Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 April	6 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 02:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rasmussen (professor)

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

Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. Randykitty (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He meets #6 (high level academic institution) and #7 (impact in his field outside of the academy) of WP:ACADEMIC. - [User:Cshafferdallas] — Cshafferdallas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Could you please explain exactly how criteria 6 and 7 are met? I don't see any evidence of that at all (as indicated in the nom). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing I can find on GS. What else is there? Far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. There's nothing I can find that suggests the subject passes WP:PROF, and we wouldn't expect an Assistant Professor to do so. St Anselm (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything either -- no publications. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notable publications. SalHamton (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(With some regret) delete. I gain the impression tha the is a lecturer in a small theological seminary. Having only just gained a Ph.D., it is probably rather early for major publicaitons. Still NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did not have as a good a grasp at what met the criteria that I thought I did. Cshafferdallas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cshafferdallas (talk • contribs) 19:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES - short of some extraordinarily well-cited publication or best-selling book, we have tended to delete non-tenured college teachers' articles. Cf. Barbette Spaeth (an associcate professor), or me, for that matter. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 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 to Line 1 (Mumbai Monorail). J04n(talk page) 02:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mumbai monorail stations

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

this page should be removed as already this info exists on page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_1_(Mumbai_Monorail) Arja36 (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. This is a content fork that duplicates information in Line 1 (Mumbai Monorail). Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a very likely search term, given that we have lists of stations on most urban transport networks. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Nothing here that's not in Line 1 (Mumbai Monorail). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:40, 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. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Public School

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

This school lacks notability - no secondary sources found. It is highly unlikely to be remarkable because it's website is hosted on webs.com ♦ Tentinator ♦ 21:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This school includes a secondary school, often called a high school. In almost all cases we keep articles on secondary schools per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. We should also keep WP:SYSTEMICBIAS in mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for my usual reasons. Verified secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian schools because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. TerriersFan (talk) 13:08, 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 redirect to Portion_Control_(band)#Albums. KTC (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Filthy White Guy

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

Non notable album, tagged for notability for over a year. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 21:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Portion Control (band)#Albums -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, (no merge), per Whpr. -R. fiend (talk) 21:19, 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. J04n(talk page) 18:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Financial data feeds

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

The article has been declared by the creating editor to be one which will contain no references but will contain code samples (this edit summary refers), thus it is out of scope for Wikipedia. Perhaps a 'how to' site is more appropriate, but it has no place here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article appears on casual reading to have references. At first sight that is what they are, but follow them and you find they are either to the individual corporation's own web site, or are non WP:RS Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have rather rudimentary articles financial data vendor and financial data processor, but apparently no general article on financial data. Stock market data systems would also be relevant. I suspect that these feeds are at least as worthy of articles as the other two we already have, but my preference would be to have a top level article that discussed financial market data and its transmission from the ticker tape days to the present. The computing source code obviously isn't English and needs to go. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Answer I was looking for a way to publish an article demonstrating the importance of FREE Financial Data Feeds. The majority of small investors or new potential investors willing to learn about stock markets need to play with data to understand how markets are moving and how volatility, liquidity concepts weigh in their buy/sell decisions. In my mind, the only way to demonstrate such concept is by examples understand code examples not straight English verbiage. If such king of rather technical article as other places to be put in, please advise. I do not want to write, just historical nor rather plain English article, unfortunately source code is this case worth the 1000 images, since it is rather simple to use. Setrar (talk)SetraSetrar (talk)
Delete as per Setrar, who very clearly demonstrates why this is not a suitable article in its present form. If the subject cannot be described adequately in English, and if we have no sources that offer such a description, then we cannot (under our present rules) have an article on that subject. With proper sources, some mention might be worthwhile at one or more of the articles noted above. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:39, 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) 10:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noetic Advanced Studies Institute

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. All of the sources which mention this group appear to be primary and non-independent. The entirety of the article appears to violate FRINGE as well, thus requiring a complete rewrite for any sort of NPOV. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GROUP and WP:THIRDPARTY, If you didn't notice (and I believe you did) a majority of these sources are either from Mindspring, or regarding the Noetic theory rather than the Noetic Advanced Studies Institute. A search only found this, which is exclusively press releases. There is no coverage by any third party source. A definite delete, unless somebody else has a very compelling point to make ChaseAm (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. The only claims to notability within the article are either to related sources (principally mindspring.com) or not reliable. Mcewan (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is this related to Institute of Noetic Sciences? if so then redirect, if not, delete.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, the organizations are unrelated to each other, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing relevant in google news or books. SalHamton (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To add to the above, this article was restarted as a WP:COATRACK for BLPs of 2 "new age physics" researchers (see talk) and it has improved very little since then. Agricola44 (talk) 19:11, 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 Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite). J04n(talk page) 10:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Whiting

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO. Article author responded to notability tag by removing it and citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I failed to find significant coverage in RS about the subject, which is unsurprising since he was a president of a denomination whose membership doesn't break 100, according to our article. Ray^Talk 20:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ray^Talk 20:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. No further quarrel from me. - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO Pass a Method talk 09:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being head of a church with under 20 members does not make one notable, even if eulogized on a blog.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll disagree with you there, but you'll still get no argument from me about deleting or redirecting this article. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with or redirect to Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite). The subject is mentioned there, so at the very least a redirect is appropriate. Peacock (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I could go for that, if the others agree. But if you guys still think it should go, you'll get no further argument from me. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:02, 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 redirect to Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite). J04n(talk page) 10:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Whiting

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO. Article author responded to notability tag by removing it and citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I failed to find significant coverage in RS about the subject, which is unsurprising since he is a president of a denomination whose membership doesn't break 100, according to our article. Ray^Talk 20:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ray^Talk 20:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no coverage in reliable sources. The guy heads a denomination which our article gives as having a membership of 12. Having a patent does not do anything for him either, I know people who hold way more patents than he does who are not notable. Being the head of a denomination does not make someone notable. Sure, if the denomination is major and significant, but when its membership is under 20 and it really never is covered by anyone, it does not. This guy is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. No further quarrel from me. I disagree, however, with the notion that being the head of a distinctive religious organization is not enough to make a person notable. What does the size of that organization have to do with its notability? But you still won't get any argument from me--go ahead and delete it. I just disagree with the notion that the size or coverage of anyone or anything, in and of itself, prevents someone or something from being "notable," especially when larger membership numbers would suddenly, magically make it so. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO Pass a Method talk 09:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with or redirect to Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite). The subject is mentioned there, so at the very least a redirect is appropriate. Peacock (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I could go for that, if the others agree. But if you guys still think it should go, you'll get no further argument from me. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:02, 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 no consensus. J04n(talk page) 18:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Wong Tape

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

This article does not appear to meet notability requirements. See Wikipedia:Notability_(people) Note 7. There is only one web page mentioning this person and I can't find any other articles elsewhere Earlopogous 20:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete Insufficient claim of notability. No evidence of support for notability in multiple reliable secondary sources. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 20:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is actually quite a complicated one. Firstly, the source quoted is the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. This is a very significant secondary source, not simply a random webpage. The chosen subjects are all deemed notable for inclusion by a selection committee. It is the New Zealand equivalent to the Dictionary of National Biography, and I have seen previous people kept at AfD for simply having being mentioned in that source alone. There does also appear to be some other, somewhat limited, coverage including in this book and a few lines in this article and this book. (note that all are by the same author, though). There is also strong indications of offline sources being in existence, especially his papers, which are held in the Hocken Library. (Libraries/Archives do not accept just anything given to them, the documents and the subject both have to be deemed notable enough to be kept and catalogued). He is also mentioned in numerous contemporary newspaper accounts, especially surrounding controversial comments he made about missionaries. Finally, the claims of his achievements in the biography also suggest that offline source on him are more likely than not to exist, including his role as "a founder of the University of Hong Kong" (I am puzzled by this claim and the corresponding lack of sources to back it up, a clarification of exactly what "a founder" means would be helpful. Was it just some money he put up, did he sit on a minor board of some sort, or was he far more active?), a translator in New Zealand, being awarded the OBE, being a Justice of the Peace of Hong Kong and sitting on the Urban Council, Hong Kong. Yes none of these alone automatically qualify for notability, but taken together they do present a strong argument. I imagine there may be sources in Cantonese in existence and would ask any Cantonese speakers to have a quick search. It is a very hard call to make, but the totality of the evidence, the likelihood of offline sources, the interest by a respected Chinese-New Zealand scholar and his inclusion in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography all have me leaning towards the opinion of weak keep, though another in-depth secondary source would be a great asset. Ravendrop 22:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close He's listed in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography for being a notable merchant, and that in itself establishes notability. Yes, there might not be much on the internet about him, but that's not a requirement for notability. Given that Patricia Lim has gone to the effort and transcribed his headstone,^[1] I would very much expect that he's included in her 2011 book.^[2] I've expanded the article so that it now represents a useful bio. Schwede 66 22:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ Lim, Patricia. "Inscriptions for cemetery sections 10–16". Gwulo.com. Retrieved 5 April 2013.
^ Lim, Patricia (2011). Forgotten Souls: A Social History of the Hong Kong Cemetery. Hong Kong University Press. ISBN 978-962-209-990-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Don't erase this Tape (even if he is Wong). An entry in the Dictionary is sufficient in itself. "B. Wong Tape" is mentioned in passing in Edge of Empires: Chinese Elites and British Colonials in Hong Kong as "a New Zealand-educated insurance magnate".[1] Clarityfiend (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to a physical copy of this book, but only during the working week, I'll expand the article with this content next week. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Inclusion in the New Zealand biographical registry shows notability. The deletion arguments boil down to too much reliance on recent sources and would lead to even more over representation of living people at the cost of the past than we already have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be consensus to keep this article. Could someone, however, clarify for me why this meets notability requirements that a person who is 'part of the enduring historical record' will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians." Using this requirement, I don't think the article meets the requirements because Wong Tape is only talked about "in depth" in the DNZB (all other citations are only in passing). I do understand that the failure to find other citations might be a result of systemic bias, and therefore treating everyone in the DNZB as notable is a way to counter systemic bias. I look forward to hearing other views on this. Thanks! Earlopogous 19:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

As the article creator, the best explanation I have that this stub was created as part of the core work of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles and the consensus of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand has always been that everyone with a single-person article entry in the DNZB is notable (See this discussion and this). There are a number of people in the DNZB which I balked at and didn't create articles for, typically partnerships of one kind or another. A number of DNZB articles have come up for AfD (Elizabeth Mackay, Hone Taiapa), and I believe none have been deleted, thanks in large part to the efforts of Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand members. A number have been speedied without notification, only a few of which I've had time to get undeleted and improved. Note that I'm not !voting here, just presenting dicussions that have already taken place. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:43, 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) 10:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mufaddal Zainudeen Kurban Husein Adamjee Lukmanjee

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

Autobiography of a businessman whose notability I do not see. Relevant sources include only one school result and his company's web site. Actually, I do not even see the claim of notability (the company seems to be rather smallish), but I can search only English sources. Pgallert (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article makes no claims indicating notability. No sources making other claims seem available. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 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, KTC (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Dusty|💬|You can help! 21:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established. SalHamton (talk) 06:07, 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 keep. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Berlin (Rozz Williams album)

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

Non-notable album, which fails WP:NALBUMS. No sign of any substantial coverage, or of evidence that it charted. The only ref is a link to allmusic.com, which has no review, just a 42-word note.

Note that this is part of a long series of permastub articles on non-notable albums created by User:Jax 0677 to increase the link count on superlkuous navboxes created bim, after they have been nominated for deletion. In this case, see the TFD for {{Rozz Williams}}. When !vote-count was running 5-2 in favour of deletion, Jax wrote Navbox now has 5 albums. Happy?. That was minutes after he had created stubs 3 non-noatble albums: Every King a Bastard Son, Live in Berlin (Rozz Williams album) and Accept The Gift of Sin. All 3 are now at AFD: see AFD:Every King a Bastard Son, AFD:Live in Berlin (Rozz Williams album) and AFD:Accept The Gift of Sin. (I would have PRODded these, but Jax contests every such provide without providing evidence of notability). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've cleaned up the article a little and found a review online. There are probably more sources out there that I am yet to find, but may turn up in due course. For instance, a book on Williams has been released by a noted publisher, which may include information, and rock music/goth culture magazines may well have carried reviews, though I have no access to that kind of thing right now. The album is by a noted artist and released by a notable record label, and seems to have been a significant part of the artist's career, as one of Williams's few releases in this particular style. J Milburn (talk) 16:38, 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, KTC (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keep per Milburn. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:18, 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket Linux

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

Non-notable Linux distribution. No significant, non-routine coverage in third-party sources (everything in the article is either a primary source, or trivial/routine coverage) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability at all and it hasn't been updated in 13 years, so I doubt it will any time soon. Half the article is literally a "not to be confused with more notable stuff" disclaimer. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 15:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 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, KTC (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it does seem quite difficult to believe this was ever really notable. Could perhaps have once been a brief mention in Linux but given its age and transience I doubt that would be justifiable now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:51, 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 Shahbag. J04n(talk page) 22:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shahbagh Square

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

WP:NOTINHERITED: The only reason this road intersection is notable is the Shahbag Protest riots. I don't feel confident being bold here, so I'm AfDing it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion: For three reasons, (1) if you knew the country, you'd know that protests often occur at the sites of past protests, so this place is likely to be a recurring focal point for future news events (2) some allowance should be made for the fact that this ___location is in a country where English is not the principal language and given time, more information may accumulate (I bet there were protests here in the past, but probably a different name was used then, or the name of the place didn't hit the western media) and (2) this page performs an important service for journalists and others seeking information. There are multiple names and multiple transliterations of the names (we probably haven't collected them all yet). The information that it isn't a square in the usual sense is also helpful. If, as I suspect, it used to be a huge roundabout that I remember from before the war, then it is very central to Dhaka and has a lot of history that we haven't yet accumulated here. If every station on the London underground can have its own page, then this place very much deserves a page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1 fails WP:CRYSTAL. Point 2 fails WP:CRYSTAL (and English sources aren't required anyway; if it's about this event, it STILL doesn't make the square notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED). Point 3 fails WP:ITSUSEFUL, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shahbagh Square

