Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 February	12 February >

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) 03:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brigitte Larsen

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

Lack of verifiable independent evidence of notability.
The article fails Wikipedia's policy of not being a means of promotion. The article subject fails the basic criteria for notability of a sportsperson. Although athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the Summer or Winter Olympic games, the article subject is not listed as part of the U.S. Olympic Snowboarding team for 1998, despite suggestions to the contrary in the article. - ʈucoxn\^talk 23:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Blatant promotion. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 00:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I feel it's more badly written than a promotion (90% is just a list) but, it is impossible to expand and even google can't find sources. (and if google can't find it most likely no one can) HereFord 00:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like a hoax, snowboarding became an Olympic sport in 1998, not in 1988.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Snowboarding does not seem to be one of the sports of the 1988 Winter Olympics, even as a demonstration sport. Indeed, snowboarding competitions have happened at the Winter Olympic Games only since the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan. - ʈucoxn\^talk 20:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As failing verifiability. Although the lede calls her a snowboarder, it references her winning freestyle which is a skiing discipline. The Calgary Olympics did include freestyle as demonstration sports. However, I can find no record of her at FIS-SKI.com which is the governing body for these sports. If these compeition wins can be backed up with sources, then I would be persuaded to keep this article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable and, per Whpq, presumably wrong. Huon (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've reviewed the pro career section a little more carefully and decided it doesn't make lick of sense. It makes the claim that she won the inaugural freestyle world cup in 1986 in Park City, Utah. Freestyle is actually the overal term for a set of ski disciplines. There is no actual freestyle discipline to win although the article might have meant the combined. But in any case, the freestyle started before 1986, and there was no World Cup held anywhere in Utah during the 1986 season. There is also a claim to winning the Giant Slalom World Championships in 1986. A freestyle skier competing in an Alpine discipline is quite unusual. Even more unusual is winning a World Championship in a year in which one was not held. Continuing with her success at winning in World Championships that don't exist, she won the 1987 Freestyle World Championships in Vancouver which I would imagine occurred between the two real World Championships held in 1986 and 1989. The only explanation is either this all a hoax, or these World Cups and Championships are not FIS events in which case nobody has taken any notice of them and as such are extremely non-notable competitions. -- Whpq (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 17 February 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) 04:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of hammered dulcimer builders

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

This seems an unnecessarily specific list of people that primarily has red links. Perhaps it would be better as a category (WP:PAGEDECIDE), or simply deleted. iComputerSaysNo 23:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have no agree with the nominator, the list seems rather unneccesary and full of redlinks. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Too many redlinks, not enough notability. Besides, how do we know they were drunk when they made the dulcimers? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. Delete the page and add Category:Hammered dulcimer makers containing the few working articles. - ʈucoxn\^talk 05:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 17 February 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) 04:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tofael – the tea stall boy

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

No evidence of notability by our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Running time 1 min, wow thats a pretty short film JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no in-depth coverage found in reliable sources; appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NF. Gong show 09:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this short film exists, a lack of coverage fails WP:NF. I might have suggested a redirect to filmmaker Minhazur Rahman Nayan, but that potential target article itself is failing review at WP:AFC per its major issues and is itself a target for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just blocked the article creator indefinitely for removing AfD templates despite warnings. I don't mind an unblock if we know this won't happen again, but... I am beginning to believe that this editor has serious problems with English. I've seen nothing that might not have been copy and pasted from other sources. This one seems to come from [1]. Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete immediately ...It's currently wasting 2,912 bytes of valuable WP seriously, it's completely non-notable- the only refs are IMDB, FB, and a blog. Basket _Feudalist
Delete per lack of notability, as others have said. Topic has not been covered at all by independent sources, much less reliable ones. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 17 February 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) 16:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flights With Friends

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

This article about a website appears to be non-notable in reliable sources to indicate significant coverage. I did, however, find a fairly reliable source, see here but that's not enough; most other sources are self-published. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 20:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited in the article include the TNooz one you mentioned and Techcrunch. The only other source is the homepage where the 150 websites number comes from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilanacal (talk • contribs) 20:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think speedy deletion is appropriate, and I've nominated it as such. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so, in this case. The criteria you provided states it does not make an assertion of importance. Although it may be non-notable, it does actually so continuing this debate seems appropriate. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 20:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see any credible claim of importance. You are free to remove the template, of course--or you can see what the next available admin thinks. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - After reviewing the guidelines I edited the article to show importance.Ilanacal
Delete, for now. The sources exist, but they seem merely to announce the creation of a new company. Whether the company will become notable, or sink without a trace, has yet to be determined. Let's check back in a year and see if any articles have been written other than those that acknowledge the beginning of the company. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I speedied and closed here, but have restored and reopened by request of the nominator. I speedied because I could, like Drmies, see no credible assertion of significance. I still can't in 10 pages of ghits. Peridon (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for now this article is simply WP:SPAM and promotional. Per FisherQueen, maybe the company will become notable in six months to a year. - ʈucoxn\^talk 05:38, 16 February 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) 19:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Eden

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

Subject's full name:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject's birth name:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. Eden's accomplishments amount to:

taking part in the "Events Academy 2011", a summer seminar organized by the Better Bankside business improvement district;
producing a film as part of that seminar that won an award in a Panasonic film competition (hardly a major filmmaking award);
being named as "director" of Justice International, a charity of little to no notability (see the AFD for that organization) founded by Eden's father.

None of these accomplishments rise to the level of notability for Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -Drdisque (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still to be edited, with further references. The following I urge to be taken into consideration. 1) The Events Academy is a recognised youth programme within the borough of southwark in London; the programme is supported by high profile individuals such as Simon Hughes the MP and Alaistar Campbell former labour cabinet member. The programme is very much a respected accomplishment within that borough and south London. The programme is also supported by large companies such as IPC media and First Protocol. The event organised was a business networking event which accommodated such individuals and business's. The programme has even received a Mayor of London Award as noted on the Better Bankside website.

2)with regards to the short film it may have escaped the individual who made the comment ' hardly a major filmmaking award' . I would like you to consider the fact the film was screened during the Olympics at the live sites as mentioned on the Film Nation website, which would suggest it to be a notable accomplishment. Additionally the Filmnation competition and more specifically determiNATIONS was supported by Panasonic a well recognised company as well as the British Film Institute and high profile persons such as Claudia Winkleman, Eddie Marson, Matt Horne, Alfie Allen and Joe Dempsie. It would be disrespectful to suggest this is not an accomplishment.

3) Witth regards to his directorship of Justice International I would like you to consider that Justice International is respected in the legal world , recognised by the BAR of England and Wales and that of Egypt and south asian countries such as Bangladesh, With the latter supporting its cause. Thee organisation is also recognised and associated with several European governments such as Switzerland, whom the organisation collaborates with to hold discussions with countries of the arab continent and countries such as france and Norway regarding the crisis in the Middle East. The company is supported and associated with notable legal figures such as John Platts Mills QC, Sir Ivan Lawrence and many more. The company is also publicised internationally within many media formats.

Kind Regards WilsonWilson1 (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With regard to the arguments presented above:
1. Whether or not the Events Academy is a good or bad programme, with positive or negative reactions from the Bankside neighborhood that it serves, or the London community at large, and regardless of the notability of the people who support this programme, it is still a neighborhood improvement programme, and even if the programme is notable, that notability is not conferred automatically on every one of the programme's participants.
2. Regarding the film determiNATIONS and its screening at Olympic events: this is not an inherent sign of notability. I'm sure the London Olympics committee was searching high and low for any local flavor to add to the venues to highlight London. I would venture to guess that many, many such projects were chosen for display around town -- this does not confer any level of notability to this film. As for support of the British Film Institute for what is essentially a student film, there does not appear to be any citation supporting this, nor can any mention be found of the film at the BFI website.
3. With regard to Justice International, the notability of that organization is also in doubt (and has been brought up for its own AFD). The fact that the JI in question (apparently operating under the name Justice International World, possibly to avoid confusion with the UK Registered Charity Justice International that appears, based on its registered trustees, to be a separate organization) was founded by Amir Eden's father makes Eden's own involvement in the organization less notable. And, even if JIW is deemed to be notable (i.e. if that AFD results in a keep decision), Eden's involvement in the organization is not verified by the organization's website, which does not list his name at all, anywhere. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regards the deletion of this article I would suggest that this is not appropriate. It is evident the article requires improvement however it seems there is no doubt wether the subject of the article is notable. WilsonWilson1 provides evidence of the respected accomplishments of Amir Eden.

DP87 (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted that between them, users DP87 and WilsonWilson1 are solely responsible for the content of the Justice International article. DP87's neutrality in this matter should be considered in this light. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The comment made above is false contributions to the Justice International article have been added by some who do not have an Wikipedia account.

