13 Northern Hemisphere cold spells" (notice the "s" which avoids tying the individual events into a widespread phenomenon). --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no opinion on the title, but the topic seems to be notable as shown by the National Geographic article on it. Borock (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename. The event was reported by various major sources, is still occurring as of April 4 and can be verified further, in addition to the references currently provided in the article. Brandmeister^talk 08:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless at least one, and preferably more than one, meteorological source can be found which discusses this phenomenon. Also, please note that 'currently cold in a lot of places' is not the same as 'global cooling'. Any article about this phenomenon needs to reflect the distinction between seasonal variation and climatic change correctly. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been recently renamed to reflect the situation better. Brandmeister^talk 14:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks like an original synthesis. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "cold wave" bit needs to be dropped or it is still an OR title. --ThaddeusB (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The problem with this article is that it takes lots of different news stories, that may or may not be due to the "global cold wave", and links them together. Many of these articles give no reference to any global cold wave whatsoever. The compilation of these incidents may very well constitute original research.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 19:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See for example NASA statement, Climate Central and AccuWeather. The event is nearly uniform in Northern Hemisphere and isn't a mere coincidence of bad weather conditions. Brandmeister^talk 21:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right. But the problem is: we're not a scientific journal. We're an encyclopedia. It's not up to us to link all these individual events and stitch a story together. Our job is to write reports about the stories already out there. Your last reply convinced me even more that this page constitutes original research.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 23:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is stitched here. A weather condition marked by low temperatures or a period of weather colder than normal or a spell of cold weather over a wide area are called a cold wave and this is what the reliable sources (including those in the article) report up until now. Brandmeister^talk 00:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OR concern can be fixed merely by renaming: "2013 Northern Hemisphere cold weather events", "2013 Northern Hemisphere cold spells" ,or something similar. There is nothing wrong with discussing "related" cold spells as long is not an attempt to say they arepart of a single phenomenon. --ThaddeusB (talk)

I'm not really in favour of that idea either. How encyclopedic is that? Are we going to list all the events from when it was cold and when it was warm for every year? —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 07:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many major events of similar scale are there, see Category:Cold waves. Brandmeister^talk 09:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're not discussing those articles. We're discussing this one.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 10:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google quickly shows a lot of "cold waves" reported for many countries in 2013. So far the general article OK under descriptive title (unless you want a bunch or articles "2013 cold wave in the US, 2013 cold wave in India, 2013 cold wave in Russia, 2013 cold wave in Uzbekistan,...etc. etc. ) But it is only a matter of time when someone publishes a global summary. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When and if they do, we can consider basing an article on it. At present, this still looks like an original synthesis. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The event has been already confirmed by Phys.org, NASA (Many parts of the Northern Hemisphere saw near record-breaking cool temperatures as the value of the AO fell) and other RS that are in the article. Brandmeister^talk 17:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete (vote changed). I was confused by my own argument: as of today the article is WP:SYNTH, since no sources discuss this as a global phenomenon. At best, it may be split into articles per country, to be merged later, when the 'global phenomenon' will be discussed as such. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Worlwide events. Reliable sources are present. NickSt (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google will always find sources for a cold wave in any given year in many countries, because at some point in the year the weather is almost certain to be for at least a few days colder than expected. Staszek Lem is thus correct that an article could be written with this title if one takes the sources at face value, not just for 2013 but for 2012, 2011,... -- and similarly for heat wave. The question of whether this particular winter was outside the normal range of variation is an interesting one, but the very nature of probability distribution means that some events will be outside the usual distribution without it implying significance. Now, it may be the case that this was indeed so anomalous that it is a real phenomenon. But the sort of material reported here does not prove it, and using it is a blatant example of synthesis. It's perhaps time we started using something like MEDRES in all fields of science. The content is also biased, and does not represent the content. There are quotes in the article about how this represented a "little iIce Age." there are not quotes found prominently in the sources referred to above, that this is one of the manifestations of general global warming. (though there is one taken from the sole scientific source used, albeit popular science, that it is the effect of melting sea ice.)