Keep: Apart from the Shahbag protests, this is a major intersection in Dhaka and also a historic one, surrounded by some major landmarks! --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was being a major intersection a grounds for inclusion? The other bit fails WP:NOTINHERITED as well... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect I see nothing in WP policies that prevents a road intersection from being notable. What about Piccadilly Circus in London, or the many other examples? Notability is derived from a place's associations, surrounding buildings, setting, or something else. I do not intend to !vote because I do not know Dhaka, but the case made out by Sminthopsis84 and Kmzayeem seems reasonable to me. --AJHingston (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it cannot be notable; I'm saying that arguing it is a major intersection and is thus notable is not really enough. If someone actually provides sources about this square that aren't about the riots, but actually have in-depth coverage of this square, then notability may appear more convincing. There are a 1001 sources on Piccadilly Circus, which, I feel the need to add, isn't just the intersection, whereas this appears to be. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This could satisfy you, hard to find many sources because of the ongoing protests being the most trending topic, hence most of the links direct to that protest. Besides, for some obvious reasons, you won't find as many sources for a street in Dhaka as you may find for that of London! --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's one piece primarily about the square, which is a start. I'm not expecting a London-level of coverage, but 2 or 3 more in-depth pieces that are not about the riots/protests would definitely satisfy notability. When I nominated this, its only claim to notability was the riots. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability doesn't count on the number of sources, the link which I posted, clearly asserts the notability of Shahbag square! Besides, this place is also a center of different cultural activities in Dhaka as seen here. Hence, the article surely justifies its existence! --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:GNG, which clearly states the need for in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. I'm not 100% convinced that NewageBD is a reliable source, and, besides, the word "Shahbagh" is not present anywhere in it anyway (nor is the word square). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Zayeem, I would say keep if the sources (including Bangla sources) can be added. But to have an article the article needs to have some information about the title. This article contains no information about Shahbagh Square itself. When was the roundabout built? 1920s? 1970s? What are the numbers of the two roads intersecting? What is the GPS coordinate? The most basic geo stub information is missing. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this is another source. Well, the article surely needs to be rewritten as it mainly emphasizes on the protests rather than the actual info about the subject, I'll try to add those! --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:57, 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, KTC (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shahbag the geographical entry serving as a mother article. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shahbag per Aditya Kabir. It seems that there is some information available, but it is such a stub that I'm not sure that an article for this intersection alone is notable enough to stand alone, and it could probably be better served as part of the parent article. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shahbag, per Aditya and Tiggerjay above; most of the current article concerns the recent protests. Miniapolis 13:52, 16 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fred (bicycling)

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

Unsourced neologism that violates Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Per WP:NOTNEO "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.'' What sources that do exist to try do define this term are highly idiosyncratic and personal; they say more about the pundit giving the definition than the meaning of "Fred". Writing a new section in Bicycle culture about the existence of social hierarchies, cliques, pejoratives and hyper-competition among some bicyclists would be encyclopedic, but trying to adjudicate the "correct" definition of a neologism/meme like "fred" is more appropriate for Urban Dictionary crowdsources to vote on. Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's an amusing idea but the sources are insubstantial and the topic doesn't seem to have found its way into works such as the Historical Dictionary of Cycling. And it's derogatory for people called Fred. FWIW my bike is loaded with lots of functional accessories but my name isn't Fred. Warden (talk) 12:29, 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, KTC (talk) 20:15, 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 redirect to Doctors' Wives (1971 film). MBisanz ^talk 22:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Costume Ball

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

The song does not appear to meet the notability requirements for musical recordings. Dusty|💬|You can help! 19:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable song, should be deleted. Koala15 (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doctors' Wives (1971 film). J04n(talk page) 11:41, 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, KTC (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to fail most notability guidelines as of now. There is no real indication of why this song is notable, other than the fact it was supposedly released as a single. I call the big one bitey 17:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Audrye Sessions. MBisanz ^talk 22:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Low Roar

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

Subject does not appear to be notable. Dusty|💬|You can help! 19:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of notability, and the creator has no page to be merged/redirected to. Ducknish (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What Ducknish said. Dusty|💬|You can help! 20:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Audrye Sessions, his previous band. I found a couple of sources (Allmusic and PopMatters) so WP:V isn't a problem. His previous band is notable so this should at the very least be merged there. --Michig (talk) 18:28, 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, KTC (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even considering the newly found sources, the artist still fails WP:MUSICBIO. His previous band may be notable according to Michig but notability is not inherited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charon123able (talk • contribs) 18:59, 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Bruyninckx

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

WP:Notability not established Boleyn (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/26/sport/football/football-brain-mourinho-messi/index.html?iref=storysearch This and the BBC article do establish notability. The other issues will just have to be fixed. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, as I don't think that CNN piece covers him in enough detail, and the BBC piece (which does) is not enough on its own. Willing to be convinced if further significant coverage can be found; and the nominator should be more careful (and detailed) when nominating articles for deletion in future. Giant Snowman 19:27, 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, KTC (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am persuaded that the BBC and SI.com articles by John Sinnott plus the CNN article calling him "a pioneer when it comes to brain training in soccer players" are sufficient to establish notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet GNG. Two direct reliable sources. Eldumpo (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per In ictu oculi, appears to meet WP:GNG. C 679 19:10, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bulman

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and even though he barely passes WP:NFOOTBALL, it is not enough to be considered notable. Giant Snowman 20:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – he played in a Cup game between two league clubs, does this not count these days? Swindon v Boston, FA Cup, 2005. Boston were a league club at that time. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Delete~~ The game in question was in the First Round, at which point there were still 124 teams in a tournament of 674 teams. I don't see how that qualifies under WP:NFOOTBALL Listmeister (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what round the game is in – what makes you think it does? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So everyone who ever appeared in an FA Cup game, any player on any of those 674 clubs that play every year, gets to be have his own article? WP:NFOOTBALL doesn't say anything about playing in a national tournament, even one as important as the FA cup. Listmeister (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, only in matches between or for professional clubs. Nobody here has argued that point, including deleters, and it's the way it's always been, as far as I know. Otherwise you could play 5 minutes as a sub in a league game for Barnet and be notable, yet (theoretically) play for Man United in the Cup Final and not be notable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected Keep Fully professional leagues goes all the way down to League Two. I didn't see that the first time I looked at this, and I apologize. The FA Cup thing is completely irrelevant. He played for Swindon Town in 2005, which was then in League One, which qualifies according to established practice. Listmeister (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bretonbanquet. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - one substitute appearance in a Cup match means he technically scrapes by WP:NFOOTBALL by the skin of his teeth - but he comprehensively fails WP:GNG which is far more important. Giant Snowman 10:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If he fails WP:GNG then so do an awful lot of lower league footballers. I agree the satisfaction of WP:NFOOTBALL is tenuous, but it's there. Either you pass a notability guideline or you don't. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, there are other articles that pass NFOOTBALL but fail GNG - so what? NFOOTBALL is reliant upon, and subservient to, GNG. NFOOTBALL is only "presumed" notability as to actual notability, an important difference. Giant Snowman 21:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced it fails WP:GNG – it seems to satisfy it, as far as I can see. Not by a wide margin, but enough. Why do you think it fails? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every source listed in the article is either a match report, transfer news, or a player profile, all of which is routine sports journalism insufficient for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where in WP:GNG does it say that? And what other sources are likely for footballers? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GNG asks for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - which this person has not received. The coverage he has received is WP:ROUTINE. Giant Snowman 09:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That applies to events, not people. Again, what other sources are likely for footballers? Perhaps you could direct me to a footballer article which does not use such "routine" coverage as sources? Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly applies to people as well - "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article" (my emphasis), otherwise we would have a flood of articles on lower league players based on nothing more than 'John Smith signed a two-year contract with Wiki FC' etc. Plenty of footballer articles meet GNG, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Showcase for a list of peer-reviewed articles. Giant Snowman 13:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To my eyes, that clearly refers to sports events, not any kind of bio article. We do have a flood of articles on lower league players based on exactly that kind of sourcing, including the "good article" Barry Cogan (footballer), which, although more detailed and better-written, is based on exactly the type of sourcing that Matt Bulman is based on, i.e. nothing but BBC reports, squad profiles, local news reports of transfers and match reports – routine sports journalism. Cogan had a higher-profile career, but that isn't a requirement for WP:GNG. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you believe that this article and the one one Cogan are of equal standard shows that you need to brush up on notability requirements. Giant Snowman 15:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you think I said they're of equal standard means you need to read my post again. I said nothing of the sort. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said that the the Cogan article is "based on exactly the type of sourcing" as the Bulman article - it shows you lack the ability to decipher sources articles re:GNG - hence why one is a peer-approved GA and the other is at AFD. Giant Snowman 15:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and it is. I made reference to the greater detail in the Cogan article, which is due to his brief participation in higher-profile games. Bulman's article needs work, not deletion. You brought up WP:ROUTINE, which is event-specific and has no bearing on bios; I don't consider your beliefs regarding what I lack to be of any merit, or relevance to this discussion. I still don't see what other kind of coverage a lower league footballer is likely to receive, and nobody here has offered anything, despite my asking twice. Bulman passes WP:NFOOTBALL (not by a lot, as we've said) and I consider his coverage in the reliable, independent sources used to be non-trivial (again, not by a lot), satisfying WP:GNG. That's basically my point – we disagree, and that's pretty much it, as far as I can see. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As alluded to by Bretonbanquet, many (probably most) articles about English Football League players are created as soon as the player makes his debut, with no more sourcing than a link to Soccerbase (a stats database) and, if you're lucky, a link to the BBC match report that lists his name in the teamsheet. But even that limited level of sourcing does verify that the player passes the relevant subject-specific notability guideline, and that is enough. The point of the subject-specific guideline is to set a standard at which the subject of the article can be presumed to meet the general notability guideline, and to allow time for the article about the subject to be improved to demonstrate the validity of that presumption. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- He should be regularly playing for the first team of a League side or above to be notable. His present club is below that level. We ought not to allow articles for players who merely appear once or twice for a League club (or above). Peterkingiron (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an argument for changing WP:NFOOTBALL, not for deleting this article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes NFOOTBALL, and that should be sufficient. If there is a concern over this guide being too broad, then it should be addressed as a change to NFOOTBALL not specific to one AFD. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL, "Players, managers and referees who have represented their country in any FIFA sanctioned senior international match" – NO. "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable" – NO. Then we go to GNG and for me it doesn't meet GNG. C 679 20:52, 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capella Fahoome

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

Subject seems to be a non-notable person. Article cites no reliable sources, a search on google news came up with 3 results, each with only a trivial mention. BigPimpinBrah (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet general notability guidelines of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article when nominated was a copyvio from the Defining Entertainment website. I have reverted it to a sourced stub. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tedford Williamson

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

Unnotable local city councilor created for self promotion. User:Billy Hathorn, now banned but still active with sock puppets, started this article, which is mainly sourced to one article written by Hathorn in a local history journal (also up for afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Louisiana History (North Louisiana History nomination)). The two minor sources not by Hathorn are bizjournals.com about him being "affiliated" with a concrete company owner and deadlink to an image. Tedford Williamson fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). It seems like this article was simply one of many articles User:Billy Hathorn created to promote his work, and is one reason the community was annoyed and led to his ban. (See: "Billy Hathorn appears to create a new article for every single obituary or newspaper story he reads" at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn.) SalHamton (talk) 07:17, 28 March 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 March 28. Snotbot t • c » 07:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject of AfD does not appear to have received significant coverage in any non-primary reliable sources, therefore subject clearly fails WP:GNG. Being a member of a non-major city council does not make an individual automatically notable per WP:POLITICIAN.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:53, 2 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, KTC (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet the prongs of WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a city council. Enos733 (talk) 04:23, 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mporia

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

Not notable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you stated why they're not notable. Some of the sources in the prior AfD suggest they may be. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While a prior AfD that resulted in default to keep probably precludes speedy deletion, the current text would appear to qualify for speedy deletion both as unambiguous advertising and no minimal claim of importance; having a deal with Verizon does not qualify as such: a technology provider of mobile commerce solutions. The company builds and markets M-Commerce stores for retailers and service providers, enabling them to extend their reach to the mobile channel and drive consumer sales. The larger problem is that this text is also too vague to improve by editing as well. And it's a behind the scenes business selling other businesses means to sell stuff to people with fancier mobile telephones than mine. Absent some kind of showing of significant impact on history, technology, or culture, this kind of business just won't ever be an appropriate subject for a standalone article in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:26, 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, KTC (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Dusty|💬|You can help! 20:58, 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Camilleri

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

This actor does not appear to be meet WP:NACTOR. As stated in the article and evident in his film record, he has only maintained minor guest roles on various television series; not major or recurring roles. That said, in conducting WP:BEFORE most of the sources are for Luke Camilleri the basketball player, and a few local news stories about Camilleri when he graduated (noting a scholarship and his recent endeavours) Mkdw ^talk 19:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. Also I'd like to point out the previous AFD resulted in deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Camilleri, but this was created again without sources. SalHamton (talk) 22:02, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tank Skank

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Non notable neologism worthy of speedy deletion, but there is no appropriate category. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This could reasonably be considered an attack page, even though no person is named. My guess is that a cruel person somewhere is saying, "you're so rotten that there is a Wikipedia page about you." Quite sad, really. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although the phrase does have slang uses, mostly referring to women 'associated with' motorcycle clubs or military units, this content is at best an essay and at worst a covert attack page. Cnilep (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Un-sourced page about a poorly known slang term. - tucoxn\^talk 23:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 06:52, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toma Lá, Dá Cá

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

Not notable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Ryan Vesey 05:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to have a forest of references, images, youtubes, inevitably somewhere in there are sober serious newspaper articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the article is a plot written from the perspective of characters and full of WP:FANCRUFT. Does not prove to meet WP:N. Algébrico (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether the article currently proves that it meets WP:N, but whether the subject actually meets WP:N. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be proved in the article (or here) what makes the subject (TV show) notable (that's what I'm talking about) per WP:LOTSOFSOURCES: What exactly makes it notable according to the sources. In any case, "Toma Lá, Dá Cá" is an expression in Portuguese that means "exchanging favors", that's why there are several sources for the expression (specially on articles about politics). Algébrico (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A more idiomatic translation would be "tit for tat". It's easy enough to filter out hits for the generic phrase with a search such as this, which finds loads of reliable sources specifically about this article's topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 10 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, KTC (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If there's a notability standard for TV shows, please point it out because I can't find it, but it seems like every TV show that lasted more than five episodes has a page. This show had 91 episodes. It's notable because enough people watched it to keep it on the air for 3 seasons.Listmeister (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it appears that this is a notable TV show, however it does need a major rework and cleanup, but that is not reason enough to delete the article. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:40, 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The World Forum