With regards the Events Academy there seems to be some contradiction in WikiDan61's comments. The user suggests that the Events Academy is a neighbourhood improvement programme, which would not suggest it is not notable. There is no given description or identification of what degree of notability is acceptable for inclusion on Wikipedia. The user goes onto contradict his statement by suggesting that regardless of the notable associates and even if it is notable; which it would be due to the involvement of such notable figures. Furthermore the user suggests that this notability would not be conferred to participants of the programme. It can be argued that by association notability would be attributed to participants as a form of credit. WilsonWilson1 (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wilson does not appear to have read or understood Wikipedia's notbality guidelines. The Events Academy, in order to be notable, would need to meet the criteria spelled out at WP:ORG. The fact that notable persons have supported the Events Academy does not make the Events Academy inherently notable. (See Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited.) Even if the Events Academy were notable based on Wikipedia's guidelines, participation in that Academy does not per se confer notability upon the participant. (Again, see Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited.) The University of Notre Dame is notable; but not every alumnus of that university is notable simply for having attended. Amir Eden must be demonstrated to be notable in his own right, by evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Until that evidence is provided, I stand by my nomination of this article for deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying the Wikipedia guidelines. Having now understood them I see yuor point with regards this page and accept that it should be deletedWilsonWilson1 (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We do not wish to discourage new contributors, so after deletion from mainspace, and if you wish it, a copy of this article can be moved for a short time to a user workspace such as User:WilsonWilson1/Amir Eden for continued work. And you would then be encouraged to seek input from more experienced users after your work to determine if improvements have made it suitable for a return to mainspace. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I applaud the accomplishments of this young man. However, with respect to inclusion in Wikipedia, there is not the coverage needed to meet the criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice for recreation in the future, if and or when notability is finally established. I too applaud this person's accomplishments, and even cleaned up the article a bit just in case the author wishes it userfied but, in expanding my own searches, recognize that he does not meet inclusion criteria at this time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. While the subject may became notable in the years to come--and I personally hope he does--at the moment he doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I withdraw this nomination, the U-T San Diego source and other references now prove that this topic is notable according to policy. I only took a look at regular Google and Google News Archive, so my bad here. (non-admin closure) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 21:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleText

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

This article about an application for Apple computers appears to be non-notable in reliable sources to indicate significant coverage. It was created in December 2001 by a registered user, when the notability requirements were much smaller and unregistered editors could still create new pages. I did, however, find a reliable source from CNET and U-T San Diego, see here and here, but that's not enough on the notability scale; all other sources available are self-published such as Wikia. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 20:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be plenty of references to this available via Google Books. -- Trevj (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. - ʈucoxn\^talk 05:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OMG, this is still a standard for computing today. Certainly notable and a good article can easily be constructed here. Insomesia (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some people still use this program on slightly older Macintosh computers. This article is on a notable topic and there are plenty of reliable sources available. The example of the CNET download, referenced by the nominator above, is about a different program. Deleting the SimpleText and TeachText articles would be like deleting the articles for the Microsoft Windows programs WordPad and Notepad -- both programs of un-arguable notability. I'll add more references to this article soon. - ʈucoxn\^talk 03:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some reliable sources (diff1, diff2, diff3) to the article. This AfD can probably be non-admin closed, now. - ʈucoxn\^talk 21:38, 17 February 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) Mediran (t • c) 10:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TeachText

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

This article about an application for Apple computers appears to be non-notable in reliable sources to indicate significant coverage. It was created in July 2002 by an anon, when the notability requirements were much smaller and unregistered editors could still create new pages. I did, however, find a reliable source from CNET, see here, but that's not enough; all other sources available are self-published such as Wikia. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 20:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be plenty of references to this available via Google Books. -- Trevj (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep and find sourcing. As the article states, "It was one of the only applications included with the Mac system software..." which to me implies notability, though admittedly I couldn't find any specific wikipedia notability guidelines for software. At one time this was, as far as I know, the only free (as in beer) text editor for the Macintosh. squibix (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources found and now included in the article. This AfD should now be able to be non-admin closed. - ʈucoxn\^talk 05:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG. Insomesia (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI

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

This page as it stands is significantly overlapping with Pope_Benedict_XVI#Resignation. So why do we need a content fork for this? He's in his mid 80's and has some health problems, which are understandable reasons for him to abdicate. There is no controversy leading him to resign that would become notable in its own right. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I certainly can't defend the state of the article at present. But assuming that the resignation actually occurs on February 28 as planned, it will be a monumental historical event. It might even set a new precedent, where in the future popes will regularly resign if they become very feeble; in that case it will be a huge historical event. But if it's an anomoly, it remains notable as the only papal resignation in almost 600 years. Either way, it could very well be viewed centuries from now as the most notable decision made during this pontificate; the

last two popes who resigned are most famous for their resignations. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 20:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- I see some WP:CRYSTAL ball type assumptions in your argument, like that it might set a precedent. Just because one pope doesn't want to serve until his death doesn't mean the next one will also resign. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no crystal ball required to say: either this will set a precedent or it won't. If it sets a precedent, it is notable because it will be a historic turning point. If it does not set a precedent, it is notable because it will be a rare anomaly. Either way, it's notable. No crystal ball needed. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 22:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a historical event, the first pope in 600 years to resign. Sounds like a pretty big deal to me. The actual resignation isn't until the 28 so for now, it probably won't be in the best of shape, but once it happens, there will be more information available. Why don't we just nominate Resignation of Richard Nixon for deletion too. — Dpm12 -- 12:21 PM PST 11 February 2013.
- There is no article at Resignation of Richard Nixon, just a redirect to Richard Nixon#Resignation. So, thanks for proving my point. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes there is an article on Nixon's resignation. It's called Watergate scandal. If Pope Benedict's retirement eventually is given a special name, this article can be renamed. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 22:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Watergate scandal clearly meets EVENT. This doesn't; it fails WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.154.159.97 (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - since AfD is not a vote, it would really help move the discussion along if you could provide a rationale to keep the article. Thank you and happy editing! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no question that the announced resignation has been noted in reliable sources (lots of 'em), and thus is likely to meet the requirements of the WP:GNG. If the content at Pope_Benedict_XVI#Resignation is superior to this content, then merge it here or, after discussion, redirect this back to there, as with the Nixon example above. It's been how many hours since the announcement? Better to discuss it without the threat of deletion, where you might actually get some consensus, rather than the stricter up or down vote you're gonna find here at AFD. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-The article as it is right now isn't very good, but as information comes to light, it'd be easier to have a separate article instead of the overly long article on the Pope right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.154.18 (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Ultraexactzz. Gage (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is tonnes of coverage of this, and it is notable. His resignation sets a precedent as the first pope to resign in modern times. I suspect that there will also be lots of speculation/conspiracy theories about this which would be better off here, rather than in the Popes own article. wrt Nixon, there is an article on the Watergate scandal, which led to his resignation.Martin451 (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very historical event. Vivafilipinas. (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ...Here we go again, another editor not understanding the significance of an event, see WP:EVENT
Keep It is a rare event which warrants its own page. Considering the Benedict XVI article alone is 176k then a separate article on his resignation would be a prudent course of action. Stevo1000 (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is an extremely rare event that will attract a lot of coverage. The last pope to resign was Gregory XII in 1415. ComputerJA (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons already stated. Also, the answer to the content fork issue is to trim down what is at Pope Benedict XVI once the immediate crush of editing trails off. For instance, there is no good reason why an article the length of Benedicts's should include the full seven-paragraph resignation letter. -Rrius (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons already stated, plus the event has sufficient ancilliary detail to justify an article in its own right. The initial announcement was a scoop by a correspondent in another room who spoke latin, the resignation raises the possibility of a pope and an ex-pope alive at the same time (!), there is also the question of whether his immunity from prosecution in his capacity as head of state of the Vatican carries over after his resignation or lays him open to prosecution abroad (cf Pinochet). Sources are already examining these issues and the article can be expanded to be a rather neat standalone article. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most Strong Keep not because I'm Italian, but because the notability of the Event is definitively out of question. dott.Piergiorgio (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His event has set off shockwaves around the world. Considering the already lengthy size of Benedict's page, and the rarity of this event (no pope has resigned in almost 600 years), a split seems nice. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 23:40, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
Keep Extremely notable event because he is the first pope to resign since the 15th Century. Also in terms of significance this is on a par with the Abdication of Edward VIII, though for different reasons. What is important here is that both are/were heads of state who resigned from an office that is usually a lifelong responsibility, and are therefore historical events in the timeline of their respective countries. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be snowing in here... Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 00:48, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
Keep WP:SNOW.... the deletion request is the usual silly knee-jerk request concerning any new article, no matter how important the topic. And this topic is important. The Catholic Church is a very large entity and the resignation of its CEO has not occurred in six hundred years. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 01:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also urge an admin to close as there appears to be a pro keep consensus. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 01:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and close. His resignation is noteworthy and deserves its own article. The nominator's rationale is quite muddled. Majoreditor (talk) 02:04, 12 February 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) 22:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists with tracks not on Spotify

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

Wikipedia is not a directory which covers lists which are obviously of listcruft and are simply trivia-related facts. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 19:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't list items by what they are not! What about List of British actors who have never been to South Africa, or List of bands not to make a second album! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - List of things that don't exist, anybody? It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 19:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not "listcruft" or trivial. It's interesting to know which artists are resisting the Spotify movement. We looked for such a list extensively on google and miserably failed. Look at some examples of incomplete lists:

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/artists-and-albums-not-available-on-spotify.html http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/artists-and-albums-not-available-on-spotify.html http://www.last.fm/group/spotify/forum/118076/_/572596

The latter two ask for people to "comment" if they notice any missing. And still some are missing, so obviously more help is needed in making a master list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Universe (talk • contribs) 20:15, 11 February 2013

~~Keep~~ These are not simply artists that are not on Spotify, they are artists that have chosen to have their content removed from Spotify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Universe (talk • contribs) 20:15, 11 February 2013

Sorry, you can't !vote twice. I have crossed this one out. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 20:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia. Also, the sole inclusion reference doesn't say they all chose to removed their content; it also says another possible reason is publishing deals expiring. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why not create List of people who don't have facebook while we are at it. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because you'd find it hard to find references. Fewer people would be interested in that list. The list would contain billions of people, rather than the select group of people that have chosen to have their content removed because they or their record labels are opposed to the concept. Start typing "List of artists not on" in google and you'll see it complete, indicating that many people are interested in the same thing. There's hundred's of articles about Taylor Swift and Rihanna choosing to remove their latest albums from Spotify, there's no articles about people who chose not to make a Facebook account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Universe (talk • contribs)