I normally do not !vote for deleting an article because I disagree with the content chosen for inclusion, because that is normally fixable. I normally do not !vote for deletion for an article where the title implies bias, because that too can be fixed--I think the correct title would be World climate in 2013. (and similarly for other years) Weather is one of the concerns of an almanac, and WP contains such elements of an almanac. too the extent the bias is promotion of a cause, it can be fixed like most promotionalism. But some promotionalism is unfixable, and requires removing the article and its history, and starting from scratch. That's the case here. The very first sentence proves it: it is considered worthy of note that is was cold, beginning in January in the Northern Hemisphere! All of the individual city weather reports are inappropriate content because they are meaningless for a general question without using WP:SYNTHESIS, people's inexpert opinions are the entire content. What is needed is reports of scientific analysis. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're still mixing the issue of notability with the issue of the article's title. The notability in my view is clearly established, particularly considering multiple sourced weather records. The issue you're actually raising is about the event's connection to the ice loss and the extent of the phenomenon, both of which are fixable. As I wrote above, the article does include NASA Earth Observatory reference, that is clearly about the event and explains why it has occurred. The article just mentions opinions and doesn't promote any particular view (and even if it actually does, it's still fixable). The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research also wrote that how this might be linked to global warming was shown by a study by PIK scientist Vladimir Petoukhov in 2010 already. You can start the thread to rename the article to 2013 Northern Hemisphere weather events or any other title, which eliminates any perceived synthesis. Brandmeister^talk 15:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Disc

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

I can't find any indication that this weblog (and its group of associated chart articles) are sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. It describes itself as a music blog, and I can't find any references to it in reliable sources. It includes pirated copies of Billboard charts (see links like http://creativedisc.com/top-charts/billboard-hot-100-singles/billboard-hot-rb-hip-hop-songs-19-mar/ ) which makes it even less likely that this is a reliable charting agency. —Kww(talk) 01:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one digital singles of 2009 (Indonesia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one digital singles of 2010 (Indonesia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one digital singles of 2013 (Indonesia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Creative Disc Top 50 Chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Delete all Nothing that shows or explains the validity of the blog as an official chart provider for radio play or sales in Indonesia. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, no reliable sources. I'm not even sure Indonesia has a national chart... certainly not one that's been around for as long as Billboard... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources are from the website itself and we are not being honest with our readers that the only sources have conflict of interest per Wikipedia:Third-party sources#Non-independent sources. The subject does not seem to be notable. Per lack of independent reliable secondary sources to stabilish notability. Algébrico (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the blog seems to be doing exactly what it purports to. It compiles music charts in Indonesia, plus a few from around the world (like Billboard's). But mainly, the chart seems to be compiled from the individual lists of the radio stations in Indonesia. Now, none of that would matter, except we don't have another source of music charts in Indonesia, the fourth largest nation in the world by population. (See List of record charts)
Their main chart is not pirated. This week's number one is Fall Out Boy's My Songs Know What You Did in the Dark. It has not been number one on Billboard, nor in the UK [[33]], but, if you look at the radios station charts on the page you find that it is huge in Indonesia.Listmeister (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim that their main chart was pirated, only that the site included pirated charts. There are numerous countries that we don't have reliable charts for, and we haven't made a practice of including blogs simply because we had no other source.—Kww(talk) 22:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it was pirated? Maybe they have an arrangement with Billboard. Do a Google Search on ' "Creative Disc" Indonesia ' and you get 28,000 hits. After the first 10 which are the usual Wikipedia and Facebook hits, you get page after page of "[Name of Artist] number one in Indonesia, according to CreativeDisc. "[Another artist] interview with Creative Disc." "[Song] highest debuting single on Indonesia's Creative Disc." It looks to me like this site is the industry's representative in Indonesia. Listmeister (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has that arrangement with Billboard. Not even Billboard.com has that arrangement with Billboard. No licensee can reprint an entire chart verbatim. Certainly I looked at the Google results. Care to share which ones of those subsequent links represent reliable sources? All I saw was blogs and fansites, and none of the other people in this discussion reported finding a reliable source either.—Kww(talk) 20:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the fansites and blogs are equating 'Number One in Indonesia' with 'Number One on Creative Disc's Top 50', does not that indicate that Creative Disc is the national chart for Indonesia? And therefore, notable enough to warrant an article? I'll agree that one fansite or blog may not indicate Notability, but the cumulative weight of thousands of them indicates Notability. Listmeister (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only references from reliable sources count in determining whether something is a reliable source.—Kww(talk) 15:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is not an all-or-nothing equation. If one website with a reliability quotient of .01 says something, okay, that's not reliable enough. If a thousand independent websites with a reliability of .01 say the same thing, that adds up to reliability level of 10, which equals a reasonable level of reliability. Now, if 1,000 fan sites say something like "Jay-Z = Awesome", clearly that's not good enough for the encyclopedia; but if they all say Jay-Z was born in New York City, weight be shear numbers would lead credence to the factuality of it. But if they all say that New York City is the biggest city in the United States, when the blog isn't really about New York City or the United States, that sounds like a pretty well established fact to me. These aren't blogs about Indonesian music charts or fansites of CreativeCD, these are sites about artists that mention, in passing, the fact that CreativeCD is the national music chart for Indonesia.Listmeister (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The blog cannot serve as a source supporting its own notability, and all given sources go back to the blog itself. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.—Kww(talk) 16:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crystin