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

Almost zero reporting on it, appears to have just had one conference back in 2007 & handed out a few awards to prominent businessmen (and that's not even reported in the local press, which given HH's involvement is very surprising). Seems to have been defunct after that (website not updated either). Bromley86 (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found two articles in the Gulf News by using His Highness' name. The earliest reads like a prelim press brief[2], whilst the second mentions a meeting in April 2007[3]. There's no report In the Gulf News on how that meeting went (or even that it actually went ahead) and no subsequent reports. Sounds like The World Forum has fizzled, as with HH & Khalaf Al Habtoor involved I'd expect it to be constantly in a paper like the Gulf News if it hadn't. Using KaH's name, I found confirmation of that first meeting actually taking place.[4]. It doesn't appear to have done anything other than have a single bunfight where they handed out awards to prominent businessmen. Bromley86 (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the reason why this came to my attention was there's a small entry in the Lord Ahmed article about it. I wanted to removed that entry, as it's really not pertinent to his life, but Captain Conundrum thinks that if there's an article on WP about TWF then it should still be mentioned in the Ahmed article. However, were the article to be deleted, he'd have not problem with the removal of the entry in Ahmed's article. Hence the Afd. Bromley86 (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is an organisation with minimal coverage; may be high ambitions. It looks as if after a singel event (six years ago) it failed to get off the ground. I suspect that the initiative came from Dubai, a small but rich country, perhpas with ambitions beyond its size. (but that is my POV). Peterkingiron (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is more like a manifesto, and that appears to be all that is left of the organisation. Laudable aims, lacks notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:12, 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 22:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Nest

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

Subject is a comedy club in Montreal. Article makes no assertion of notability. Google Web, Google News, and Google News Archives searches for ("comedy nest") produce nothing that satisfies WP:GNG. I found some local coverage in the Montreal Gazette, and a profile of the owner (which didn't discuss the club itself in any detail) at canada.com. There's a very brief description at the Lonely Planet website; a passage in the HTML that doesn't show on the page (in Chrome, right-click page and select "View page source") reads "Ranked #431 of 682 things to do in Montreal by Lonely Planet travellers", which doesn't suggest a high degree of notability. Appears to fail GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 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, Mediran (t • c) 03:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see WP:GNG. In addition to the usual searches, I attempted search via Highbeam, found only a single passing mention in a Boston Globe article. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:45, 5 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, KTC (talk) 19:05, 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 22:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SwissCommunity.org

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

I am not persuaded that the website is, of itself, notable. The Best of Swiss Web Awards is not exactly a significant thing, though have a pleasantly garish web site. I considered the speedy deletion route, but there is sufficient in the article to suggest a full discussion process would be far better. If it is truly notable it will survive, both here and online. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the author of the article and I'm thankful for every kind of advice. Though I would like to point out that "The Best of Swiss Web" award is the most important award in the Web Bussiness in Switzerland (see http://www.simsa.ch/engagements/best-of-swiss-web/ and http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_Swiss_Web#cite_note-2). Furthermore, SwissCommunity.org is supported and promoted by the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland. Thanks for your help!Cloe Gomez (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the issue with Wikipedia is never what is true. We care about what is notable and what is verifiable when it is notable. For the award to be important, reliable sources in whatever language have to report in thus. It is likely, but not certain, that the recipient of a notable award, IF the award is proven to be notable, is of itself notable. That could be sufficient to ensure the survival of the article, but woudl not be sufficient to preserve all the alleged facts in the article. References are vital. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I added some more References to the article. Which other alleged facts needs to be proofed?Cloe Gomez (talk) 14:00, 25 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) 03:32, 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, KTC (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that the website, as such, has received the sort of third-party coverage that would make it notable. If Organisation of the Swiss Abroad ever gets an article, it could be a section there, or a paragraph in Swiss diaspora, if that is spun off into its own article. Sandstein 19:12, 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.

Christi O'Connor

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nesk

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

One of many articles on non-notable Animorphs characters, no scholarly references to be found. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:27, 5 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 5. Snotbot t • c » 17:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom, article fails WP:NN. Stubbleboy 18:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voon Cheng Ming

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

This is an article about the user himself... I think it can be moved to the user's namespace... The Wikimon (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - a7, non notable person. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:38, 5 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) • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Page is blank now, blanked out content indicates page was probably created as a joke. Listmeister (talk) 20:46, 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HappyDoc

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

Tagged for notability for over a year, only source is a primary source. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any sources that are reliable or independent. Fails WP:GNG.--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am unable to find evidence that this topic meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Gong show 22:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a brief discussion here, which amounts to evidence of existence rather than notability, but I am finding nothing that meets WP:NSOFT. AllyD (talk) 18:29, 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ipodia

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

Only source is a primary source, tagged for notability for over a year. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not getting significant hits for this anywhere but at USC's website. The article name is a bit misleading as all references seem to be to an "Ipodia Program". Mangoe (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom and Mangoe, only hits are from USC sources (who runs the "program"). HighBeam also comes up with Zero! --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as above. -R. fiend (talk) 15:55, 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iskoort

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

No references/sources, contains original research, tagged for notability for over a year. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Just one of many articles on Animorphs characters. I find nothing but fan sites and us, certainly no scholarly references. Mangoe (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pikes Hotel, Ibiza

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

This is another in a series of non-notable hotel articles from the same editor. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hotel_Orquidea,_Santa_Eulària_des_Riu, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hotel_Es_Viva,_Ibiza, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hotel_Fenicia_Prestige,_Santa_Eulària_des_Riu, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hostal_Yebisah,_Santa_Eulària_des_Riu for other recent examples. As with those, I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage to establish notability. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Only references I can find are already included about the murder of Tony Pike and those are not directly about the hotel. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pike’s Hotel it is very notable for its place in history of Hedonism on the island i.e. Freddie Mercury’s legendry Party and the filming of a Wham Video there! There are plenty of references to this hotel in the two books referenced

The White Island, The Colourful History of the Original Fantasy Island, Ibiza and Not Part of the Package:A year in Ibiza. Both these book go into detail about the subject matter. What relevance has the deletion of the above listed hotels have to this one you will have to ask that editor. stavros1 ♣ 16:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Freddy Mercury and Wham are notable. The hotel they rented for a party / video is not. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only claim to notability is that there was a music video filmed there, which is "inherited notability" at best. A large part of the article is about the murder of the hotel's owner in another country. No claim of independent notability. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable hotel Plenty of reliable sources.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Dr. Blofeld: Which of those listings turning up in google search have you found to have more than passing mentions of the hotel that would amount to significant reliable source coverage? The bulk of them are just tour books that list dozens of non-notable hotels. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream travel guides are accepted as reliable sources for hotel articles on wikipedia. When you've written articles like Hotel Ritz Paris like I have, I'm well versed in how to research hotel articles. Aside from the many travel books these all constitute as reliable sources a lot of which contains significant coverage of the hotel:♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] [18], [19], [20], [21], [22],

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources that Blofeld have dug up, added to the ones in the article, show that this is clearly a notable hotel. The sources give a complete account of the hotel origins, construction and history, and it is backdrop to a lot of star-struck gossip. The article could use an overhaul, but that is a separate issue. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What a hell hole. And probably past its prime. Looks are intriguing. But under WP:GNG and WP:Notable, its well documented WP:RS treatment establishes its notability, at least historically. This is not transitory, and does not diminish with fashion or trends. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get a horrible vibe from the place too, heaven knows what went on there over the years, pretty sure the original finca owners would be horrified. The thought of Grace Jones screaming during sex with Pike, her lover of three months is enough to make anybody shudder! But it is unquestionably notable.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article doesn't fail Wikipedia:GNG, the article has many independent referencesDemax (talk) 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 Transwiki to Wikibooks. Grandmartin11 (talk) (non-admin closure)

Porting OpenSource to OpenVMS

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

Massive WP:OR WP:NOT failure. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a blatant transgression against WP:NOTHOWTO. Mangoe (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer to Wikibooks. I agree that this is a howto guide and looks like original research. While unsuitable for an encyclopedic article on WP, it could be the start of a good contribution to Wikibooks. --Mark viking (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks. It was already tagged for copy before this nomination. I've just put in a request over at WB:RFI to move it along. Grandmartin11 (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 21:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Import of article to Wikibooks [23] has been completed. I went ahead and tagged it for A5. Grandmartin11 (talk) 20:26, 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 21:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ottawa

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

fails WP:ORG. recent AfDs have shown embassies are not inherently notable. Those wanting to keep must show evidence of coverage. Also nominating:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all All of these are merely a few offices in a much larger building and none have any significant coverage that I can see in a brief search. Ravendrop 22:24, 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 redirect to The Pinewood Studios Group. MBisanz ^talk 21:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pinewood Indomina Studios

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

fails WP:GNG. could not find significant third party coverage. Created by a single purpose editor who seems associated with pinewood LibStar (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no obvious sign of notability, and does appear to be a piece of advertising using an SPA, likely paid at that. Should delete all the other minor Pinewood studios articles also, though wouldn't object to redirecting all to main article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, redirect as above. Being verifiable as one of their subsidiaries, we can serve our readers with a "Redirect" to The Pinewood Studios Group... unless notability meriting a separate article is forthcoming. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:16, 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. per WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax in regard to the claim to have been a Whitbread runner-up, and per WP:SNOW in regard to the book's non-notability. JohnCD (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The God Tree (novel)

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable book by a non-notable author. I am unable to find any reliable sources. Claims to have won a minor award, but even that can't be verified. Fails WP:NBOOK. - Mr X 13:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The Whitbread Award (now the Costa Book Awards) is one of Britain's most prestigious literary prizes - hardly a minor award. However this book was not actually nominated for it - The Guardian has the real shortlist[24]. User:Mburdess (who shares a name with the alleged author of this book) added it to the list of nominees[25] and created this page, but this is a blatant hoax. The book doesn't appear to exist, and the claim of significance is totally false. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's difficult to verify whether the book exists (I don't think so). --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax, or at least A7 no indication of notability. Not only was this book not a finalist in the 2003 Whitbread awards (per list here, but I can't even verify that it exists. Not listed at Amazon, or at the BL. Only Google hits for book and author name together are to wiki. Mcewan (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per following reasons:
- It does not cite any sources.
- I couldn't find any relevant google results.
- The cover image appears to be fabricated, probably through photoshop (It would probably appear very different, and probably much better, if it was designed by a professional cover designer).
- The author of the book is verifiably real, but, as far as Google and Amazon know, has not written any book entitled The God Tree.
- The author of the article has apparently made no contributions other than edits to the above article, and an edit detailing the above book as being part of the shortlist of novel nominations for the 2003 Whitbread Awards.
- Even if, as unlikely as it is, it is not a hoax, it is mostly spam and does not appear to be notable.

If I had encountered this article before this deltetion discussion, I probably would have tagged it for speedy deletion. The only reason that I am not tagging it for speedy deletion right now is because I am a relatively new user, and am not sure whether such an action would adhere to WP:DELETE. --Mathnerd 101 (talk | contribs) 00:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and snow close. I'd delete it myself but I think that I need more than four delete votes to really close this. Per the above arguments, there's nothing out there but this article to even show that this book exists. It doesn't help that this is sheer promotion by the original editor, but it isn't so blatantly obvious to where I could delete it via that sort of speedy. Hopefully my vote will give the last oomph for another admin to speedy close this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:00, 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. No need to keep this open any longer, I would be happy to userfy this to anyone who believes they could use the information more appropriately. J04n(talk page) 11:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations of The Elder Scrolls

AfDs for this article:

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

The article does not establish significant notability from reliable sources. While the world of Elder Scrolls may be notable, this article has demonstrated very little as an independent topic. Although I did once say the topic had proved its notability, in retrospect it never demonstrated nearly enough to stand on its own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:46, 22 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) 01:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like the definition of gamecruft to me. This information is best suited to an Elder Scrolls wiki. All that Wikipedia needs to note is that the players can join different groups, which I'm sure is already noted on the games' pages.--Atlantima (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a unique or truly notable part of the games, not to mention the fact that TES' various factions don't really fit into a nice categories we could write an article on. Marechal Ney (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "List of characters" articles are usually notable, but not merely races. As said above, its something more appropriate for the game's specific Wiki. Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. You win the "I didn't read the article even more than everyone else" award. This is about organisations, not races, and is not a mere list. It opens with several paragraphs of sourced criticism. J Milburn (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely within fancruft. Most of the sources point towards aspects of the game not directly relating to the topic. Mkdw ^talk 22:36, 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, J04n(talk page) 14:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: I closed this discussion as delete, but another editor would like to comment. J04n(talk page) 14:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm a huge fan of the series, and Morrowind even changed my life, but as the above posters note this article has no real-world basis. It's all in-universe and of little importance outside of the Elder Scrolls franchise. It's a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Them From Space 21:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is discussion of design and of gameplay elements. These are by definition not in-universe. J Milburn (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Excessive trivia regarding a topic that is already covered in appropriate depth elsewhere. Reyk _YO! 10:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? J Milburn (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The various articles on the individual games. I see you're getting sarcastic and badgery with all the delete !voters, so I will not respond any further here. Reyk _YO! 05:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm being sarcastic with Sergecross73, but (s)he deserves it. I've spent more time replying to the user than they did reading the article. I was hoping to have a reasonable conversation with everyone else, but if you're not willing, then so be it. J Milburn (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love these games and I've put a couple hundred hours of my life into them collectively. But this is fansite material that's simply trivial and out of scope in a general interest encyclopedia. Also, extremely unlikely these have received the required substantial coverage in reliable sources. While we're at it, I'm not seeing why a unanimous debate was reopened. Can literally any editor demand an admin reopen any discussion no matter how clear the consensus, and waste 7 more days of community time? That's just absurd. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not demand that the discussion was reopened. J04n reopened it after I opened a deletion review. As you can see from the current references used in the article, it has received at least some coverage. J Milburn (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm also a huge fan of the games, but this article quite simply belongs on an Elder Scrolls fan wiki, not on Wikipedia, for the litany of reasons outlined above. Should be userified on request, however. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Commanet - I made a backup copy of this article on Wikialpha. Anyone who wishes continue to edit it if it gets deleted and edit it there. Mathewignash (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The guild-joining element of the games is an extremely significant aspect; this is not merely a list of organisations in the various games, which some users seem to assume, but also has sourced discussion of the design of the guilds and the role they play within the game. I'm sure there would also potentially be sources for discussion of the critical response and impact/influence. I am not going to search for them now, as it's pretty clear where this discussion is going, which is a shame. I actually nominated this for deletion myself, but withdrew my nomination after seeing the arguments in the first AfD, and, afterwards, did what I could to improve the article. J Milburn (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I feel your argument does not address is that Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE to talk about how important a game feature is to a player-base. Moreover, the fact that it is important does not necessarily make it a notable subject. Importance =/= notability. Lastly, if the article were more heavily about impact and influence beyond run-of-the-mill gamer coverage it would be seriously reconsidered, but it's close; i.e. 2 of the 7 sections are not analytical and merely descriptive of the game feature, and inside those 2 sections that do discuss the aspect, most of it is still game description. Mkdw ^talk 20:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you're saying. I think the best argument I could provide (if I have the time and inclination) is to work on a stronger article on the same topic, which demonstrates the real-world significance of the subject. Obviously, if I am unable to do so, that would be the deletion vindicated. J Milburn (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd be interested in userfying the relavent sections to do just that? Mkdw ^talk 21:19, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Don't know what to think about this and I'm even scared to comment, but here it goes. What needs to be asked is if the topic meets general notability guidelines. If no, then the article should go. If yes, then fall back on WP:GAMEGUIDE and cut the article down to the basic facts. My talk page is now open for your attacks! --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find the decision to relist this discussion as a bit perplexing. Especially since the consensus prior to the first relist was very strong, and following the relist, it still largely favoured delete in that the 9 editors who argued for delete cited guideline and policy based arguments, while the 1 keep argument has not addressed WP:GAMEGUIDE or that the article makes no assertion of notability, and largely agreed, the article does not discussion the important aspects of the feature outside guide. Mkdw^talk 05:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the consensus is pretty clear, and I agree that the relist was probably an odd decision, but characterising the keepers as citing policies and me as failing to do so is laughably partisan and borderline delusional. I refer you, for instance, to Sergecross's ridiculous comment. You could have managed to make this comment without implying that I don't know what I'm talking about... J Milburn (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I think you made some good points. I don't really think I implied the connotation that you didn't know what you were talking about, but rather, you brought up new arguments that were valid but did not directly address the issues most people thought the article should be deleted. I'm also inclined with Mark and you, J Milburn, that the article could be re-created and userfy the noted contents you suggested were potentially worth keeping. I did point this out earlier and directed the question at you in the form of a reply above. I sincerely apologize if it sounded negative, I only meant to strengthen my argument in that your keep comment did regard the delete camp's argument as also very strong, in that it was not an adamant oppose to our arguments. Mkdw ^talk 00:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was a little snappy... J Milburn (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Factions and guilds in the Elder Scrolls games have gotten some news press at IGN, mmprorg.com, PC Gamer, and G4. None of these could be considered unambiguously reliable sources, but the topic may become notable in time. In my opinion, WP:GAMEGUIDE is an argument for improving the article, not deletion. I agree that consensus for deletion was reached and will not contest that, but there should be no prejudice to re-creation if more sources become available. --Mark viking (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While I think there are sufficient sources for there to be an article under GNG but I'm not sure it completely fulfills WP:VGSCOPE. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:01, 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Memoirs of a Russian princess

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

Non-notable book lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I wish I could find more, but if there are sources then they're probably not on the Internet. I can see where it's in some college libraries, but not many and I don't see where it's really part of many college courses. I did find mention of it in a few scholarly texts, but mostly in passing. The lengthiest mention I added to the article, but even then it's more of a trivial mention than anything else. The best source is the one from Página/12, but we'd need at least 1-2 more to really establish notability here. If anyone wants to userfy this I have no issue with that. Does anyone know if the author the book is attributed to is especially notable? Maybe an article can be created for him and redirected there? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Even if the book existed, arguendo, it is mistitled; there was no such thing as a "princess" in Czarist Russia - they were called grand duchesses. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't delete an article on a novel because its title is factually inaccurate. There was no Catch-22 in American military regulations, should we delete that as well? Other reasons for deletion may apply. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an erotic classic of sorts. First, the worldcat references [26] show the book existed and still exists--it was republished by Grove Press in 1967. Second, this is fiction -- erotic fiction, with not only little required connection to reality, but with the expectation of a considerable amount of unreality to enhance the fantasy; whether the title of the book corresponds to the facts of history is totally besides the point . Third, the author is a pseudonym, as shown by the British National Bibliography entry for the original 1890 publication [27] as was customary for books of this nature--I would be remarkably surprised if anyone in 1890 had put their real name to work of this wort. Fourth, and the reason I'm calling it a classic, is that it also exists in French Spanish, Japanese, & Dutch, [28] Fifth, and the evidence it is a classic, is that it is included in an anthology [29]. (The Grove Press reprinting also shows this--this was one of their specialties) I've updated the article to reflect all this. Not meant personally, but the doubts of the previous two eds, both my good friends here, show them a little unfamiliar with this 18th-mid20th century genre. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 5 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to "keep" per DGG's argument. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing objection. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BADHAN Rajshahi College Unit

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

Lack of notability, badly formatted, POV wordings, essaylike--Tomcat (7) 10:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blood donation in Bangladesh#Badhan where there is already adequate coverage of this initiative (though its references have become decrepit); no need for this separate unreferenced article or its picture gallery. AllyD (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the article doesn't even seem to deserve a redirect! --Zayeem ^(talk) 13:11, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Zayeem. -R. fiend (talk) 15:57, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 5001–6000#101. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5116 Korsør

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

Fails WP:NASTCRIT Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 13:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to List of minor planets: 5001–6000#101 as recommended by the guidelines at WP:NASTRO. Praemonitus (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to List of minor planets: 5001–6000 per WP:NASTRO. Honestly, I don't really think that these AfD discussions for obviously non-notable asteroids are even necessary, and we should just redirect them when we come across one. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:50, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

555 (Supermarket)

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

Notability not established, unsourced, a lot of original research. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 13:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find any mention about it (at least on google English). SalHamton (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mention on it in the Ukrainian wikipedia. Listmeister (talk) 21:06, 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 all and redirect to 2011–12 Major Indoor Soccer League season. KTC (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Syracuse Silver Knights season

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

Also included in this nomination are:

This set of articles has barely any third-party sources (and by third-party I mean sources that haven't been created by either the team or the league it plays in). The valid sources that do exist are merely for individual facts included in the articles, rather than to indicate the notability of the subject as a whole. These articles were originally WP:PRODded, but the PRODs were removed without addressing the issues. – Pee Jay 13:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 13:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to parent article per WP:NSEASONS. Mentoz86 (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've used pages like these for back-tracking sports team records, and MISL is the US's top indoor soccer league. Listmeister (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is your only source for MISL information, then perhaps it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. – Pee Jay 15:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, no significant independent coverage. C 679 18:18, 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 21:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veleek

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

Unsourced, a lot of original research, notability not established. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 12:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete More Animorphs fannishness, the whole lot of these character articles needs to go. Mangoe (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ichpedia

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

This was nominated for speedy deletion, something I'm uneasy with. Perhaps some Korean speakers could weigh in on the website linked as to what exactly this group is about and its significance? Ego White Tray (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The listings, inventories and encyclopedia of intangible cultural heritage are getting significant in Asian countries where tradition is endangered. Since the Ichpedia group is working for safeguarding ICH, it may be kept on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanheeh (talk • contribs) 11:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep UNESCO seems to be concerned about the issue, which supports Notability. Not sure why it was nommed for Delete, never mind Speedy.Listmeister (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep UNESCO is mentioned and the article is brand brand new so give it some time and see where it goes. ₪RicknAsia₪ 00:51, 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. —Darkwind (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emocapella

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

Non-notable college a capella band. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles and WP:GNG. No record deal, no actual record releases (other than self-published). The band has supposedly been mentioned in magazines (no links ever provided to verify), but even if that's the case, the were mentions do not rise to the level of "Significant coverage" that "address[es] the subject directly in detail," as required by WP:GNG. Wikipedia:No one cares about your college a capella band.

The most telling part of the article is where the band "credits itself with inventing a performance technique known as "Guerillacapella."[citation needed]." GrapedApe (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. Nominator would have known just by reading the provided references, which include more than "mere mentions". Diego (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First, notability does not have to be established with record releases or record deals. There are many different criteria that can be met for notability under Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. They could be notable under criteria #1 or #7; however, there needs to be significant coverage from reliable sources. I was able to find the link to MTV.com [30] but cannot find others. Just because there are not links in the article to the references does not mean that they do not exist and linking a reference is not a requirement to establish notability. However, with that in mind we are now here at AfD and would suggest that the article creator (or someone who wants the article kept) add the links or come up with additional references in order to support the claims of notability within the article. MTV is all I can find and do not believe it is strong enough to support the article.--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MTV is not the only reference. You should WP:AGF and believe that the provided sources are do indeed provide enough content before !voting on the assumption that they don't; as you say, sources don't need to be online. I've read the Entertainment Weekly and it also provides in-depth coverage, so there are at least two reliable sources covering the topic. Diego (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, OK. Instead of attacking me and accusing me of not assuming good faith, please re-read my vote. I have assumed good faith, but suggested that someone (probably you as this seems near and dear to you by the tone of your writing) come up with other sources or provide links as a consensus needs to be reached and it would be easier for others to reach such if they can see the sources. Also, I am not sure that 2 sources are good enough to support the article. Keep in mind that the sources have to support the content. You cannot just state that they were in the sources and then write anything else you want in the article. Where is the source that supports this:

Guerillacapella is a style of a cappella singing focusing on impromptu concerts, typically on a college campus, designed to attract fans that would not normally be found at traditional a cappella concerts. The performance style is named after guerrilla warfare, a method of asymmetric fighting typically categorized by small, mobile groups, which use the element of surprise to ambush their enemies. Emocapella has been most prominently credited with adapting the tactic to musical performances.

Come up with the reference for it and maybe I could be persuaded to change my vote, but as it stands, the sources do not support the content of the article. Sorry for trying to give advice. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not cleanup; what matters for deleting the topic is the article that could be written from the available sources, not the one that is written now. Per WP:IMPERFECT we don't delete articles only because they're in bad shape. Nevertheless I've rewritten the section and everything is now sourced to the references. I don't care about the group (though it shouldn't matter if I did), but I care about content being deleted without a strong and informed reason. As you acknowledged, that the sources are not easy to found online is not a reason to delete - what matters for GNG is that the group was given press space by major publishers. Diego (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to these offline sources?--GrapedApe (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, I've found the EW reference online. The links are in the article now. Diego (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the links. The SPIN Magazine article is a brief mention and is only a quote from one of the band members. Not really significant coverage. The EW article is a good one and would say that it goes towards notability. The links from the school newspaper are not independent and therefore can go to supporting content in the article, but not towards establishing notability. That makes two sources, but still not enough notability to change my vote. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Not having a record deal doesn't necessarily mean that it's not notable, but it is evidence that it's not notable. Especially when it's a college club that's not named The Whiffenpoofs.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic passes WP:GNG as it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It also passes WP:BAND using criteria #1: it "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent". WP:BAND criteria #1 includes "articles in a school or university newspaper", such as The GW Hatchet. Indeed, a Hatchet article mentions some of the group's press appearances. Many of the group's press appearances are listed in the WP article as sources. - tucoxn\^talk 02:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- GW Hatchet is George Washington University's internal newsletter. I really doubt that satisfies WP:GNG any more than the reference to myspace.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are mistaken. GW Today is George Washington University's internal newsletter. The GW Hatchet is a student-run newspaper. They should not be confused. Although I agree that a reference to a news article in GW Today would not meet Wikipedia standards, a reference to a news article in The GW Hatchet should be treated like one from any other college or university newspaper. - tucoxn\^talk 11:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Just because The GW Hatchet is an "independent" newspaper does not mean that it meets the "independent" standard needed for Wikipedia references. As the group is part of the university, the press received "from" the university newspaper would not be considered independent. Again, I found the MTV.com article which is a good article and the Entertainment Weekly article is good, but still need more to meet WP:GNG. Also, references do not support the content which is also misleading. Being "featured in several major publications" is no where close to the truth of the brief mention in Spin Magazine. That paragraph stinks of notability masking. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The use for one GW Hatchet article is to note Emocapella's various non-GWU press coverage: "The group is scheduled to appear in Blender magazine in March, Spin magazine in April and Rolling Stone in the next few weeks." Blender and Spin are already mentioned in the Wikipedia article, as is Kerrang! This article requires an editor with access to Kerrang! and Rolling Stone archives in order to access those publications' archives. The other GW Hatchet article also mentions some of the group's press. - tucoxn\^talk 12:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that when WP:BAND criterion #1 mentions "articles in a school or university newspaper", it's mentioning them negatively, in that such articles "in most cases" don't help establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BAND, criterion #1: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." This group has been the subject of articles on MTV.com and Entertainment Weekly's web site. These are legitimately articles about this group, not just incidental mentions of them. They also got a one-paragraph item in Spin magazine. I tend to be skeptical of the notability of college a cappella groups, but it looks like this group makes it over the notability threshold. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:05, 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. If any user wishes to propose merging, that can be done on the appropriate talk page. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Coke