Obviously you don't understand my sarcasm JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, as the nom says. — sparklism ^hey! 08:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not fall into any of the categories under "Wikipedia is not a directory" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Universe (talk • contribs)

Please don't cross out other peoples votes because you simply disagree with them, and please sign your posts. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If notability is not established for this list (WP:LISTN), then per WP:BEFORE it's an obvious merge candidate to Spotify. Therefore, I'm surprised at the number of delete votes. If the subject has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources then a page move could be considered to something like List of artists choosing not to be included on Spotify (more concise title needed). In order to sensibly evaluate the merits of this list, IMHO it would benefit from clearly stating its critera, e.g. improving in accordance with WP:STANDALONE. The content may be of encyclopedic value, e.g. if artists are reported in reliable sources about choosing not to list on Spotify and then subsequently changing their mind or vice versa. The table could then include extra columns to record dates. (This is possibly something for fuller consideration/editing time upon the close of a merge/no consensus/keep outcome.) Also, I note that The Pansentient League is a WP:BLOG and therefore further sources are required. Finally, it might have been wiser to proceed with the AfC submission, rather than copying straight to main namespace. -- Trevj (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the list is completely wrong i can't imagine why one should keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.25.214 (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if it was not a NOT list it would be trivia!!! and Dr Humming bird even argues against himself
We looked for such a list extensively on google and miserably failed. --Petebutt (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory. Also agree with Lugnuts: Wikipedia doesn't have many lists composed of what things are "not". - ʈucoxn\^talk 05:43, 16 February 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 Santander Group. J04n(talk page) 22:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geoban

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

Another article that seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:CORP badly. Wikipedia is not your business and products listing directory, sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:59, 11 February 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 February 11. Snotbot t • c » 19:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Santander Group. The text says "100% Santander, Geoban is integrated within the Technology and Operations Division of the Group"; that says to me that it is merely a functional part, not even at division level. AllyD (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. Text like this shouldn't even stick around in history: Geoban is integrated within the Technology and Operations Division of the Group with a clear objective in mind: to improve the group's operating efficiency. For that purpose, since it was founded the company has evolved from a basic model of services to the current model which involves the specialisation of processes and factorisation of activities, thus achieving the highest possible level of efficiency and excellence for the transactions of Santander Group. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 17 February 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) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 02:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Montana

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

This article is pretty much inseparable from the movie as a topic for an article. MBisanz ^talk 18:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the article to just before the last major revision for discussion, but I'll remain neutral for this. Funny ^Pika! 19:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but without all the plot regurgitation. He's expanded enough into other works and become a pop culture fixture of sorts. Say hello to my little Forbes list. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an issue for cleanup, not deletion. Forbes is just one example of this character's cultural impact. --BDD (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. If Forbes magazine decides to cover a fictional character, that pretty much clinches the character as independently notable outside its original context. I don't even have to see a second independent RS to know that well more than a single additional one will exist, meeting GNG. Jclemens (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's another one anyway: Scarface Rehab: Rappers Obsessed With Tony Montana. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable character that can especially be explored in-depth. There will certainly be overlap of the film and of this character, but I think there is potential to explore the character in a way that would overwhelm the film article. In a way, this character article can be a sub-article of the film article, which would have a summary as part of its general coverage. This book, The Hispanic Image in Hollywood, has a chapter called, "The making of Tony Montana: Phenotypes, violence and fetishism". and both Google Books and Google Scholar seem to show different results explicitly defining the character and breaking it down. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep Article needs cleanup, dumping of the plot, and more refs, but anyone who thinks this char is not notable must be willfully ignorant. The character is parodied or alluded to constantly.

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Speedy keep" is not applicable here per WP:SK. In addition, calling the nominator "willfully ignorant" is not assuming good faith. The argument here is whether or not the character can be covered in a way that cannot be done in the film article. Each case will differ, and this character is a bit different from others in not having repeat appearances (unlike Indiana Jones or Harry Callahan, for example). Your listed sources help, though. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean WP:SNOW keep. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:SNOW can apply here. I just mean that "speedy keep" is not applicable based on the applicability criteria listed at the guideline. WP:SK#NOT explains the difference regarding WP:SNOW. It's an appropriate argument for deletion (in terms of how much overlap there is), but the consensus (so far) is that we should keep it as a distinct article anyway. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was more aimed at Gaijin; I probably could've threaded that better. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, that I will agree with. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 16:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant both probably. SNOW could apply due to the unanimous vote/easy proof of notability. But also I meant the speedy. While I do WP:AGF of the nominator, I think 2a and 2e are theoretically applicable. (Although I admit those are both written in a way which does not allow for AGF). At a minimum, this nomination does not comply with WP:BEFORE, as there is no indication that either C or D were attempted or considered. (Especially since it was so easy to find sources). However, I will admit that MBSanz nomination was based on the thought that the character is inseparable from the movie, and not on notability etc. In any case, I'm fine if the general opinion is that my snow/speedy~vote being not applicable. Such differences of opinion are the meat of wikipedia, and it will not affect the outcome in any case. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up (please add those sources) meets GNG, notable character. Insomesia (talk) 21:40, 16 February 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 Weighted Airman Promotion System. J04n(talk page) 22:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WAPS Promotion Score Calculator

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

Fails verifiability, appears to be non-notable website. Proposed deletion was contested but no indication that sources exist. A search failed to find anything useful specific to this topic, although Weighted Airman Promotion System already has an article there is no relevant content there to redirect to, and probably shouldn't be. Peter James (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect , merging some of the content. It would be appropriate content there, and its own official site is sufficient verification for that, though not for notability. I should have simply done this instead of deleting the prod. DGG (at NYPL) 18:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)
- I would agree if it was an official site, but this seems to be a self-published unofficial site with no coverage from reliable sources. Peter James (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it's all information that would just as easily be appropriate for the WAPS page.— - dain- talk 03:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as above, as a simple and sensible editorial way of handling the material and search term. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:47, 18 February 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 Incubation. J04n(talk page) 23:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Siva's Untitled Project

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

subject of the article fails WP:NFILM, no third party sources indicating principal photography has begun. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless that's the actual name of the work, this doesn't even clear WP:HAMMER. Is this the first time that rule has been applied to a film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandmartin11 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Incubate for a short while per TOO SOON. While the untitled project has been written of in multiple reliable sources, it is still in pre-production and its cast has not been finalized. Not enough in-depth and persistant coverage to merit being a separate article and possible exception to WP:NFF. Possible merge of some information to Siva (director): Even if not a yet suitable for a separate article, we might have a sourced mention in the director's article about his upcoming-and-as-yet-untitled 2013 project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC) (modified stance) Changed to incubate as sources indicate production will begin next month. Allow undeletion once filming begins.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A merge would be acceptable as well, although if this potential project is not significant enough to have been included in his article already, then that is a clear sign that the subject is not of sufficient notability to exist as a stand alone. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair... a sourced mention about a planned film was there when I commented above. It may be possible that when someone created the Siva's Untitled Project article, they may have thought that with its own article the topic did not need expansion in the director's article. But as you have brought the issue of where the information is not, and based upon my own suggestion above and because no one else did it... I followed my own advice and placed a sourced mention into the director's article,[2] and then modified my stance above. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per significant coverage. LenaLeonard (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there is ~~"significant" coverage of~~ many links to gossip, rumors and speculation, but that doesn't make a valid encyclopedia article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If not notable YET for a separate article, the project is imminent enough to Incubate and there is enough in reliable sources[3] so that per WP:CBALL it might at least be written of somewhere even if filming has not yet begun... and that's per applicable policy instructing how to write of anticipated events. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i have no objections to incubation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The keep side is clearly in the majority here, and they have presented several secondary sources thus supporting their claims of notability, and I cannot see that the delete side have rebutted those arguments. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

274th Forward Surgical Team (Airborne)

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

Non-notable military unit. This small unit (about 20 members) does not meet the notability criteria for military units or the general notability guidelines. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This unit does not meet the basic list of intrinsically notable military units, and the sources cited don't seem to support a claim that this particular unit is of unusual significance. I think this is simply a result of a misunderstanding of the needs of an encyclopedia; there is no disparagement of the unit or its leader in saying that this is not a subject that the encyclopedia needs an article about, unless I have misread either the article's sources or the notability criteria. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've found a few sources for the unit's activities,[4][5] but it's not enough to justify an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:MILUNIT, which I quote: presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I believe that this unit has received significantly more coverage that might be routinely awarded to, say, the 626th Brigade Support Battalion, which is a largely unknown component of the 101st Airborne. This is a partial listing of the mentions I found in Google Books:

On Point: The United States Army In Operation Iraqi Freedom [6]
Roberts Ridge: A Story of Courage and Sacrifice on Takur Ghar Mountain [7]
The United States and South Asia: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Ninth Congress, First Session, June 14, 2005 [8]
None Braver: U.S. Air Force Pararescuemen in the War on Terrorism [9]
CCT-The Eye of the Storm [10]
The Night Stalkers [11]
Shadow Warriors: A History of the US Army Rangers [12]
Not A Good Day To Die: The Untold Story of Operation Anaconda [13]

While most of these references refer to the Battle of Takur Ghar, I think it's undeniable that the amount of coverage and mentions received by the unit are enough to establish basic notability at least. And while a single one of those books might not represent significant coverage, I think the combined effect is certainly one of notability. No one mentions the cooks and clerks batallions in the context of major military operations. An additional factor in notability, although not immediately apparent, is the fact that the 274th is one of a few support units that deploy to theaters of operations independently of larger division- or corps-sized forces. This is not common within the US Army.