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

unremarkable singer/musician? Uncletomwood (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:BAND. I wasn't able to find any significant third-party coverage, a google search brought up nothing related besides youtube videos and personal web pages. A google news search of the name brought up nothing related to this singer. --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Powder Injection Moulding International

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

No evidence of notability that isn't self-published Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was originally created by an account with the same name as the magazine's publisher (on which I have now placed a COI notice). It has been tagged for notability since 2009 and I am not finding any reliable 3rd party material about the magazine. AllyD (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.—Kww(talk) 16:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Pirondi

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

Non-notable photographer, videographer and cinematographer. No evidence of any significant, independent coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article references are a mixture of blogs, event listings and passing mentions. I am not finding anything more substantial that could meet WP:CREATIVE. AllyD (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hue Sat Lum 14:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Has not recieved significant coverage in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.—Kww(talk) 16:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Israelinsider

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

Notability has never been established (see TalkPage) and website is now defunct. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 14:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not significant coverage by independent reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG. The only sources only mentions the website but do not support notability. Algébrico (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alexa ranks the website as 1,600,000th globally. That's certainly non-notable. Marechal Ney (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.—Kww(talk) 16:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vyacheslav Rudnev

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

Fails WP:ARTIST Dewritech (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article was deleted from Russian Wikipedia as a result of AfD; during the AfD, a thoroughful search for sources was performed, none were found. The claim that he is the People's artist of Russia (which would make him notable) does not seem to be justified.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete We do not make decisions here based upon a limited discussion at another Wikipedia elsewhere... one not bound by our set of standards. Here we instead look for available sources (no matter the language) to decide whether or not an encyclopedic article might be maintained. That said, in my looking for both English and Russian language sources, I find them lacking. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Schmidt. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yoostage

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

Apparently fails the notability guidelines for having no reliable source coverage. The only source in the article is a press release. Lakokat 05:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not significant coverage by independent reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG. Algébrico (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect with full protection installed.—Kww(talk) 16:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Way I Am (Ana Johnsson song)

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

Non-notable song that never charted fails WP:NSONG. I originally redirected the song in June 2012, [34], but it was reverted in February 2013 without an edit summary, [35] Aspects (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aspects (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cuz I Can and page protect to prevent future shananigans. J04n(talk page) 17:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect with full protection.—Kww(talk) 15:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catch Me If You Can (song)

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

Non-notable song that never charted fails WP:NSONG. I originally redirected the song in June 2012, [36], but it was reverted in January 2013 without an edit summary, [37] Aspects (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aspects (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Little Angel and page protect to prevent future shananigans. J04n(talk page) 17:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect with full protection installed.—Kww(talk) 15:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Break Through Time

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

Non-notable song that never charted fails WP:NSONG. I originally redirected the song in June 2012, [38], but it was reverted in January 2013 without an edit summary, [39] Aspects (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aspects (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Little Angel and page protect to avoid future shananigans. J04n(talk page) 17:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW j⚛e decker ^talk 21:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Far Reaches

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

Unreferenced, possibly non-notable media. smileguy91^talk 00:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added some references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josef9 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It wasn't sourced when you put up the nomination because you put it up three minutes after the article was created. Why would you nominate an article for deletion so fast, before the user could even add sources or expand the article? I certainly wouldn't do so that fast. Did you even try doing research online to see if there was any coverage? Anyways, the user added sources, and I've found some coverage online, so I think this should be kept. It needs expansion and some more sources, not deletion. Lugia2453 (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

well 3 minutes beats the 6 minutes here. And that was not cool, look you. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book appears to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (books). I recommend adding more references, but there is no need to delete this page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's 5 reviews now listed on the article (the LA Times one is particularly in-depth) and apparently another review in U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings[40], plus the beginnings of a critical reception section. It's definitely notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The plot and characters certainly need expanding, and the references need to be formatted, but it's certainly notable. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep . WP:NB is probably satisfied, I am not immersed in US popular culture, but I suspect it is notable. Some sales figures might make me vote keep--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I don't know if I'm able to give this a speedy close, considering that I did some major editing to the article just recently. In any case, I want to voice my "keep" rationale. The article now has several reviews in reliable sources and about eight sources overall. It passes WP:NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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