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mexican Coke

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

Nominated for deletion for the following reasons. 1 - Notability - many other international brands of this product exist and do not receive an article. 2 - NPOV - This article is heavily slanted from the US perspective (ironically, given its subject matter). 3 - the subject matter is not factual but rather one of perception and opinion among a minority of individuals in the US and one of the cited sources suggests that it is a 'myth'. There are also a number of problems with the unencyclopedic writing style of this article (although these could be corrected). --Christopher (talk) 10:09, 5 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 5. Snotbot t • c » 10:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, significant coverage with dedicated articles in two major newspapers. NPOV is not a reason for deletion, if any it's a reason to expand the article with a balanced viewpoint, assuming there are reliable sources to establish a different viewpoint. Reason #3 if true would also not be a reason to delete, Wikipedia covers all kind of topics that are not factual. Diego (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep exactly as per Diego, this is not the purpose of AfD. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability already demonstrated by the existing article, and additional potential sources may be gulped from the fountain of results at GNews [31], GBooks [32], HighBeam [33]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Coca-Cola – This is not a separate brand or product, just an unofficial term used to describe Coca-Cola that has been imported from Mexico to the United States. When it's still in Mexico it's just called "Coca-Cola", and anywhere else in the world it's not any more special than Coke imported from any other country. I'd argue that the regional variation of a global brand doesn't generally warrant a separate article (There's no need for "New Zealand Marmite" or "European Nutella", for example, even if the differences in formulae have received significant coverage in reliable sources). What's notable isn't really the product itself, but the phenomenon wherein some consumers in a certain country prefer a grey-market version of the product. This content either belongs in Coca-Cola, or with a title with less regional bias, like "Consumption of imported Coca-Cola in the United States". And given how little content there actually is in this article, I'd suggest it just be merged. Ibadibam (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically this is a separate product, as defined by packaging, size and market. We can't control what sources find notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the packaging. As to notability, I've taken a stab at editing the lead to reduce regional bias and define the topic in such as way that its notability is clearer. See what you think. Ibadibam (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The other contribs have stated very good reasons to keep, wjith which I agree. Plus the stuff is pretty tasty...--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My argument would be summed up by this article in the New York Times. Ryan Vesey 03:55, 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 Kaiser Permanente. MBisanz ^talk 21:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiser Permanente Medical Center (Hayward, California)

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

This was a declined PROD. obviously not much here. I am the article creator, and want to simply be sure this article name, if not kept, is preserved as a redirect, as a reasonable search term. i merged the content in anticipation, as many merges dont get done for a while, and the merged content to Kaiser Permanente is so small (i didnt merge the Michele le info, as it would be trivia in the main article). Note other articles on hospitals at Category:Kaiser Permanente hospitals, though some of these are older, larger, etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A major medical center for 55 years. Reliable sources can surely be found. Scheduled closure of the facility does not affect its notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for same reasons mentioned on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaiser Permanente Medical Center (San Leandro, California) Fnordware (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 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, J04n(talk page) 10:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete age Of centre is irrelevant. No indepth coverage means fails WP:ORG. Keep voter did not supply one source. LibStar (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since all the information has already been merged to the Kaiser Permanente page.Listmeister (talk) 14:15, 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 21:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tour tote

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

Notability not established for 5 years, written like an advertisement. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A quick search does not show that this term is in common usage. Most results are from the two words being juxtaposed, for example: "For your world tour: Tote bag", or tote bags sold as souvenirs for a music tour or show. I see a number of retail sites on Google offering tour totes, but haven't spotted any reliable secondary sources. If ONE source can be found, maybe a brief definition/explanation can be put on Tote bag along with a redirect, otherwise, delete. Mabalu (talk) 16:38, 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Punkscene

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability not established for 5 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any coverage in reliable sources. It hasn't promoted any famous bands (even the 2 blue-linked ones in that list are of questionable notability). No evidence of why it's significant. If somebody can find press/media coverage of the project, it might be saved, but without it, the project isn't notable. (Previous AfD is so far from current standards, it's comical.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding any coverage in reliable sources, either; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Gong show 22:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the long list of redlinks speaks loudly: clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:48, 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 Feluda. JohnCD (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Londone Feluda

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

Notability not established for 5 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Feluda. Part of a long-running series with a very distinguished creator, Satyajit Ray, but as far as I can tell not notable in itself (children's books in a long running series are rarely independently notable), and the shortness of the article means there's almost nothing worth saving. However I would defer to people with expertise in Indian languages. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is unfortunate that we don't have good digital on it, but, it is a notable book! This is one of 28 Feluda stories written by Ray. Notable Bengali publishers Ananda Publishers has covered articles on this book. In this book, we find Feluda, the Bengali investigator, goes to Baker Street, and paying tribute to Sherlock Holmes guru tumi chhile bolei amra achhi, which is widely quoted. --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Feluda. The series as a whole is notable, but there really isn't anything out there to show that this book has notability outside of the series to merit its own article at this point in time. The thing about books in series (regardless of length) is that we need to have coverage that specifically focuses on this book. I found one trivial mention in relation to the series as a whole, ([34]) but nothing that specifically focuses on this book and provides in-depth coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know! You'll not find anything in world wide web. It is always difficult to deal with such Indian AFDs, you need to go to 2-3 libraries, read a bunch of books, scan some documents to prove notability! --Tito Dutta (contact) 08:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone goes to a library and finds sources, they can re-create the article. But it's not really enough to suspect that sources exist in order to save an article, you need to prove it. And what is really lost if this incredibly short article is turned into a redirect? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Tokyo Girl Uncletomwood (talk) 07:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Titodutta brings up a good point; an inevitable system bias will arise when we reason "I can't find anything about this Indian AfD, and I've never heard of it, therefore it can't be important." And we should be sensitive to that. However, Titodutta's reference to the Sherlock Holmes quote can be covered in the Feluda article (and it's not even mentioned in the Londone Feluda article). If that's the only thing that would make the book memorable to people who have not read the series, I'm afraid that just isn't enough. Even the Bengali wikipedia only has one sentence about it, if I have the right page: [Benagali Londone Feluda page]. Listmeister (talk) 14:34, 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shantaveri Gopala Gowda

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

Notability not established for 5 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks any sources. Even if the claims in the article would be verified, it is unclear that being a "pioneer" of a local socialist movement is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets WP:POLITICIAN because he was elected to the legislature of the Indian state of Karnataka in 1962 and 1967, according to this 2004 article in The Hindu. In this article, The Hindu quoted the chief minister of that state as saying "the agitation and the political contribution of the late Shantaveri Gopala Gowda are significant in the history of the Legislature" upon the publication of a book about him in 2005, 33 years after his death. This political website discusses his legislative career. The Times of India, in a story about two lawyers who sent a high ranking government official to prison for corruption, quoted them as saying that their "ideological fight against corruption" was "largely inspired by lives of socialists Ram Manohar Lohia, Kadidal Manjappa and Shantaveri Gopala Gowda". That was in 2011, 39 years after his death. In this 2003 article in The Hindu, the Karnataka minister of health said that he was "a dedicated socialist and a champion of the common man" who "fought relentlessly for the cause of the poor" and "appealed to the people, who benefited by the land for the tiller movement" that he led. In a 1992 article, India Today called him a "famed socialist leader". A book called Agrarian Unrest in Karnataka called him a "renowned Socialist leader" who had "charismatic influence" and "gained many followers". He would be notable even if he was a non-descript elected state legislator. These sources show that his influence continues over 40 years after his death.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328. Salih (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article now has five references and two external links. It still needs work, but I believe that it is in much better shape.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a sub-national government. Enos733 (talk) 04:12, 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Island Software

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

Notability not established for 5 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. A short lived software firm; sources confirm it existed, but don't seem to vouch for lasting significance of the sort that should get it remembered in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The firm and its main product could possibly have a footnote role in a history of Office suites, as suggested on the article Talk page, but I am not finding significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 18:56, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos

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

Notability not established for 5 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem notable Brazil's a pretty big country. At worst, merge into Brazilian Ministry of Science of Technology, but otherwise keep. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. National government institutions of major countries are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ministry of Science and Technology (Brazil). The article is basically a dictionary definition without sources (there's nothing to merge). Algébrico (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has no resemblence whatsoever to a dictionary definition. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a link to the Ministry of Science and Technology and a translation of the the organization name on the page. It's a stub that needs to be expanded and updated. A translation of the Portuguese page would be a good starting point. Listmeister (talk) 14:42, 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. Editors are invited to write an article about the notable banker of the same name per [35] instead. Sandstein 09:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Blair

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

Notability not established for 5 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which if you are clued up is basically the first place to look for biographies of dead Britons comes up with this: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/47577 (those without a subscription can sidestep the paywall to http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/printable/47577) - assuming it's the same chap of course that the OP mentioned (bit difficult to tell in a stub with no information in it). Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't actually think this is the same chap with an article in the DNB. That one was a banker who was only 11 at the beginning of the 19th century. This one was an industrialist who apparently played a major role in the Industrial Revolution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems too common a name for a Google search to be productive unless somebody hits lucky or has a notion who it is who might be referred to. For example, it could be the person referred to in passing on the James Keir page of Grace's Guide but that site contains nothing on him. I am not a fan of uninformative and possibly misleading stubs - unless something substantive can be found I suggest either deletion or replacement with information about the one who is in the DNB. --AJHingston (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with the banker. I see some tantalizing scraps of info that may be about the same person, but not enough for an article:

"In the summer of 1789, Alexander Blair, an industrialist and a Dissenter, rented Hall Barn ... and therefore became a neighbour of [Edmund] Burke."

"This is almost certainly Mrs Alexander Blair, the widow of a ruined industrialist and speculator ..."

He's discussed a bit in James Keir's article. The connection is also mentioned as follows: "In conjunction with his army friend, Alexander Blair, he set up a chemical works at Tipton in 1780 to manufacture alkali and soap." and "... he and Alexander Blair founded the Tipton Chemical Works ..." Clarityfiend (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with banker -- Persons with ODNB articles are clearly notable; otherwise ODNB would not have included him, but the present article is not on him, since that Blair was active as Treasurer of the Bank of Scotland 1832-59. Keir is clearly notable, but the partner who financed him was probably not. I find three referneces to this Blair in Uglow, The Lunar Men, all of which merely say that he was Keir's partner. Upon replacement, we might have a capnote "For James Keir's partner in his mines and chemical works at Tipton see that article, or something to that effect. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:09, 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 List of past Coronation Street characters. MBisanz ^talk 21:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Bates (Coronation Street)

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

Notability not established for 5 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of past Coronation Street characters, a non-notable character of that show. There are a load of those characters that need a similar procedure to be undertaken. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable character. However this should be in a different section, since this is not a bio, those are supposed to be about real people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 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. ^King Jakob _C2 22:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]

List of UK Rock Chart number-one albums of 2010

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

Largely based on Official Charts Company data, over which they assert Database right, see Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Chartarchive.org, AFD as potential copyvio. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wait, what? No one can assert copyright over raw data. Ozzy's album "Scream" was #1 on the UK Rock Chart from June 27th til July 4th 2010. That is a simple and verifiable fact. If Business XYZ has a database of such facts, they have protection for the arrangement or organization, but no control at all over who makes use of or references it. Tarc (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is largely based on OCC's database, It thus re-uses a substantial portion of it, and is thus derivative of it. I appreciate that the situation the UK is absurd, but the above article is still a possible copyvio (by virture of the reuse of a substantial portion of the OCC database). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - From Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights: "While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries." So UK law is not a proper ground for deletion, and U.S. copyright law does not recognize database rights. postdlf (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - @postdlf- So by your logic it's OK? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, though I do not hold copyright in that logic under American law, so you can use it as well. postdlf (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of0 United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sooo...how about you withdraw this and the other related AFDs, hmm? I don't see a reason to spend any more time on them. postdlf (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for other opinions :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A copyright violation might exist if the entire chart from specific weeks were being reprinted in Wikipedia, but not a list of number ones from each week. However, its hard to justify lists like these because, unlike the main UK singles and albums charts, I'm not sure this information is covered anywhere beyond the primary source. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genre-specific charts are featured on BBC Radio 1's website, and in the magazines Music Week and UKChartsPlus. They are also sometimes featured on the TV channel 4Music. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Obviously concerns over copyright violations are a perfectly fair reason to propose deletion, but I would be extremely reluctant to see all the articles listed here be deleted from Wikipedia, especially when several of them are featured lists. Also, our only basis for concern at the moment is a couple of paragraphs left on chartstats.com, a webpage that several editors have, in the past, flagged as not being a reliable source. Like Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, I suspect that the reason why Chartstats were forced to stop is that they were reprinting entire charts verbatim on their website – we're printing only a small amount of data: just the number ones. There are several other websites that publish the same information (e.g. Number Ones, everyHit and The Ones), and the OCC seems to have no problem with them. Personally, I think we're okay, but then IANAL. I have sent an e-mail to the OCC, asking for some clarification – hopefully they'll respond soon. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OCC have now gotten back to me. They have said that they will seek advice from their legal team on what would/would not constitute infringement, and let us know soon. On a related note, they are also keen to work with Wikipedia on a more formal basis, contributing information and citations relating to our articles about the UK's music charts. I think that would be an extremely useful partnership for us to have, but obviously I'm in no position to be representing Wikipedia in any official capacity – any idea whom I should really direct them to? Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice that they responded to you and have an interest in aiding the efforts of Wikipedia. Not sure how they can help in contributing information and citations since most of the work here is done by volunteers, but a disclaimer on their website on how Wikipedians can use their information would be helpful. Perhaps there is an appropriate contact listed at Wikipedia:Contact us for them to use. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep anyway and hope the situation resolves itself. Listmeister (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for this and simillar Withdrawn pending further informations Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:07, 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. J04n(talk page) 20:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dbfree

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

I've nominated this article for the following reasons

The article has no reliable third-party sources on several pages of search results
The article's only references are links to its own homepage (primary source)
The content sounds like advertising at times
The article focuses on one particular piece of software, so it can't be merged sensibly
The original creator of the article was incidentally called "Maxsiseditor" – the name of the company that developed the software

In addition, I've also nominated Maxscript, since it describes a component of this software and uses the same references as this article. Astatine211^Talk 22:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. Most of articles on the same subject (Xbase, Clipper and dBase-related old programming languages) cannot provide external third-party sources, mainly because most of them are no longer available nowaday, they were mainly on printed media and the original producers are out of business. hfufna^Talk 00:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF comes under arguments to avoid in deletion debates. The other articles are poorly referenced, but Google Books searches show reliable source coverage. Older media may be harder to retrieve but they appear to be available. Let's focus on Dbfree and Maxscript. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - I can find no significant independent coverage in reliable sources to establish that inclusion criteria are met. Searches in books and scholar fro "DBfree" generate hits, but they refer not to this software, but rather to database object memmory allocation/deallocation functions. Searches for "Maxscript" turn up nothing for this product as opposed to 3D Studio. Referencing in the article is a primary source. -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This software in fact does exists and a deeper search on Google do produces lots of results, most of them referring to usage of the underlying programming language. The fact that most of results come from the same source does not affect its reliability, being common practice to group in one site all the code related to an almost extinct language. The missing of adequate external reliable references is in common with the generic term Xbase, also cited as unsourced material, despite this term it's been used since 1986 by the programmer's community all around the world. The term MaxScript can be ambiguos but that is a fact that the software itself, by mean of its functions, reports its internal script processor having that exact name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.16.121.76 (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Nobody is disputing the existence of the software. If you deeper Google search has turned up sources, please present them here for evaluation. I'll happily change my mind if significant coverage can be shown. -- Whpq (talk) 19:54, 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, J04n(talk page) 10:14, 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. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MaraDNS