Additionally, and as it has been pointed out by the author in the article talk page, the combined experiences of the unit were the basis for an academic paper published in PubMed by its surgical team. This type of post-conflict analysis is oftentimes what shapes how a large military force like the US Army structure, train and deploy combat support units. Clearly this particular outfit is part of what is shaping up to be the "new battlefield", or low-intensity conflicts that military forces of sovereign nations will encounter more and more in the future. Not to sound overly dramatic with that, but I do believe that this unit not only meets WP:GNG, but that its article is a valuable part of Wikipedia's coverage of military topics. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The books FRF cites are all trivial mentions in passing about the 274th. None of them constitute significant coverage. The medical journal article merely documents data collected by a battle unit during one period of about 18 months in action. This single article does not seem sufficient to establish independent notability of this unit. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FreeRangeFrog. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 01:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's how it works:

Staff Sergeant Freddy Jones finds out his next assignment will be as a squad leader with C Company, 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry at Ft. Riley, Kansas. He wants information about his unit: where they are, what they've done, where they've been in the War on Terror, have they seen any significant action in the past, does the unit have any Unit Awards (which he'll need to procure for his uniform)? That kind of stuff. Where does SSG Jones turn? Wikipedia, because there is a wiki page for everything. Now, when he searched for C Company, 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry, he'll find the page for the 18th Infantry Regiment that includes all three Battalions (1st, 2nd, and 3rd.) This will give him the information he needs because the Higher Unit (the Regiment and the Brigade to which his battalion is currently assigned) has the same function as the unit to which he's being assigned (they are all infantry units). The mission of the 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry will be very similar, if not exactly the same, as the mission of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team (its higher unit). These units will, as a rule, deploy and fight as a Brigade Element, meaning that whatever action the 2BCT saw, the 18th Infantry saw, and whatever awards the 2BCT earned, the 18th Infantry earned. Because of this, rolling the 1-18IN into the 2BCT page makes perfect sense and gives SSG Jones the information he's looking for.

This, however, is not the case for Forward Surgical Teams. As currently arranged, the Forward Surgical Teams of the US Army are assigned as Direct Reporting Units to a Combat Support Hospital, but these two units have different functions. The Forward Surgical Teams do not deploy with, live with, or work for the Combat Support Hospitals. They are not co-located in the same area of operation (or even the same war as has been the case multiple times with the 28th CSH and the assigned FSTs). The role of the Combat Support Hospital is so drastically different than the role of a Forward Surgical Team that rolling the FST up into the page of the higher unit CSH will not give any pertinent information as to what the FST mission is, where they are in theater, who they have worked with, where they've been, what action they've seen, and what awards they've earned (all information a military history enthusiast, or a future member of the team and his/her family would want to know).

These Forward Surgical Teams act independently of their assigned higher headquarters, are constantly being deployed across the world, and are routinely part of significant action. Their notable achievements are numerous and are not the same as the achievements of any higher element. Physicians assigned to these units have written about their experiences in peer-reviewed publications and based on their experiences and lessons learned in the Forward Surgical Team setting, the standards of patient care have evolved over the the duration of the conflicts in which they've been involved. Because of this, the Forward Surgical Teams should have their own pages, unlike the Company and Battalion sized elements of a maneuver unit such as an infantry or armor brigade.

Setting a "size limit" for "notability" makes sense only if subordinate units have the same purpose or mission as their higher command. By following these guidelines, you will lose a vital portion of military history that will not adequately be covered on any other page. ArmyOrtho (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "notability" of this unit, I can see both arguments. There are no books written directly about the FST. There are no Medal of Honor recipients from FSTs. However, they are pushed far forward, into the fight, and while their mentions in the cited books may seem trivial to some, their impact has not been. I will be the first to agree that the US Army Forward Surgical Teams don't measure up to the notoriety of SEAL Team 6, but that doesn't mean they are lost into oblivion. I've heard it for as long as learned what an FST is - "It's not on wikipedia. How is that possible?!" The stories behind these units are impressive. Their numerous deployments and operations that they've been in are noteworthy. But, these aren't the types of units to get chapters written about them. They are often references in passing as the docs that saved SGT So-and-so's life, or saved a hand, or a leg, and then the reference moves on more to what sells the books - the fight. Is that significant? Perhaps it would be to the person reading the book. The peer reviewed data that has come from the experiences in these units have, without question, revolutionized the way critically injured patients are cared for. The articles that come from theater are numerous. However, these articles tend to be written by multiple authors and after-the-fact, combining several peoples' experiences into one coherent product. The actual unit may or may not be mentioned. All wikipedia has now is a generic Forward surgical teams post that explains none of this. Expansion of this post would leave out the rich history of the units themselves and the details of the individual FSTs people would look for (where they are, what they've done, where they've been). ArmyOrtho (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an expanded version of WP:ITSUSEFUL, which is generally considered irrelevant in deletion discussions. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think too highly of the sources listed by FRF (note that the best two, the CCT-Eye of the Storm and Shadow Warriors sources, are actually both direct copies of the DoD's Executive Report on Takur Ghar), however in combination with the Peoples and Gerlinger paper I think there's enough to warrnt an article. This (full version at Highbeam) contains quite a bit of relevant info (first medical unit in Iraq, details of their movements and assignments). Whilst I'd agree that this unit is on the outskirts of Wikipedia notability, I think it still falls within the encyclopedia's environs. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(apologies, you caught me mid-edit. ArmyOrtho (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Comment The "this" referred to by Yunshui is a local paper spotlighting one of their own and his experiences in theater. The fact that his unit happened to be the 274th is merely an aside: the article appears to be about the soldier, not his unit. (Disclaimer: I have only been able to read the free preview as I have not paid to access the full article.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without posting the full article text, I can summarise by saying that yes, its primary topic is Sgt. Jones experiences, but it confirms that the 274th were the first medical unit to enter Iraq, describes briefly their set up of a field hospital on the first day, verifies that the unit received a medal for valour, verifies that they operated at locations in Nasiriyah, Mosul and Baghdad, gives an approximate date for their return and tells us that their primary station is Fort Bragg. That's only the sentences that specifically reference the unit; one could feasibly extrapolate further details of the mission from the more extensive coverage of Sgt. Jones (and yeah I know, WP:NOTINHERITED, yada yada yada...) Yunshui 雲‍水 19:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Listed and cited on the article page are 7 articles pulled from Peer-Reviewed medical publications describing the experiences of the 274th Forward Surgical Team members during their multiple deployments overseas. These articles range from simple topics such as a unique way to warm intravenous fluids in a uniquely austere environment to several complete reviews of the of the entire deployment experiences of the teams of surgeons that staffed the unit. I would humbly recommend actually reading these articles before dismissing their validity outright. ArmyOrtho (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To address WikiDan61's (valid) concerns, I'm not trying to make the case that the book sources I mention above represent significant coverage, because individually they don't. I said as much in my initial !vote. And yes, they mostly refer to the same event. I also said as much. My argument is that in the aggregate, what coverage does exist serves to establish a level of notability well above the average military support unit, which I believe is enough to pass WP:MILUNIT. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, organization meets criteria #3 of WP:MILUNIT. There are multiple mentions in non-primary, which could be argued to meet WP:SIGCOV when taken in total. At worse this article could be upmerged into a parent article, but it is my humble opinion, that by meeting criteria #3, the unit is notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Upmerge~~ to Forward surgical teams until the peer-reviewed references cited have been wound into the text of the article. Right now they're just a list of citations at the bottom of the article. They don't help anyone except to total points in deletion discussions. Would argue that until the article is rewritten in a properly encyclopedic fashion, incorporating this material into well written prose, it really doesn't remain of use to properly meet the spirit of MILUNIT. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The cited medical journal articles have been written out. This was my original intent, but we were all pulled away for patients before I had the opportunity to expound. Thanks for the suggestions. ArmyOrtho (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do not appear to understand what I meant. Please wind the material into the History section - it's part of the history of the unit. Nobody is likely to find it down there. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing any indications of notability of this small unit here. Note that ArmyOrtho (talk · contribs) is the creator of this article editing under a now-blocked account, and has a clear conflict of interest. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict of interest is probably true, but note that I've already lifted my block of ArmyOrtho, since it appears that they were not a sockpuppet of the page creator (who was never blocked). Yunshui 雲‍水 10:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FreeRangeFrog and RightCow. — - dain- talk 03:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yunshui's !vote sums up my opinion nicely. There is just enough out there for notability. J04n(talk page) 11:28, 19 February 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) Mediran (t • c) 10:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Chisholm

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

Not notable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article requires a fair amount of work to draw this out, but Chisholm's notability derives mainly from being the founder and public face of BlueOregon, someone whose political views are frequently sought out by numerous statewide and national publications. The best sources in the article are unfortunately behind a paywall which will make it a little difficult to draw this out more clearly. I hope somebody takes the time to do so, it would be a shame to delete this article, but it does require a bit of improvement for the notability to be more visible in the article. -Pete (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I expanded the lead section, reorganized the sections a bit, and fixed a few bare URL citations. None of this added new sources or major substance to the article, but I think it makes it a little easier to read and makes Chisholm's significance clearer from the get-go. -Pete (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No policy cited for deletion. Meets WP:GNG on basis of Heisman Trophy prognostication notability alone. There are multiple mentions (cited in article) to nationwide press for that. Most articles also mention subject's "other" job as political consultant. --Esprqii (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey everyone, Kari here. I'll leave the notability discussion to all of you. But I thought I'd just note that I tend to agree that the Heisman section of my page doesn't really do a good job of explaining what it is that I do. I get hundreds and hundreds of press mentions every football season, so I'd tend to think that's notable. In any case, I added a few articles to the Talk page for my page, in case anyone is motivated to edit the page itself. Thanks! Karichisholm (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others have noted, between both the sport articles mentioned in national press and his being the founder and public face of BlueOregona fairly influential political blog and whose views are frequently sought out by both statewide and national publications and media, I think the article clearly meets the notability requirement for retention. Lestatdelc (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 17 February 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) 23:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International School of Project Management