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

The MaraDNS topic has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. The references in the article, mentioned on Talk:MaraDNS, and the above search string do not provide enough content for an independent article and mostly discuss MaraDNS in the context of comparing it to other DNS server software, which is covered by Comparison of DNS server software. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By Wikipedia standards this article is ancient. It was created in 2001 and has been edited with a disclosed COI since 2005. If the article really doesn't meet our guidelines, the question must be asked "Why did it survive this long?" Them From Space 16:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the MaraDNS implementor with a vested conflict of interest, I have written a version of the article which gets all of its information exclusively from third party sources: User:Samboy/MaraDNS; here is an explanation of my changes: User_talk:Samboy/MaraDNS. The most in-depth coverage I have is from a book which devotes an entire chapter to MaraDNS, but other significant third party mentions are out there, including one from a paper written last year (MaraDNS has always been immune to the "Ghost ___domain" attack) and in a book published by Springer. Hit "show" in the green box below to see the full list of sources:

List of reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability

Mens, Jan-Piet (2008). Alternative DNS Servers: Choice and Deployment, and Optional SQL/LDAP Back-Ends (Paperback). UIT Cambridge Ltd. pp. 76–94. ISBN 0-9544529-9-2. This book devotes an entire chapter (over 7,000 words in total) to MaraDNS
Danchev, Dancho. "How OpenDNS, PowerDNS and MaraDNS remained unaffected by the DNS cache poisoning vulnerability". ZDNet. Retrieved 2009-10-10. Observe the word “MaraDNS” in the title of this ZDNet article.
Jian Jiang; Jinjin Liang; Kang Li; Jun Li; Haixin Duan; Jianping Wu (2012), Ghost Domain Names: Revoked Yet Still Resolvable (PDF), p. 10 "MaraDNS (version Deadwood-3.0.03), Microsoft DNS (version Windows Sever 2008 R2) and Unbound (version 1.4.11), are immune to the ghost ___domain attack [...] MaraDNS, has already applied the first solution listed in the above section. It only accepts a zone’s delegation data from its parent zone"
MaraDNS is discussed at depth in “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to DNS cache poisoning” by Sooel Son and Vitaly Shmatikov. We’re not talking a casual mention confirming MaraDNS’ existence. We’re talking an in-depth description and comparison of MaraDNS’ cache poison resistance compared to BIND and Unbound (My summary: MaraDNS has a unique way of handling baliwick, NS referrals, and caching data that is remarkably simple and secure from blind spoofing attacks) This article was published in the book “Security and Privacy in Communication Networks: 6th International ICST Conference, SecureComm 2010.” (edited by Sushil Jajodia, Jianying Zhou) and printed by Springer, and is more recent than the references I added to the talk page in 2009.
A two-part article about MaraDNS, published in Enterprise Networking Planet: Carla Schroder (2006), Buck DNS Monoculture with BIND Alternatives (part 1) and Carla Schroder (2006), Buck DNS Monoculture with BIND Alternatives (part2) Both articles talk about pretty much nothing but MaraDNS; that’s over 2400 words from a reliable third party source.
Schroder, Carla (2007). Linux Networking Cookbook (Paperback). O'Reilly. p. 545. ISBN 0-596-10248-8. The same author as the above articles got a book published by O’Reilly where she mentions MaraDNS again.
João Antunes; Nuno Ferreira Neves; Paulo Veríssimo (2007), Finding Local Resource Exhaustion Vulnerabilities, 18th IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, Trollhättan, Sweden{{citation}}: CS1 maint: ___location (link) CS1 maint: ___location missing publisher (link) “Figure 2, for instance, shows that the BIND server performs worse than MaraDNS under the same attack, which means that the later is able to sustain a larger number of attacks than the first”
"DNS Server (and Related) Software for Unix (MaraDNS section)". Retrieved 2013-04-05. Information from this source is not needed to make a full article
"DNS Server (and Related) Software for Unix (Deadwood section)". Retrieved 2013-04-05. Information from this source is not needed to make a full article
"Open Source Patches". Retrieved 2013-04-05. Information from this source is not needed to make a full article
"National Vulnerability Database (NVD) Search Vulnerabilities". Retrieved 2013-03-23. Information from this source is not needed to make a full article
Also, there are countless sites which mention every single MaraDNS security problem; once a program included with a distribution has a CVE security number, they have a page with the update patching the security bug. If other editors feel making a list of these will help establish notability, I will oblige.

Samboy (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks goes to Samboy for providing sources and for being transparent about COI issues. Of the sources in the article and above, the chapter in the Alternative DNS Servers book and the exposition in the The Hitchhiker’s Guide to DNS Cache Poisoning paper are in depth, independent of the author of the software and as peer-reviewed publications, are reliable sources. The ZDNet article is a reliable source, but perhaps not in enough depth. I have not checked the other sources mentioned, but the first two I mentioned are enough for the article to pass general notability guidelines, per WP:GNG. Because of COI issues, we must be sensitive to NPOV and promotional language in the article. But in my opinion, the current article seems neutral enough. The version at User:Samboy/MaraDNS is a bit less so. A notable topic and no major article problems suggest that this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 05:06, 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 MERGE to Wright Endurance. Spinning Spark 12:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wright Urbanranger

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

No indication that it meets required notability, specifically WP:GNG Davey2010 Talk 01:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 18 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) 01:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - it clearly needs some work doing on it, but that's not a reason for deletion - it's a reason to improve it. It should only be deleted if it is not realistically possible to cite reliable secondary sources, which I'm convinced it will be, because automotive designs of all kinds have plenty of publications dedicated to providing commentary on them, and are therefore routinely considered notable.

For starters, almost all newly-available bus models would get an article in Ian Allan Buses magazine around the time of their launch, and probably in other magazines too, and all but the most obscure will be listed in the same publisher's Bus and Coach Recognition book series by Alan Millar. (Sadly I don't have either available at the moment, so can't provide said citations myself right now, but hopefully others can.)

At a push it could perhaps be merged into Wright Endurance, which it is closely derived from, but there seems no clear reason to deviate from the established one-article-per-named-model convention we currently have.

Indeed, a more extreme solution of merging the entire Wrightbus "Classic" range into one article could be a possibility, but it seems like a lot of unnecessary work when the rationale for doing so isn't clear-cut. Quackdave (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change my keep to a merge to Wright Endurance. Since the discussion on the CityRanger went in favour of merging to Wright Endurance (which I have now done), for the sake of consistency the UrbanRanger should go there too. (I have already included a fair part of the information in that article, since regardless of what the outcome of this debate is, it felt absurd to include the CityRanger in the Endurance article without also making at least passing mention of the UrbanRanger.) Quackdave (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wright CityRanger to which it was apparently similar. Since only 16 were ever built, I do not think it can be regarded as separately notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wrightbus, a page isn't necessary for each of their products. J04n(talk page) 10:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Whereas it seems that there is consensus that the article is notable, there is no consensus yet what should be done with it. Let us discuss one more week.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wright Endurance - If it was a bus chassis or such, then it would be a strong keep. As it is, it's a body for a bus chassis, and they only built 16 of them, so there's no way it can be presumed notable, and it fails any notability tests you can throw at it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:00, 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) 20:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shake It Up writers

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

Unsourced, unlinked, stubby article that serves only to duplicate content already available in List of Shake It Up episodes AussieLegend (✉) 07:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not needed; the show article has the information already. Nate • (chatter) 10:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 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. J04n(talk page) 02:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

InternetReputation.com

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)

Notability is not established and the links given in the article are predominantly press releases, which cannot establish notability. ComehereYou (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ComehereYou (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to closing administrator: Please be aware that two of the keep votes are single purpose accounts started after this AfD was in progress. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: We need a rationale for deletion... Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC) rationale given! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Predominantly is a rationale? You could all try to help this article to be better, instead. The company was "involved" in arrests.org controversy, offering a solutions for the people listed on that site. They got awards for their work? That is not notable enough? User with no Wikipedia background says that it should be deleted and you immediately comply.. Help me if you think this needs improvement --BiH (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as they give a valid rationale for deletion, the AfD will progress as given until its natural close, whether that is after a 7 day period (barring anything being held over) or through enough editors giving valid keep rationales that are backed up by RS and policy. The thing is, you have to show that the awards won help show notability. Not all awards are equal and not all go towards notability. The other thing is you'd also have to show that the controversy with Arrests.org is notable and that this website played a major role in the part. If that's the case, then it might be better to write an article for Arrests.org and redirect this to a section in that article. It doesn't help that the sources on the article are predominantly PR. At least five of them are PRs, and the ones that are left either don't mention the article (the Stanford study) and the others are from sites that aren't really considered to be RS. I did do a bit of a search and I'm finding it very hard to find any sources that aren't primary in some format and no amount of primary sources (such as PR) will show notability for a subject, regardless of where they're posted. While anything by a new editor should be looked over, we can't close an AfD simply because they're made by a new editor. If they leave out a rationale (and don't provide one soon after being warned about this) then we can, but the editor did in this case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a rundown of the sources:

Extended content

Listed by how they show up on the article:

[36] This is a review, but it's by a site that's not really what Wikipedia considers to be a RS. It doesn't help that it reads like it came from a PR.
[37] This is a press release, and as such, cannot show notability regardless of the claims made within it.
[38] This is another site that wouldn't be usable as a RS and it also reads like a PR.
[39] This is a study by Stanford, but this isn't actually about InternetReputation.com. They're not even mentioned once in the study.
[40] This looks to be your typical nn blog entry. Like 1 and 3, this reads like it was lifted from a PR or written specifically by the IR.com themselves. It's written by an internet marketer, so there's a definite possibility that this was something that the company paid for.
[41] Another press release.
[42] While this was posted on NBC news, it's a reprint of a press release.
[43] Another press release.
[44] Another press release.