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

Lack of independent evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence found that this organisation has attained notability. (I'm also noting that the article author appears to have links with one of the principal people associated with this organisation and whose biography has been linked from the page: link.) AllyD (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is riddled with neutral point of view problems because its author is linked to the organization. In addition, the subject's notability is not verifiable. These sources -- 1, 3, and 5 -- are not reliable sources because they originate from the organization that is the topic of the article. The other sources -- "15 Nov 2010 Business Standard" and "Hindustan Times, Faridabad Connect 19 Nov 2010 page no:5" -- cannot be verified. "Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies." - ʈucoxn\^talk 22:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article creator has a COI which has lead to numerous POV issues. Additionally, as other users have pointed out, the sources provided are not WP:RS. Institution in general does not meet WP:GNG - Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete the article. RightCowLeftCoast last comment reads like a delete and redirect, and consensus here agrees a merge is not applicable and this list fails policy. Secret ^account 02:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the Cape Town City Council

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

A very out of date list of city councillors. The vast majority are redlinked, and some of the blue links are to irrelevant targets. Is Wikipedia the place for a council list, and if so, who is going to maintain it? Peridon (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unmaintained and apparently unmaintainable - the council consists of over 200 people, and there are frequent resignations, by-elections and so on. WP:NOTDIR. There don't seem to be any similar articles listing members for any other city councils. - htonl (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. htonl (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. htonl (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per htonl. The members of the Council would not individually meet WP:Politician. There is an appropriate list of mayors. Enos733 (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cape Town City Council; there is already an article of the organization. Although, I agree with others who have stated that the subjects have not shown individual notability per WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ANYBIO, that does not mean the list cannot be integrated into an existing article; plus redirects are cheaper than deletions ;-) .--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A simple redirect won't take people to information they might be seeking (which is probably available on the CTCC website anyway), and a merge of this stuff would be taking up a lot of space for currently out of date info - and would anyone bother updating it? We have Lists to take people to articles where there is a common factor. Virtually none of these names have or will have articles, and some are blue-linked wrongly. Peridon (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTDIR. If the individual council members are notable per WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ANYBIO, there can be a list of them in the article about the council (which would like to their individual articles), however per POLITICIAN, each member of the council is not automatically notable, so a list about those individuals is not automaticably notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 17 February 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. Secret ^account 21:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pitt County Emergency Management

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

Non-notable emergency management system in Pitt County. No evidence of notability. Not encyclopedic in tone, and I'm not sure that it could be salvaged without a total re-write from scratch. Really weird article, had been at Wikipedia:Pitt County Emergency Management. GrapedApe (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't really care if it is an ugly article, that can be cleaned up. However, I agree with GrapedApe that this is not notable, definitely not encyclopedic in tone. Looking at the user that created it, the article almost appears to be a class project. The user Emplanning (talk · contribs) appears to have tried to create their own wikiproject within their userspace. Anyway, Just not a necessary article. No third party sources in the article that really speak to notability. Only 3Party sources there are referencing other and general info in the article, not the article subject itself. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my first thought was that this could be merged into the main article on the county but deletion seems more appropriate after reading the article completely. This level of detail just isn't needed. It's a hodgepodge of sections from county govt documents and just isn't appropriate for this encyclopedia. PittCountyPedia sure, Wikipedia, no. RadioFan (talk) 03:04, 17 February 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. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mangsuk

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

Suspected hoax. Creator has a long history of creating articles that are deleted, and has in some case removed the deletion templates. Article about the author of the ref is also listed for deletion. Dmol (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THis is not hoax. Hi All, Mangsuk is the god of Lohorung community. Lohorung are the native settlers of remote part of eastern Nepal. As this culutre is not exposed in writings there are not enough evidence to prove it. This article should not be deleted in anyway. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashishlohorung (talk • contribs) 01:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this dissertation, this pdf and this book making mention of this being used as an altar/shrine. Whether it warrants an article is debatable. Funny ^Pika 02:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the dissertation has any information at all on the subject of the article. And it's a primary source, so it's not even valid for WP. PianoDan (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A dissertation is a secondary source. It's material written about the subject, though not as great reliability as if it were a published article. This is a MA thesis, not one for a PhD, and we have often but not always accepted them as reliable, because they are supervised. DGG (at NYPL) 18:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)

- - The book mentions this subject in a footnote on page 56. Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probable hoax. FunnyPika has been on WP for four days, and is a likely hoax as well. PianoDan (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "PianoDan", How can a Wikipedia editor be a "likely hoax?" I thought only articles and their subjects could be hoaxes. First Light (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how your accusation constitutes as rationale for article deletion. Care to expand on your ad hominem? Funny ^Pika! 14:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm going to assume WP:good faith here. I think it may be that the article creator's English skills aren't that good. Ashishlohorung, if you don't want this article to be deleted, you need to add references to prove notability. Try WP:References#Adding References for help. Howicus (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference was there cited right in the first revision of the article. Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@FunnyPika thanks for those references. @Howicus , yes could be my English is not good the article is valid as I have mentioned it is the god of Lohorung. Though there is not enough written materials in the web, pls I suggest all you guys to help me out to improve this article as I suppose Wikipedia is meant be like that. Thanks for all your support . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashishlohorung (talk • contribs) 00:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm inclined toward Keep, but rewrite. The three sources provided, two of them which are arguably reliable, all point to Mangsuk as being a ritual altar and perhaps also the name of the ritual itself in Nepal, rather than a God. The dissertation supports that idea. All of which points to poor english rather than hoax. First Light (talk) 19:34, 21 January 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, Wifione ^Message 18:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's poor writing. Hardman 2000, as cited in the very first revision of the article, checks out. A mangsuk is a household shrine to ancestors (Hardman 2000, p. 142–145). The book that FunnyPika pointed to above is in fact a chapter that is also written by Charlotte E. Hardman, who is a lecturer in religion at the University of Newcastle Upon Tyne. You can verify that Hardman is talking about a household shrine even without reading Hardman. Her work is cited by others. ISBN 9789004120631, p. 693, states that "Hardman describes […] the rôle of the mangsuk or household shrine in Lohorung ritual observances,". Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So now we know that this is a shrine rather than a god. That still doesn't make it notable per WP:GNG, and we can't really have an article consisting only of "A mangsuk is a household shrine in the religion of the Lohorung people." We'd need more information about it (and the rituals it's used for). If the article Lohorung people ever gets a section about religion, it might be mentioned there. Sandstein 20:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we have an article saying "A mangsuk is a household shrine in the religion of the Lohorung people"? Surely having such an article better serves a reader looking this up in an encyclopedia than leaving it as a red link? And surely it is more likely that more information will be provided about the topic if we have such a stub than if we don't? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because (a) one-sentence articles look silly, (b) we are not a dictionary, and (c) WP:GNG: if there is not more material in reliable sources about this topic than this definition, it's not notable. Sandstein 21:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"One-sentence articles look silly" must be the most ridiculous reason for deletion that I've seen. Wikipedia exists to provide information to readers, and one sentence is more information than no sentences. And Uncle G has already shown above that the Hardman book has several pages of coverage that can be used to expand the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:05, 1 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Phil, I will direct you to WP:INN. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate source of information. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that I said in the slightest way claims that inclusion is an indicator of notability, so that link is totally irrelevant. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge: Wholly non-notable, god; vessel; or whatever (because there are not enough refs to actually clarify just what it is). It certainly may deserve a [cited] passing reference in an article about the Lohorung people, but its own article? Hardly. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 09:21, 11 February 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) 12:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. There's really no content to merge or whatever because it is so vague and fact-free....probably a part of the reason for the hoax concerns. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My initial thoughts were of hoax, as Mangsuk appears used as a Malaysian word rather than one from Nepal, although it's not a totally unlikely word for Nepal. On the other hand, if it does exist but we don't know what it is, is that any good for an encyclopaedia article? When this people and their culture are better documented, then is the time for an article. If UncleG can only find a footnote mention, and the author of the article says he can't find anything, then there's not much point. Peridon (talk) 14:36, 11 February 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. There seems to be a surprising amount of variation of opinion on how to interpret the guidelines, where I would not have expected anything like so much variation. However, the one thing which is crystal clear is that there is no consensus. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Braithwaite

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

Boxer who fails WP:NBOX. He lost most of his professional fights. He did win a bronze medal at the 1958 Commonwealth games, but he only won 1 fight. I don't think that's enough to show notability. The article also needs improved sources--there's a list of the results from the 1958 Commonwealth games and a local newspaper article on him training fighters. That doesn't seem to be enough to meet WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdtemp (talk • contribs) 15:56, January 25, 2013‎ (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability guidelines state "Generally acceptable standards for Sports figures are presumed notable (except as noted within a specific section) if they: have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics." He not only competed in the Commonwealth Games, he also won a medal. Unless you want to argue that the Commonwealth games are not a major international competition.FruitMonkey (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can claim the Commonwealth games are on the same level as the Olympics or world championships, especially when someone can medal by winning 1 fight. Papaursa (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to state that an event must be on the same level as the Olympic Games, as apart from the Football World Cup there is nothing in the world on the same level. It states a "major international amateur or professional competition", IMO the Commenwealth Games is a major international competition. Also you can't have a hack at someone for winning a medal by only beating one person. You can only compete against what is put in front of you. There is a long history in competitions as high as the Olympics of teams or people winning medals by just turning up as there were only three entries. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPORTS says "1.have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics." The Commonwealth games are not the highest level nor does he meet the notability criteria for his sport (which is the seoond of the two criteria). Winning one bout doesn't seem notable (perhaps WP:ONEEVENT?). Now, Malcolm Collins I view differently having won 2 Commonwealth silver medals and several bouts in each games (meets WP:MANOTE).Papaursa (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above discussion has, at least temporarily, convinced me to vote to delete this article. I had been undecided. I reserve the right to change my vote if I see convincing arguments supporting his notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same here, after reading what was written above, as well as below, I believe this should go. Skycycle (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep commonwealth games are certainly notable (notable for WP is notable on wp) and a top-level international sporting games. Despite OSE, I would point out that there are numerous athletes here who have not won a medal and still have pages.Lihaas (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria says nothing about notable, it says "at the highest level". Are the Commonwealth games the highest level an athlete can compete at? Papaursa (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is apparently a contradictoryu criteria as cited abopve. Clearly the two need to be reconciled.