Basically restating above, these are almost all press releases with a few that look to be blogs written by people hired by the company. Even if they weren't, none of them are on sites or by people that would be considered to be a RS by Wikipedia's standards. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although some references are PR, they somehow show involvement of this company in arrests.org affair by providing service of mug shot removal, a very open question and problem in US. Perhaps place ref improve tag and improve/rewrite the article itself? --205.168.220.137 (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC) — 205.168.220.137 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The problem here is that the more I look, the more I'm finding that neither InternetReputation.com nor Arrests.org are particularly notable. Most of what I'm finding that discuss the websites are press releases and those can never show notability. Events can make things notable, but those events are only notable if they're reported upon in reliable sources and aren't merely reprints of press releases. I've found only about three sources so far that comment upon Arrests.org and of those, one is only a trivial mention and the other two are more about the idea of mugshot websites rather than the specific website of Arrest.org. [45], [46], [47] Mugshot websites might potentially be a notable subject, but that doesn't automatically mean that every mugshot website inherits notability from being associated with a notable topic. Now even if we assume that we could find a depth of coverage for Arrest.org, that still doesn't mean that InternetReputation.com would inherit notability from being associated with the site. (WP:NOTINHERITED) To show notability for the site you have to prove it by things that aren't press releases that actually discuss InternetReputation.com in specific and not other websites. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand that references are not the best, but I strongly support that this article has to be given a chance. Look at this article; references are no better than these we have here, but nevertheless, article has some notability which can be built during the time. I agree that references must be better, but I have to emphasise that this article is not nearly done and still requires major build-up.. That is why I ask for ref improve tag, to call others that might do this better than me, maybe there is someone that is willing to help and improve this article. EDIT: Another thing, this is something new and there are not so many available sources for now, but it will surely be in the near future. In my opinion, these two articles can bring a basic insight to this matter for users that would browse Wikipedia for it --BiH (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Arguments such as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSUSEFUL aren't really valid arguments here on the English Wikipedia. If you don't think that the other article has notability established, then feel free to nominate it. The existence of other articles does not have any weight on this AfD because the article could either be kept for different reasons or it could just be that it hasn't been nominated for AfD yet. It could also mean that it passed an older AfD, but wouldn't necessarily pass guidelines that are now far more strict for websites. We also cannot keep articles based on the idea that more sources could become available. That's crystal balling and we cannot guarantee that the website will receive any notice from sources that Wikipedia would consider reliable. You can, however, WP:USERFY a copy and work on it there until those sources become available and then later move it back into the mainspace. That's always an option, although I'd recommend getting someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Websites to look over it to ensure it passes WP:WEB. No sense bringing something to the mainspace, only to have it deleted again via AfD or otherwise. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's really too early to worry about whether any source establishes that this is a notable business. The current article is pure advertising (an award-winning internet reputation management company), focusing entirely on the need for its service, how wonderfully they do them, and how much better it is than its competitors. At any rate, it's an online business in a crowded field of self-promoting startups, and nothing in this text establishes the kind of enduring significance that would make it an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple secondary sources could be used to potentially embark on a quality improvement drive for this article page, including some accolades listed at http://www.internetreputation.com/about/ in addition to the Sun Sentinel and The Miami Herald, among others. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have found any secondary sources, please list them. Until then, we cannot keep articles based on secondary sources that are not visible or provided and will have to assume that they do not exist. You've listed newspapers, but not any links to show that they actually covered the company rather than relisting press releases or merely trivially mentioning them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing I'm slightly concerned about is that I'm not entirely sure that these sources exist. We have an image of a known site/newspaper/etc next to a quote, but when I search in the sites I can't seem to find any of the quotes. A search for the quotes bring up a lot of press releases, making me wonder exactly who made those quotes. For an example of what I mean by this, the site has a quote by an image of the Boston.com logo. A search brings up an article... that is ultimately a press release. ([48] In other words, the website quotes are entirely likely all or solely the website quoting press releases that were reprinted on other sites. This is essentially why primary sources are never usable and should never be used to argue for an article to be included on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my arguments above. There is no coverage in reliable sources that would show a depth of coverage for this company. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've attempted to clean up this article. In essence, it included removing quite a bit of copyvio and press releases used as citations. I can't find a reliable or independent source to support the awards asserted. http://www.internetreputation.com/about/ and http://internetreputation.com/InternetReputation.com_Overview.pdf offered nothing that we can use to support or establish notability. At this point, there are two citations, albeit with questionable reliability. This source appears as a press release masquerading as an independent article. Same for this source, which is a blog that essentially duplicates content from the organization's website, then closes with "The Verdict: InternetReputation.com is an award-winning reputation management company that has successfully removed offending information for numerous businesses and individuals." Sorry, at this point, there's simply a lack of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Best regards, Cindy(need help?) 06:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some secondary sources, written by independent authors: [49], [50] --BiH (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Well, http://www.blogging24h.com/8907/internetreputation-review/ is a blog that merely duplicates content from the organization's website, then closes with "The Verdict: InternetReputation.com is an award-winning reputation management company that has successfully removed offending information for numerous businesses and individuals." (Not reliable or independent.) And http://www.coolbusinessideas.com/archives/innovative-technology-firm-internetreputation-com/ is another blog. At the bottom of the post on this website, they have added a disclaimer: "This post is a sponsored blog post." Sorry, clearly fails reliability and independence. You can read more about reliable sources here. Best regards, Cindy(need help?) 23:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment OK, understood. --BiH (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: User Cindamuse removed most of the article, although I think that association with arrests.org is important for the article. What remains shows basic article notability supported by the fact that the company is indeed important in reputation management --BiH (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Content that was removed includes blatant copyright violations (see WP:COPYRIGHT) and blogs and press releases used as citations. The "Controversy" section was removed because it was solely sourced to a press release. Again, see WP:RS. Best regards, Cindy(need help?) 23:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: There are plenty of third party sources to show that this company is actually a leader in the field. here are two: The company was mentioned in this article by the Miami herald - http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/11/03/3081517_p2/mugshots-the-hot-new-internet.html - InternetReputation.com, which offers to provide a “clean, clear online reputation.” This artcile by justia.com - http://verdict.justia.com/2012/04/24/mug-shot-mania — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.168.220.137 (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. The content about the subject mentioned at justia.com and miamiherald.com is minimal at best. Justia.com offers a blog entry for BustedMugShots.com, of which a representative offers a short comment about BustedMugShots.com. Take the miamiherald.com content, "MugshotsUSA.com offers Florida mugshots for most counties. The site carries an ad for InternetReputation.com, which offers to provide a 'clean, clear online reputation.'" This simply does not equate to significant coverage about InternetReputation.com. Cindy(need help?) 05:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the current article isn't very extensive, the two links above show the company is notable and discussed at a reasonable level within the media. Secondly, I believe that while many of the Press Releases in the article aren't ideal references, they do help with the notability issue to some degree HawkWatcher (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC) — HawkWatcher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment: That is what is was talking about. There is notability, and I am sure it will build more, along with other companies, as this industry develops. There is a lack of article coverage in this field, but that is for some other discussion --BiH (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. See above comment. The two links do not equate to significant coverage about the subject of this discussion. Accordingly, the threshold for notability through the general notability guidelines has not been established. Best regards, Cindy(need help?) 05:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this above, but I want to stress this because this is essentially the reason why primary sources cannot and should not be used as an argument for notability. I'm finding that several of the "media quotes" on the company's website are actually reprints of quotes from press releases printed on various websites. In other words, what looks like coverage is actually them quoting themselves. It seems like none or very few of the websites listed on the company's website actually covered the company and just reprinted press releases. This is not coverage and while it's not exactly like I could send in a PR about clowns eating babies, it's not that hard to get PR printed on the bigger websites as long as you have a connection and enough money. There is no coverage out there and this is actually making me more certain than ever that the website does not pass notability guidelines. It's pretty sleazy to misrepresent quotes on your website. Again, it does not appear that any of these websites have actually covered the company. There is a huge difference between merely reprinting PR and actually giving coverage of the company. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Perhaps the author used sources from the company as well as the text he wrote himself about the event he is writing about? Two more pages are found that can be used for referencing, together with two existing, and I think we can incorporate these links as sources and achieve general notability guidelines requests, minimal, I agree, but it is there. It is shown that the company is in mugshot removal industry, again, a very "hot" topic in the United States and the rest of the world. --BiH (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, press releases are solely and entirely written by the company. In other words, they were written by InternetReputation.com. The thing about notability is that primary sources are never, ever, EVER usable as reliable sources when it comes to the English Wikipedia. Also, the notability of another subject does not mean that this website is notable. (WP:NOTINHERITED) I hate to sound redundant, but several editors have cited this again and again. No amount of primary sources or association with notable concepts will change this. This goes against several of Wikipedia's core rules and concepts. Sometimes these differ on the other Wikipedias, but in the English language Wikipedia we need reliable sources to show notability and we cannot say "oh, well, we all need food to eat so by relation my aunt's restaurant in Queens is totally notable". I don't know how many times we have to say this in order to get the point across. What you're suggesting here is so wrong in so many ways. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your comment about the PR releases and that they were probably manufactured by InternetReputation.com's website content (or their press releases written internally), there are four credible references on the page, with the potential of a couple more. Rather than discussing the PR releases that we all seem to agree on should have been removed (or at least viewed as poor references), can we move this conversation forward and look at the active references on the article and also other potential references? HawkWatcher (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC) — HawkWatcher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The sources used rely heavily on the companies own promotion materials and press releases, and thus cannot be considered independent. What coverage there is in independent sources is minimal or tandential. Falls far short of fulfilling hte requirements of our notability guidelines. There's a great deal of puffery and self-promotion going on here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All, I've updated the article with some more information and the additional two references that were found by one of the editors. Above someone mentions the Sun Sentinel, but that article never seemed to materialise beyond that mention. Has anyone come across this? HawkWatcher (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC) — HawkWatcher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Doesn't help. The Reviewharbor source looks like a paid advertisment, and the Miami Herald contains a tiny, tangential mention. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Simply not enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Mcewan (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Found another reference from a website specialising in internet information removal HawkWatcher (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that is a very long way from being a reliable source. Mcewan (talk) 01:54, 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. J04n(talk page) 20:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

God-Grilla

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bespoke BBQ Company

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

While the article is referenced it is essentially about a large barbecue but padded out with company info. The last AFD determined that the company is not notable and I assert that claiming to be the worlds largest barbecue is also not a notable topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, just about satisfies WP:GNG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability does not expire. Warden (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NTEMP, WP:GNG and per my previous !vote in the first AfD discussion. This topic has been covered by multiple reliable third-party news sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- I suspect that we DO not need ONE article on Bespoke BBQ Company or this one. The outcome of the previous AFD was to redirect here. That implies that this is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:53, 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 Clark, New Jersey. MBisanz ^talk 21:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Circle

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

I seem to recall years ago that someone with a fetish for rotaries wrote tons of articles on them, generally saying nothing but what roads branch off them. For some reason most of them are still here, despite the fact that they're useless. This one doesn't even exist anymore; we literally have an article on an intersection. An intersection of no relevance. At best this should be redirected to the List of traffic circles in New Jersey page (which, for some reason, exists) as it has as much info as this sad excuse for an encyclopedia article. Delete -R. fiend (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Clark, New Jersey We have articles for all sorts of things that I don't care about; The question is notability based on coverage in reliable and verifiable sources. We have more than a few articles for buildings, objects and people that no longer exist. The sourced content should be relocated so that it's added to the article for Clark, New Jersey, where the circle is / was located, with a main article reference to List of traffic circles in New Jersey in the article for Clark. This merge / redirect is the same standard that has worked effectively at Flemington, New Jersey and White Horse, New Jersey. Alansohn (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea of "effective" and mine are quite different. The articles you mentioned look ridiculous, covering the standard topics covered by articles on cities and then, out of nowhere, going into the minutiae of a traffic intersection, covering it as if it were the site of a holy pilgrimage, when in fact, it is a circle of asphalt, the likes of which exist all over the world, and which are of no relevance to anyone but rotary-fetishists. The White Horse, New Jersey article is particularly embarrassing, as the only information it has is on 2 years of census data, and then an entire section on a small section of roadway. Nothing on culture, history, politics, etc., but a section on a completely unremarkable rotary. Honestly, I'd rather see this terrible article kept where no one will see it then merged, where it can pollute another article with its irrelevance. The "sources" on this are laughable as well: local news stories about some future public works projects. Perhaps every time my local newspaper runs a story about repaving jobs in the works, I'll add it to the city's article as well. hat would make for some great reading, eh? This is just plain terrible material. -R. fiend (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the topic is encyclopedic and covered by reliable and verifiable sources. What you think is "ridiculous" is irrelevant, no more than your fetish for poorly drawn Charles Schulz characters, such as the long-defunct and poorly sourced Shermy. Alansohn (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Clark, New Jersey. It will marginally enhance the Transportation section of that article, and redirects are cheap. Accurizer (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I fail to see how a merge to Clark will improve that article as it would simply add trivia. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not approve of the nominator's misuse of "literally" or their edit-warring elsewhere, but this is not a notable subject, and there is no need for a redirect. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Whpq & User:Drmies. Davey2010 Talk 08:36, 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Missouri high schools by athletic conferences

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

Indiscriminate, non-notable WP:LISTCRUFT. Completely unreferenced as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I personally think this is a case of overcatergorisation, with respect to lists. There's already a List of high schools in Missouri, so this merely duplicates that and presents itself as a bit of a content fork. Funny ^Pika! 08:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is a list of all high school athletic conferences in the state of Missouri. That's a logical breakdown. There are similar lists for other states. I agree it should be referenced but that's not the issue. I checked it with the ones I now including obscure ones with small schools and it is correct.Americasroof (talk) 10:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of those should go then. This is completely irrelevant junk, and it is not what Wikipedia is for. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -- I fail to see what real harm it is causing to anyone while conversly providing a valuable resource and quick breakdown by conference for those researching Missouri high school sports. If Wikipedia isn't for providing information, no matter how trivial some may consider it then why are we all spending our time editing and creating articles? Sector001 (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC) UPDATE - I have now added a reference to the article, if a somewhat complicated one. Conference membership is confirmed by the link provided. Sector001 (talk) 00:11, 2 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) 01:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not a content fork, this actually strikes me as an extremely useful basic arrangement of a more or less non-dynamic data set. Valid navigational function for those querying WP in search of sports information, a useful index of articles. Carrite (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Carrite. There might other ways to accomplish this, of course, but the article here seems to do a fine job. It really is the best option that does not involve a massive sortable table. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a fan of lists, it's a bittersweet experience when I find a really good one on this page, knowing that it may not be around much longer. Glad to see that so far the votes seem to be on the 'keep' side. Listmeister (talk) 18:08, 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. J04n(talk page) 20:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aqualad

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

I propose Aqualad be redirected to Garth (comics). Because only two characters have owned the "Aqualad" moniker, per WP:HATNOTE/WP:SIMILAR, a hatnote at the top of Garth (comics) that directs you to Aqualad (Kaldur'ahm) is sufficient. Feedback ^☎ 21:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Redirection is not achieved by deletion. In any case, there should be an Aqualad page per WP:COMMONNAME and to explain the continuity, just as we have Robin (comics). Warden (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep If the proposal is for redirection to merger, then propose a redirection or merger, not a deletion. This is an inappropriate use of the deletion nomination process. Since no one seems to actually want the article deleted, including the nominator, the process should be halted. Mathewignash (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I want all content in the article removed, considering it's just content forking. Robin (comics) is a different example because there are approximately 9 Robins. There are only two Aqualads though, so per WP:HATNOTE/WP:SIMILAR, the page should go directly to Garth (comics) and use a hatnote that directs to Aqualad (Kaldur'ahm). I'm arguing for the deletion of the current page and replacement with a redirect. If you think that I should have done this myself instead of using AFD, you have a total misunderstanding of the AFD process. The article should be deleted, along with its content and its history. Obviously, the "title" should still be in use for a new redirect page though. Feedback ^☎ 17:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a longer history than the Garth one. We shouldn't delete that either. Warden (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per what motives should we keep the history? For three years, this was a redirect to Garth (comics). Since "Jackson Hyde", someone decided to turn this redirect into a pseudo-disambiguation page for both characters. That is just silly. Redirecting the page to Garth, and having a hatnote saying "Aqualad redirects here. For the Aqualad (Kaldur'ahm) click here." is more appropriate. Feedback ^☎ 01:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What purpose does this serve that cannot be served by the two other articles, aside from disambiguation? Gamaliel (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Apart from everything else, the fact that the nominator is actually asking what motive there is to keep the page history demonstrates that he lacks even the most rudimentary knowledge of what the procedure is for what he's trying to do. Redirecting a page does not involve AFD except in very unusual circumstances; since the nominator himself admits that there are no unusual circumstances involved, this article obviously has no reason to be in AFD.--66.31.212.169 (talk) 12:41, 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Warden. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:36, 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. (Nomination withdrawn.) czar · · 07:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nimble Quest

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

Contested PROD. Article about a mobile game that fails to meet WP:PRODUCT. The article was created the same day it was released, and thus has little to none independent third-party coverage that could help establish notability. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:47, 29 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) 18:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It was just released yesterday. It's not notable yet, and may never be. I found no reliable sources that have reported on this game. The only sources that I found were minor blogs and advertising web sites that are not independent of the subject. Fails WP:NSOFTWARE and WP:NVG. - Mr X 18:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - RE: notability, resources: The game has been covered by many major mobile gaming review sites, including but not limited to Kotaku^[1], TouchArcade^[2], and Gamezebo^[3]. The developers have gone viral before from their letter to major gaming company Zynga^[4]. There is also controversy surrounding this game that should be added into the article regarding its similarity to the mobile game Call of Snakes. The game was just released this Wednesday, but the beta has been out for long enough for all the information in the article to be in general circulation, and was available to play on TouchArcade's website^[5]. Kamirose (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   ==Notes==

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG from the sources provided by Kamirose, some of them are listed as reliable by Wikiproject Video games, and you have Forbes. Diego (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw It's fairly obvious that this has now become notable. I thank the editors who updated the article with additional sources and material. If anyone wants to close this as Keep, go ahead. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:22, 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 Satu Mare. The history will remain intact in case anyone wants to merge any of it. J04n(talk page) 20:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infrastructure of Satu Mare