Also see India national basketball team#Roster (and there are more with blue links)Lihaas (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me the contradiction. Which of the two "generally accepted standards" at WP:NSPORTS does he meet? Show me he meets either criteria and I'll happily change my vote. Papaursa (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have already voted above, but what I believe this discussion has brought to light is the vagueness of the term 'major international competition'. I too agree that this fighter does not meet notabilty as a professional boxer, I only create the article as I presumed that the Commonwealth Games were a certified 'major international competition'. Even if this page is keep or delete, the same argument will resurface on a hundred other delete articles. Would it not be better to get the sports WP to decide which events are 'major international' to stop others wasting their time? FruitMonkey (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see ambiguity. The guidleines clearly say "at the highest level". I see only 2 things that would meet that criteria--the Olympics and world championships. I think you'd be hard pressed to find an athlete who would say that the Commonwealth Games is the highest level competition there is. Papaursa (talk) 00:08, 2 February 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Weak keep - the article makes clear Braithwaite fought two fights, coming out of the Commonwealth Games with a medal. WP:NSPORTS is quite clear that the Commonwealth Games is considered a major international competition - I don't see why boxers should be treated any differently. My only caveat is that the article suggests there may not have been a strong field in his weight category. He's still making it into the newspapers in his 70's, thereby probably meeting WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said he won 1 fight, he lost in the semifinals. If every boxer who became a trainer was considered notable we'd have thousands of articles just on them--a small article in a local paper is hardly unusual. Where does it say competing in the Commonwealth games automatically confers notability for boxers? Please show me how he meets WP:NSPORTS as a boxer. It's a simple request and it's all I need to change my vote. Papaursa (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended my recommendation to 'weak keep'. WP:NSPORTS is ambivalent, like many WP guidelines. FYI I would consider South Wales a region rather than a locality, for press coverage ;) Sionk (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Commonwealth Games would be a major international competition, even participating should generate notability as a boxer. Sepulwiki (talk) 07:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors at this discussion have claimed that participating at the Commonwealth games is sufficient to show notability. Would one of you please point out a guideline that says that? Papaursa (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So far no one has shown he actually meets WP:NSPORTS. Claims that all Commonwealth athletes are notable are not supported by any policies, nor is the claim that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS persuasive. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Commonwealth Games is a significant enough competition that winning a medal makes someone of encyclopedic interest. He also had a significant professional career, which would have been reported on in newspapers of the era. There are a few news stories on his fights in GNews, e.g. [14], [15], and one which mentions his coaching: [16]. Contrary to the nominator's statement, boxrec states that he only lost 11 of 27 professional fights. We shouldn't have standards for boxers that are more demanding by an order of magnitude than those we have for say footballers and cricketers. --Michig (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about his record. I suspect Mdtemp just looked at the fact that he'd won only 13 of his 27 fights. He certainly doesn't meet WP:NBOX or WP:NSPORTS. The fact that various martial arts might have stricter standards than other sports strikes me as irrelevant. I believe in using the existing criteria instead of creating my own. As for being mentioned in an article on one of the boxers he's training--that's a classic case of a passing mention. Papaursa (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't say that you have to win most of your fights to be considered notable. It also doesn't say that you have to win a medal at the Olympics to be considered notable. The Commonwealth Games are a MAJOR international competition. The Goodwill Games are also a MAJOR international competition. Just because it's not on the same level as the Olympics is irrelevant. There are many boxers who have a winning record that are not always notable. But the fact this guy won a medal at a major international competition is what makes him notable. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People keep making their own criteria--WP:NSPORTS doesn't say "major competition", it says "highest level", which the Commonwealth games are not. He also fails WP:NBOX and lacks the signficant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, WP:NSPORTS states that a person must have "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics", you have placed your own interpretation of 'highest level' on this argument. You yourself state that there are only two events that reach this criteria, that of the 'Summer Olympics'? and the World Athletics. Well, this is your interpretation as the guidelines only mention the Olympics. Since when do the World Athletics enter this argument? They don't; by your own interpretation the World Athletics are not notable (because they are not mentioned in WP:NSPORTS). But you believe that high-'est' has wiggle room as you believe that more than one event can be at the top of the tree. High-est is two events, Olympics and World Athletics. ...but the World Athletics is only of interest to athletes, what about the swimmers, power lifters, wrestlers, sailors, table tennis stars, disabled athletes, martial artists, etc. World Athletics means nothing to them. The phrase 'such as' was placed in the argument to include other events, not just your interpretation of what those games should be (personally I would add to the Commonwealth the Paralympics, European, Goodwill and Asian Games as major international events). FruitMonkey (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're misquoting what I wrote--please read what I said, not what you want me to have said. I said "world championships"--I never used the term "world athletics". I would claim swimmers, wrestlers, etc. are athletes but they still need to compete at the highest level--you're trying to change the discussion. To claim he meets WP:NSPORTS, you're saying that the Commonwealth Games are the highest level. However, you say I'm wrong to claim that the world championships are the highest level. I would disagree on both counts. What level is higher than the world championships--the Intergalactic championships? So far not one of the keep votes has given a policy backed argument showing how he's a notable boxer and the logical extension of your aforementioned argument--that the Commonwealth games are of a higher level than the world championships is simply ludicrous. You continue to translate "highest level" as "any major international event" and those two things are clearly not the same. Papaursa (talk) 00:36, 11 February 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) 12:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does the 'highest level' mean 'only one' organisation? To me, the CG, the Asian Games and others are top level. They are all supra-national. As the policy stands, for me this subject does comply. There may be clarification of 'highest level' needed in a revision to the policy, as to whether it only means the Olympics (the peak of the pile) or a wider group (similar to a percentile classification in an exam). Peridon (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the guidelines were put together with some thought and deliberation, so I believe that the word "highest" was not chosen randomly. Various continental championships may be at a high level, but they're clearly not the "highest". Besides the Olympics, I would include world championships of major organizations as being at "the highest level". Mdtemp (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the history of WP:NSPORTS, it appears that the boxing section was only added in 2011 ([17]), with very little discussion beforehand, and changes since then have been made with little or no discussion, so I would suggest that the guidance there be taken with a large pinch of salt, and should not be given too much weight. 'The highest level' is generally taken as professional sport (we don't require footballers to have played in a World Cup Final) or the highest level of amateur sport where there is no professional version - boxing is slightly different to most as amateur boxing is almost a different form of the sport. Competing in international competition representing one's country is I think considered sufficient in all but the most obscure sports. --Michig (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're now claiming that anyone who competes in any international event in any sport is automatically notable. That clearly is of a different order of magnitude from pro boxing's requirement that a fighter rank in the world top 10 and is an extreme expansion of the concept that Olympic athletes are notable. I don't think previous discussions support your interpretation. Papaursa (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There seems to be a clear split between those who read the guidelines literally and those, primarily from Commonwealth countries, that view even appearing at the Commonwealth games as notable. I don't see consensus being reached between the two groups. I'll admit I fall more into the literal camp.

Suggestion Things are heating up, and that's not necessarily good, in this discussion and I don't believe either side will convince the other. What about keeping the peace and closing this now as "NO CONSENSUS"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.229.17 (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think this nomination would cause so much friction. I still think I'm right, but am willing to end this as a "no consensus". That way I'm not wrong and the article will remain on WP--seems like a win/win.Mdtemp (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1 (nomination withdrawn). Per comments here, I'll tag the article with a suggestion to merge to Uplift Universe. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jophur

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

This topic about a fictional extraterrestrial race appears to fail WP:N. Searches in Google Books and News archive have only provided sources with passing mentions, rather than significant coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 8,000 matches for 'jophur brin' (to limit to on-subject matches) to Google search. If not notable, recommend converting to an appropriate redirect. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the above, no evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed. Contra the above, if not independently notable, it should be upmerged into Uplift universe. Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please feel free to provide any links to reliable sources that provide significant coverage about this topic herein in this discussion. I always search for sources about a topic prior to any nomination for deletion. While WP:BEFORE is not mandatory, it's functional and righteous to implement for the sake of the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said you found nothing worthwhile. The above editor notes 8,000 potentially relevant references. Nothing personal, but when one person says "I searched and found nothing" and another says "There's sources out there", odds are pretty prevalent that the latter editor is correct. My above statement was not particularly well worded, and I admit that it gives the impression that you did nothing, rather than just not digging deep enough. Still, you nominated a clearly verifiable fictional element with a good merge target for deletion rather than seeking a merger, which is preferred by WP:ATD. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's certainly more notable than many existing articles. In any event, it should not be deleted outright. A redirect to a related page would be in order. DavidHobby (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wanted to find the novel by Brin with the aliens that had waxy rings - I couldn't remember the name. If not an article in their own right, move to Uplift Universe. Nerlost (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Nothing has changes since the delete decision in the AfD three days ago. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Tse

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

Re creation of page deleted through afd only a few days ago. Player appears to have played only one game in a fully professional league. Technically the player passes WP:NFOOTY but consensus was that the player doesn't come close to passing WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:40, 11 February 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) Mediran (t • c) 09:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fast forward

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

Dicdef, unsourced since at least 2009. No way could this be a legit article. No notability. Nothing encyclopedic, no viable way to flesh it out. "Rewind" and "Pause" don't have articles, why should "fast forward"? Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~WP isn't a dictionary - there is no basis for an article here Delete ---- _nonsense ferret 02:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)~~ I'm withdrawing my vote so as not to get in the way of consensus building, and I don't feel strongly enough to dissent. However, looking at the article I do feel that what is being described are particular features of different recording devices, and I can't help thinking that it would be better to have the material there, but no biggie I'm sure someone will link it in somehow ---- _nonsense ferret 23:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move Fast forward (disambiguation) to replace it. --Geniac (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)~~ Article looks much better now. --Geniac (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move Fast forward (disambiguation) to replace it, leaving a note about this usage at the top. JIP | Talk 04:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fast forward (disambiguation) is fine. No need for this article. BigJim707 (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move as stated above, there is real no need for this article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 06:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no way this could be a legit nomination because the nominator, as usual, hasn't followed WP:BEFORE, spending less than a minute to use Twinkle to create the nomination in a knee-jerk fashion. The concept here is a substantial one which can cover the original tape deck design and mechanism; the reimplementation in newer types of media and players; and the general use of the concept as a metaphor or analogy which resulted in appearing in dozens of books titles. I have made a start on developing the topic. More anon. Warden (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Warden, please do not be offensive and assume good faith, the article is not redeemable, it is not going to grow beyond a stub level, there isn't much value to add to the article as the information is purely technical, a mention and its meaning in the desambig page is enough. Even though fast forward is a diffused mechanism, there is no real reason for keeping its own article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 15:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 10 February 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) 10:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a concept, not just a word, and the article has potential for expansion. There are enough uses as a metaphor to justify a rather substantial article. DGG (at NYPL) 19:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)
Keep I added a couple of paragraphs on fast-forwarding in digital video and three peer-reviewed publications verifying the added prose. I don't understand the nom's assertion that this topic is not encyclopedic. I suppose as a user, pushing or clicking a fast-forward button seems trivial, but from engineering, algorithmic and psychological points of view, the fast-forward process is not simple. Warden added a nice contribution to the mechanical aspect and I added material on digital considerations. For AfD, the article now includes multiple in-depth reliable sources in the form of peer-reviewed papers, demonstrating notability of the topic. While the article could still use work, the remaining problems are surmountable, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Notability of the topic and surmountable problems suggest that this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is certainly something that can be developed, and Mark viking's edits in particular have demonstrated both that it's notable and that it's more complex than the simple definition some may have assumed it to be.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a notable subject even if obscure to many, an encyclopedic treatment can include the technology and any advancements that came from this. Insomesia (talk) 21:42, 16 February 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) 23:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black Oxygen

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

Independent band that has put out two albums. Only claim to notability is they opened for some larger bands a few times.

News search returns a single hit for a tour announcement. Web search turns up some blogs that do not appear to meet WP:RS Ridernyc (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A single that charted satisfies WP:BAND. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.32.91.1 (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It only passes WP:BAND if it is verifiable. Unless you can verify that chart position, it can't pass the guideline. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Might be a case where WP:USUAL applies, as the band is early in its career. If they have songs that chart later on, and sources that confirm this, then an article might be appropriate. But relying on one of their singles being on charts doesn't work when there is no source that shows that single on the charts. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I'm having problems locating a source verifying that "Take it to the limit" charted, (all their previous charts appear to be locked behind a paywall), their newest single, "American Dream", is currently sitting at #48 on the Mediabase Active Rock chart, which means it's in rotation on Clear Channel stations, satisfying BAND 11 and 2 in one shot. Grandmartin11 (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good find! Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 4 February 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) 10:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the chart success found by Grandmartin11, which satisfies WP:BAND. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:19, 13 February 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) 23:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tabitha (disambiguation)

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

No need for a separate disambiguation page where it is common and permissible to list names of persons sharing a given name on the page for the given name. bd2412 T 16:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Given name articles are separate from articles about other subjects with the same title. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are no other subjects. Every single "Tabitha" listed on the page is a given name. Per MOS:DABNAME, "Articles only listing persons with a certain given name or surname, known as anthroponymy articles, are not disambiguation pages". Since there are no meanings for Tabitha other than as a given name, there is no reason to have a page like this one, that does not to conform to the standards of this encyclopedia. bd2412 T 20:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any unique entries to Tabitha and delete. I couldn't find any guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy, but one of their few former featured articles, Yuan (surname), includes a list of people. There's no need for so much duplication, and the only non-name entity is handled by a hatnote. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an ambiguous TV series that I added to the dab when I removed all of the name holders who weren't referred to by the single name. The remaining characters can be added to the given name article and the TV series added to Tabitha as a hatnote, though, so the disambiguation page might still be deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC
Delete: no need for a dab page where there are no non-given-name articles to list, except the one TV series which is handled in a hatnote. PamD 09:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 10 February 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) 10:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why relist? There's been no objection to merge & delete, so I'm not sure how the consensus is unclear. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)~~ Nevermind. I see the stealth oppose now. I've bulled+bolded it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per PamD. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only non-given name (the TV series) is disambiguated in its title. Miniapolis 21:30, 18 February 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) 23:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

N. P. Rajendran

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

Contested PROD, where article creator noted on my talk page that he is a notable person in India. Article has not really shown how the subject fulfills WP:GNG. Subject appears to be of regional importance at best as the organisation he is chairman of apears to be a regional body in India. The only source provided is a primary one from the newspaper that the article subject is / was deputy editor of. I am sure this individual has done good work in their field, it is just that this field appears to be local and there is little wider reporting of his activities. At best I would suggest a redirect to Kerala Press Academy but there appears little other than a name that could be added to that article. Fenix down (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

N. P. Rajendran is a notable person in India. Kerala press academy is not a press agency where as it is government organization. Agreed he is the editor of the news agency from which one of the reference added. But also note the citation is news article form a reputed daily newspaper circulated. One more reference is there which is secondary source of reference. --atnair (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. One secondary source is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly think that a state-wide position in a state with a population of 33 million can be decribed as "local". Phil Bridger (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That's 2.7% of the total population of the country, I would count that as local in the grand scheme of things. I think you're going to have to go some way to show that someone who is head of a body that is seems to be a quango type organisation that represents less than 3% of the country's population passes GNG without a lot more sourcing. Fenix down (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think 33million is very less will you nominate to delete the page of Brian Lacy who is the administrator of Cocos Island which has a population of mere 550 people.--atnair (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this is a nonsense argument, total irrelevance - WP:OTHERSTUFF (not sure why I never signed my comment) ---- _nonsense ferret 02:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added more references. --atnair (talk) 18:42, 22 January 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, Courcelles 01:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the argument seems to be suggested above that because the kerala press academy is a sort of school for journalists that was set up as a joint venture, one of whose partners is the keralan government that it is automatically notable and someone in an important position then they are notable too. I think this analysis is wrong on a number of counts - even a state school is not automatically notable whatever state it is in, reference to substantial independent sources is required - and in addition, notability is not inherited so if the kpc can be shown to be notable, notability needs to be separately established for this subject WP:NOTINHERITED. (nor this one) ---- _nonsense ferret 02:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:12, 4 February 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) 10:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: N.P. Rajendran is an award-winning editor of Mathrubhumiand a Malayalam-language journalist. The citations in the article sufficiently establish his notability for winning awards.Crtew (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The AfD debate should be relisted under news as he is a journalist and editor.Crtew (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improved references. atnair (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability requirements for creative professionals. An award-winning major journalist. The only reason the subject is up for an AfD if because he is not well-known in the Western world (but that's not a valid reason to delete the article).--SouthernNights (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Unambiguous promotion by a promotion-only account. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Majestic MRSS

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: Notability not established. Eeekster (talk) 10:30, 11 February 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) 15:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of French Boys episodes

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

Does this series exist or is it a hoax? I can't find anything about it on the Internet. I am One of Many (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not a hoax, but it's not exactly notable either. What this is, is a comic book created by a young man in his early teens from what I can tell. [18] I applaud the young man for being creative, but in order for your stuff to be on Wikipedia it must pass notability guidelines and right now your stuff just doesn't have the coverage in reliable sources that would show that it does. I wish you well in your future endeavors, but for now I recommend sticking to Wikia.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any value in this when we don't have an article on French Boys, and as mentioned it's very likely that the series is non-notable. There's a lack of reliable episode guides online or in print. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any reliable sources writing about this topic. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We did have an article on French Boys, three times. Sort of, anyway. Told us even less than this... Peridon (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does this even have a notable parent article? No WP:SIGCOV to warrant a standalone article. Mkdw ^talk 09:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my post above. There was once, no, thrice... Peridon (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A WP:A7. Have offered suggestions to the user. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for topic lacking notability and article lacking reliable sources. Doczilla _STOMP! 22:44, 17 February 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) 15:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by future GDP (based on ECI) estimates

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

Entire article seems to be predictions of the future. WP:CRYSTAL seems applicable. Dolescum (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article on one set of predictions about future GDP? Definitely WP:CRYSTAL. --BDD (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 17 February 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) 15:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Pastor