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

A totally unnecessary page, detailing the transport infrastructure of a town. As with other towns, the information should be there, not in a separate article, unless of great import in its own right. Most of the information on this page already appears on the article about the town, Satu Mare, much of it word for word, and what doesn't can be simply merged there. Emeraude (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. This also applies to the individual articles about each bridge in Satu Mare (each of them only relies on a document written by the municipality), with too little information to warrant an individual article.- Andrei (talk) 13:02, 1 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:56, 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) 20:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upendra Tripathy

AfDs for this article:

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

poor sources.I dont find him notable enough to be on wikipedia. Uncletomwood (talk) 10:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Phil Bridger on the previous AfD on the notability of the Award for Excellence in Public Administration. AllyD (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Phill Bridgers comment was wrong as the PM's award for excellence is given to almost 20-30 people out of 5-6 lakh government employees not the whole population of India every year.Moreover it looks like a WP:Resume and does not indicate why it has to be on wikipedia,it exists maybe because so and so wanted to show off.Wikipedia's articles need to provide knowledge not fan peoples or beaurecrats ego..Uncletomwood (talk) 10:59, 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he is a run of the mill civil servant who is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Pack Lambert. Also the one reference is a dead link. SalHamton (talk) 22:00, 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 no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hadrianic Society

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

Seems to be a nice and friendly society, however, there is no evidence of any notability. The references are links to the homepages of similar societies that don't even mention this society, to an obituary of the founder mentioning this society in passing, to the society's own website, and to an item in the British Library catalog. None of this shows that this passes WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This appears to be a specialist academic society, publishing an academic journal of record, comprosing the proceedings of an annual conference. I am encouraged in this view by its having two professors as founders and having operated for a considerable period. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have to say I feel a bit bad about this one, but I can't find anything substantial outside of the Society's own material. dci | TALK 02:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hasn't received significant coverage. A mention in a magazine is not enough to demonstrate notability. James086 ^Talk 10:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have remodelled this whole page and added better references to account for the notability of the Society in published academic material. Additional links to academics and professors are progressive and ongoing. These changes should be voted on as a result. 21:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC); Zakhx150

Comment Sorry, I appreciate your efforts, but I don't see anything in the changes that you made that makes me change my mind. PLease also see WP:NOTINHERITED. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After looking in more detail, I see even less. Some of those "references" have nothing to do with the society. Other things are just name-dropping without a shred of evidence that these people ("benefiting from the membership and speakers, which included many of the leading academics of the Northern British Universities") had anything to do with the society. NOTINHERITED doesn't even come into play: these people have nothing to do here. I'm sorry, but our edits are misguided at best and borderline deceptive. --Randykitty (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think we should keep this and watch it for a while longer. Their conferences are regularly listed in the academic conference calendars and by the established archaeological learned societies (ref: http://www.ras.yas.org.uk/page183.html) and appear to be attended by some senior figures. It also figures on a number of academic blogs (eg. Jonathan Eaton amongst many other). I think more information might add to the understanding of the Academic landscape and 'schools' in the North of Britain, which would be useful for outside students trying to understand the arguments and development of ideas in this field, which is very partisan. I believe that would qualify under relevance and notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanGaskProject (talk • contribs) 23:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC) — RomanGaskProject (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I still say Keep -- The recetn edits have considerably improved the page. Current archaeology is surely WP:RS. I understand the WP:NOTINHERITED principle. However, I would suggest that an academic society's notability is enhanced by its attracting academic lecturers and having leading academics as founders. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, have another look. Most of the claims are actually not about the society but about the department at Durham and most assertions are not backed up by the sources given... --Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I very seldom differ from Randy, but this is somewhat of a special case; amateur societies in the UK have had a major role in local history and archaeology, The founders are notable -- this doesn't prove everything they do notable , but it implies a considerable degree of significance, since the society's purposes are so very closely associated with their notable work. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Setting aside the various academic arguments and looking at this solely from the perspective of organizational notability, WP:NONPROFIT finds notability based on (a) national or international scope, and (b) independent references for verifications. The independent references are supplied by inclusion of the society's works in various journals / academic listings. The scope of the organization is here focused on a particular historical time and place, but the subject is not of merely local interest, nor is the membership; so this would appear to me to qualify under national or international scope. The organization's longevity is also a factor, and here the organization is 40+ years old. --Lquilter (talk) 23:03, 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. J04n(talk page) 19:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liquefaction (disambiguation)

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

The page Liquefaction (disambiguation) was linked only from liquefaction to disambiguate two topics liquefaction already covers: Soil liquefaction and Liquefaction of gases. I've improved (IMO) liquefaction, and it no longer needs to link to Liquefaction (disambiguation), making Liquefaction (disambiguation) an orphan. Unless Liquefaction (disambiguation) should be redirected to liquefaction, then Liquefaction (disambiguation) ought be deleted in my opinion. Sorry if things got a bit confusing there! Scientific29 (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : nom is proposing:

Liquefaction a WP:DABCONCEPT, ok in principle
- BUT I think it may be too broad - if Soil liquefaction is included (solid acting like a liquid - which is not in the scope of the article with the current lead).
and removing DAB at Liquefaction (disambiguation).
- A hatnote or keeping this DAB for this unrelated (it does not become a liquid but acts like one).
- I would also lean towards keeping the DAB for at least a See also section to liquidate etc.
~~Weak Keep~~ Delete (see update below) due to above. Widefox; talk 10:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Widefox. I agree the current lead is insufficient and have added "...refers to the process of becoming liquid or liquid like." to allow soil liquefaction to fall under the scope of the liquefaction article. (I think it makes sense to include soil liquefaction on liquefaction since it is one of the several somewhat idiosyncratic ways "liquefaction" is used, even while having another article for soil liquefaction since it is such an extensively researched topic.) I was unfamiliar with "Broad-concept articles", but that is exactly what I was looking to do with liquefaction.Scientific29 (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference to support that definition? Widefox; talk 00:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't mean to be obtuse, but a reference for "...or liquid-like" as a part of the definition of "liquefaction"? Here's one from a USGS website:

"Liquefaction: A process by which water-saturated sediment temporarily loses strength and acts as a fluid, like when you wiggle your toes in the wet sand near the water at the beach. This effect can be caused by earthquake shaking." 1

I think "acts as a fluid" could be paraphrased accurately as "liquid-like". Cheers! Scientific29 (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't clear - I mean a reference to cover both as one (broad) topic, as for me solids acting as liquids (fluids) are not the same topic as liquids. I err on the cautious side without knowing how the soil topic works (and for example how it compares with topics like glass/solid, Non-Newtonian fluids)). Widefox; talk 18:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:38, 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most dictionaries define "liquefaction" 1 as the process of becoming "liquid". "liquid" then as the physical phase, but also as "of, pertaining to, or consisting of a liquid" 2 thus encompassing both meanings here. I'm new to the concept WP:DABCONCEPT, but doesn't this further allow some leeway in broadening the scope of the article? Scientific29 (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

broad concepts articles aren't easy, but I'm not convinced. My secondary concern right now is the article at Liquefaction is unsourced and looks like a DAB page - without sources I'm tempted to delete it and move the DAB there. Widefox; talk 12:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm increasingly unsure of the best resolution here. Perhaps the current situation would be best: a DAB to direct people to the major, article worthy types of liquefaction and a supporting article on the less article-worthy uses of "liquefaction"? I'm imagining the DAB like:

"Liquefaction generally refers to the formation of a liquid or liquid-like state

Liquefaction more specifically refers to:

soil liquefaction , liquefactive necrosis and liquefaction of gases."

Scientific29 (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ We have four articles with "liquefaction" in the title, and a fifth with a closely related word. A disambiguation page is appropriate, in my opinion, in such a situation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which four are you referring to? We have soil liquefaction , liquefactive necrosis and liquefaction of gasses. Liquefaction point is a redirect and an obscure term at that 1.

Liquefaction point - redirects and obscurity aside - it is mentioned in the article, so can be included in the DAB per either WP:DABMENTION or WP:DABREDIR. Saying that, it also could be included in the broad concept, so I added it. Widefox; talk 14:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After seeing how far we've come with the broad concept article, I will update the DAB to remove entries covered by it, which means please reevaluate your !votes above with this, hence my change to delete. Good work Scientific29, I (think) I'm happy with it now, regards. I would like some more eyeballs as I've looked at this too long now. In British English liquidate must come into this somewhere, although I'm uneasy about the scope still. It would be good to close this soon, as the DAB is now empty. Widefox; talk 17:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because of the work done by various editors including Scientific29 and Widefox, the page is no longer needed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:16, 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 Eraser vs Yöjalka. MBisanz ^talk 21:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Round 1

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

The album has no significant coverage and the article contains no notable sources. An album must have stand-alone notability to warrant an article. Ben Knapp (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage, and it doesn't seem to be a notable album. Koala15 (talk) 14:42, 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the parent article Eraser vs Yöjalka, agree not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone page. J04n(talk page) 19:55, 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 withdrawn by nominator--Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Mundane Behavior

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

Journal that existed only briefly. Never was indexed in any selective database. There are some in-passing mentions in reliable sources (like this brief paragraph in the LA Times), but no in-depth coverage. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That link points to abstracts of three LA Times articles. When you click on the links to those articles, the articles themselves are more than a brief paragraph. James500 (talk) 13:49, 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTEMP and WP:GNG: Google News shows ample secondary coverage. —rybec 02:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It got plenty of coverage in the popular press during its brief existence. Most of the coverage was of the "you'll get a chuckle out of this" variety, but still, a sociology journal that gets written up in USA Today, the New York Times, and a dozen other reliable sources is notable by any standard. The article needs to be expanded and some of these sources added. --MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn For some reason, the article titles on the LA Times page did not seem to link to anything when I nominated this article. Now they do... Must have been some transient glitch either on the website or on my computer. It's all still a bit meager (as MelanieN says: the "chuckle variety"), but just enough, I guess. --Randykitty (talk) 07:04, 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) 19:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World of Pirates

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable video game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. A WikiProject Video games custom Google search turns up nothing but false hits to other games and an empty Gamespot page. A more general Google search finds the usual forum posts, spam sites, and sites found to be specifically unreliable at the WikiProject Video games guide to sources. As a side note, the lede was taken verbatim from Strategy Wiki and the gameplay section is pretty much WP:GAMEGUIDE, requiring a complete overhaul if someone can turn up references. Woodroar (talk) 16:03, 29 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) Woodroar (talk) 16:03, 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) 00:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there's an interview at reliable source GamersHell and it was listed by Gamespot. Diego (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The interview is amateur and submitted by the developer, really no different than "interviews" one finds in advertisements. It's pretty much a press release. the GameSpot database has been found to be specifically unreliable at WP:VG/S, and it lacks reviews by staff members (the only reliable references we allow from GameSpot). Woodroar (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not established in the article or in any major VG journalism outlets. I agree with Woodroar's assessment of Diego's mentioned sources—I don't think they're nearly enough to make this topic notable. czar · · 17:14, 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. J04n(talk page) 19:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Baugher

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

A lawyer who appears to be promoting himself. Should probably be speedied but he seems to want it out. Also partly copyvioed. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page is information about an attorney to provide further information for people that might be seeking more information about him. He teaches many seminars and has written articles for Huffington Post, so he is a public figure and I do not think it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprgibson623 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 1 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. SalHamton (talk) 06:03, 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 to Summerhill, County Meath#Coole National School. J04n(talk page) 19:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coole National School

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

It's a primary school, and not a notable one. Plenty of promotional fluff fills this article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Summerhill, County Meath, where the school is already discussed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:42, 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nationals schools are inherently non-notable and this is established wiki convention. Snappy (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Summerhill, County Meath#Coole National School. Agreed this is nn but our convention is to redirect somewhere sensible, not to delete, and this is certainly a useful redirect. TerriersFan (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Summerhill, County Meath#Coole National School. There is no reason to delete this page. If upon deletion, merge some of the info into Summerhill, County Meath's section dedicated to recognizing Coole National School. Mr.H (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2013

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lama (name)

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

Anything in this article is already in Lama (disambiguation), and this article isn't really expandable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 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) 00:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator claims that the article about an Arabic female name "really isn't expandable". For expansion possibities, how about a book called Hispano-Arabic Literature and the Early Provençal Lyrics which talks about "drinking in the lama, the dusky brown colour of the lips which he describes as 'sweet like honey, fresh and pure'." How about A World of Baby Names, which says "Derived from the Arabic lamia (having beautiful, dark lips)". Or, how about Tradition, modernity, and postmodernity in Arabic literature, which says: "The color name lama, referring to the red belonging to dark lips, when morphologically changed to lamya' means the dark green of a tree's shadow." Or this delightful quotation from a book published by New York University just last year: Classical Arabic Literature: A Library of Arabic Literature Anthology, which says, "Ah God! What a river! It flows in the valley, a watering place lovelier than a girl's crimson lips." (emphasis added). Don't such sources both establish notability and allow for expansion? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Cullen328. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided above by Cullen328. At least meets WP:N (I wasn't able to preview the A World of Baby Names source, per having reached limits per previewing or preview unavailability on Google Books). It's also likely that other reliable sources are available. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE (a more complicated search syntax would find sources) and WP:OUTCOMES (we have kept most of the most popular baby names). Bearian (talk) 18:51, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canon CLC1180

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

Non-notable laser copier. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 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) 00:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge into list of Canon products or the like, if one exists. -R. fiend (talk) 16:03, 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.

[Gwulo-1] Lim, Patricia. "Inscriptions for cemetery sections 10–16". Gwulo.com. Retrieved 5 April 2013.

[2] Lim, Patricia (2011). Forgotten Souls: A Social History of the Hong Kong Cemetery. Hong Kong University Press. ISBN 978-962-209-990-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[3] ttp://kotaku.com/nimble-quest-would-make-one-hell-of-a-final-fantasy-gam-462721261

[4] ttp://toucharcade.com/2013/01/28/exclusive-first-look-at-nimblebits-upcoming-nimble-quest/

[5] ttp://www.gamezebo.com/games/nimble-quest/review

[6] ttp://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/david_vs._goliath_indie_dev_nimblebit_calls_out_zynga

[7] ttp://toucharcade.com/2013/03/15/play-nimblequest/

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]