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

Person lacks notability WP:BIO. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I am One of Many (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This article was written by a spammy editor from a PR agency. I left a warning on her talk page. Rent Jungle the company this non-notable CEO founded, should also be deleted. I am a relatively new editor, so I don't know how to nominate an article for deletion, but I believe it is should be deleted as well. CitizenNeutral (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've nominated it for a speedy deletion, but I'm not sure if there's just enough on the page to where he would fall just short of qualifying for speedying. That aside, I did a search and while the Biz Journal did fall all over themselves to report on him, one paper isn't enough to show notability. The Pittsburgh Magazine shot is good, but it's fairly brief to where some would argue that it's trivial in nature. It's not exactly like when Forbes or the WSJ write articles saying "here are 10-30 people that we think are awesome". PM isn't a nothing magazine, but I don't know that this is really enough to push notability for him over the edge. As far as Film Annex goes, I don't really think that this qualifies as a RS as it appears to be the type of site where you contact them to get them to post content about whatever you want to say. Here's their website's basic statment: "Mission Film Annex was founded with the idea to give filmmakers and artists a free platform for self-distribution, interaction, and funding." Not exactly something that screams "reliable source". As far as the website goes, it doesn't seem to be overwhelmingly notable either. There are the same Pittsburgh Journal entries, as well as a non-notable source from Multi-Housing News and a brief, almost trivial mention in the Harvard Business Review. If there were just a little more I'd suggest a merge and redirect, but neither this man nor his website are really all that notable as far as Wikipedia goes. He or it might be one day, but for now he's only received the barest of notice from the world at large.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not speedy. I declined it on the basis that there are after all sources, and AfD is the place to evaluate them. (I also declined a speedy on Rent Jungle, for the same reason. There seem to be better sources for it--a Harvard Business Review Case. We have often considered the subjects of such cases to be notable on the basis of that source, though I am not sure we always have. But it is indeed a typical PR tactic to try to make 2 articles even in cases of borderline notability. It's of course a very poor idea, and in practice is likely to end up with both of them deleted. It shows promotional intent, and although intent is not a formal criterion for deletion, we do in practice take it into account. I might have argued otherwise a few years ago, but the flood of PR has changed my view on this. (btw, an advantage of AfD over speedy is that an unimproved re-creation, a very frequent occurrence, can be very uncontroversially deleted by speedy ), DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherent and Rent Jungle already has an equally large section written about him. I see no strong evidence to suggest this should even be a redirect considering the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw ^talk 09:26, 17 February 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) Mediran (t • c) 09:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linwood Boulevard (Kansas City, Missouri)

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

All coverage is WP:ROUTINE or Register of Historic Places listings. Not reliable stuff. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG and can be verified, just as I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linwood Boulevard. If anything, the street would become "more" notable and not less. No new arguments to delete have been introduced.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS coverage is still an issue. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WABBITSEASON Again, you made that argument last time ("All sources look unreliable..."). If you have new information about the reliability/unreliablity of the soruces, please bring the new information. Until then, we're just re-hashing the same old arguments.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources were present in the last AFD, so I'm not just repeating myself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The old sources were enough--or at least not considered "bad enough" enough to delete. All new sources (if that is indeed the case) would not change the notability of the subject, merely the editing of the article itself. This is not an issue for AFD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still, the last AFD closed as "no consensus", so opening a new one is perfectly acceptable even if I have no new arguments. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If by "perfectly acceptable" you mean "waste of time" I suppose so. If there is no new argument, what do you expect to change other than WP:FORUMSHOPPING?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not forum shopping. This is a perfectly rational way to handle a "no consensus" close. If no consensus was formed, then why not throw the line out again and see if one does form? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because so far, it's just you and me. And frankly, I'd rather we just kick back for a cold one face to face. I'm buyin' the first round.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Hammer is well within his rights to reopen this since it closed as No Consensus last time around. He's not wasting time or forum shopping or doing anything else untoward — just seeking resolution on an open question. (Note: I don't happen to agree with him on the particulars here, which is irrelevant.) Carrite (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the relevant arguments in the September AFD. Nominator's rationale is even vaguer and less convincing than the first unsuccessful one he trotted out. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistalking much? Seriously, you've hounded me at every XFD I've made this month. And considering some have closed as "delete" with you screaming "SPEEDY KEEP, HAMMER DOESN'T KNOW A DAMN THING" at every one, maybe your hounding is unwarranted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid personal attacks or anything that could be considered such. This is about the article in question and making Wikipedia better.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The last AfD turned up plenty of significant coverage. There appears to even be a whole book on this boulevard. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I remain unswayed by the arguments to delete. I stand by what I wrote during the last debate: "...Linwood Boulevard is a landmark or the object of substantial, independent, published coverage... Such as, for example THIS PAGE, "Linwood Blvd. Historic Survey," indicating that the arterial is featured in A Legacy of Design–An Historical Survey of the Kansas City, Missouri, Parks and Boulevards System, 1893–1940 edited by Janice Lee, David Boutros, Charlotte R. White and Deon Wolfenbarger and published in 1995 by the Kansas City Center for Design Education and Research, in cooperation with the Western Historical Manuscript Collection-Kansas City." Carrite (talk) 18:06, 17 February 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) 15:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchs (VTES)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because they have exactly the same problems as the article above:

Delete all. These articles all about editions or expansions of the board game Vampire: The Eternal Struggle. Each of these articles is referenced solely to the website of the publisher, and offers no evidence of any form that it meets notability criteria. All of these sets and editions are listed at Vampire: The Eternal Struggle#Sets_and_expansions, and that list provides quite sufficient detail. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and Wikipedia is not a manual. Contrary to Wikipedia:FICTION#What_Wikipedia_is_not, none of these pages offers any evidence of the real-world significance of the topics, and the pages amount to little more than a regurgitation of publisher's material.

Note that I have omitted from this nomination only one of the expansion sets: VTES 3rd Edition, which won an award. I have been unable to find any evidence that it meets WP:GNG -- it gets no hits on Google News -- but in view of the award, editors may wish to consider it as a separate case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles lacking notability. I would caution you against invoking WP:MANUAL in cases like this. None of those articles serve as a manual. That said, the first few I checked lack sufficient reliable independent sources to support WP:GNG. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all the non-notable articles into one or a few summary articles, covering the verifiable content. Since they are all part of a single game it is up to the nominator to demonstrate that they cannot be appropriately merged (per WP:BEFORE) to overcome merging as a WP:ATD policy-preferred outcome. Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted in the nonmination, they are all listed at Vampire: The Eternal Struggle#Sets_and_expansions. That list provides summary of each expansion, which is sufficient detail. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Sangrolu. Agree that these aren't too MANUAL-ish, but that doesn't help the notability. – Bellum (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:A10 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sodium on the periodic table

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

Wikipedia is not an essay based on non-notable topics. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 02:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This isn't even an essay. Sodium is a notable element, but this article is not...it's got nothing going on at all - no references, no citations, no substance, and nothing of value as an encyclopedic resource. Barada wha? 03:28, 11 February 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) 14:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Michel

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

Subject of the article continues to edit the page himself, adding details that aren't supported by the pages he is using as references. Page has been deleted multiple times already. original page creator has already been blocked from editing the page due to circumventing the original block of his other accounts. The wikipedia account belonging to Sergio Michel has already been blocked for tampering

Claims of being a prominent entertainer/Creative professional:

He has cited youtube videos to prove that he had a role in a TV show. However clips from the show illustrate that this was a minor and brief non-speaking role. I don't believe that a minor nonspeaking role in a TV show assert significance. I'd imagine that would open the flood gates for all actors who attain a small bit role in a film or tv show to publish a Wikipedia page about themselves based on an insignificant role. This does not comply with notability guidelines that demand that the subject have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

His references claiming to be a significant musical artist have been linking to a page which do not adhere to guidelines that assert that the subject have recordings that are not self published. The subject of the article's published works are not independent from himself.

His second assertion of being a well known and popular host for a Celebrity Boxing match isn't demonstrated by his cited articles. At best, his cited article indicates that he was hired to announce a single match that ended up never materializing (per his own cited reference). There is nothing in his referenced URL that substantiates that he was hired as a host on an ongoing basis.

Author of the article continues to revert my changes when I edit the article to reflect that fact. Wikibronx (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to my assessment above, User:IAmVince continues to use "Sergio's Blog" as a reference of tv acting work. The imdb page for this lists this as a "9 episode TV series" that he appeared in. However this is not a TV series, rather it is his YouTube channel called Sergio's blog which contains precisely 9 videos. This is not a TV series, the imdb page is not a reliable source.. Wikibronx (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fortunately, Wiki allows for improvement, because the article is really poorly presented. However, let's look at the links again to reinforce the well written commentary above:

References 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 & 12 are YouTube/Telemundo (The Telemundo aspect is protrayed from YouTube) and not a reliable source for references. Reference 1 links to a .com site that links to Facebook, Twitter, etc and then references his own .com site (Sergio.Michel.com), has issue with WP:COI, and is not a reliable reference. Reference 3 is a commercial site and has problems with WP:COI as this is an advertising source and not a reliable reference. Reference 4 doesn't demonstrate much except his blog spot, is also a WP:COI concern, and isn't a reliable source. Reference 8 is about something that never happened, and can't be considered a reference as such. Reference 11 is simply a continuation of the YouTube line and is not a reliable reference. After addressing all that, there is nothing left to retain. Barada wha?

03:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references in the article seem to support inclusion under WP:GNG or WP:ENT at this point. User:Barada's analysis is spot on. Some research indicates this bio might be a case of WP:TOOSOON but as of right now I don't think he's there yet. The plethora of non-reliable sources and the usual behavioral pattern of trying to claw up past the notability threshold is usually a good indicator that the subject isn't there yet. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (disclosure: I've been involved in an administrative capacity with the article's creator and with the associated sockpuppet investigation). Whilst I've declined a CSD on an earlier version this article (under A7), I'm now fairly convinced that it should be removed: as Barada has succinctly established, there simply aren't sufficient reliable independent sources to support it. I've had a nose around for more, on the offchance that something more substantial was out there, but nothing's turned up. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT, needs to go. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources are inadequate for establishing notability. Fails WP:ENT. - Mr X 03:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now... per so very much wrong with an article created and expanded by inexperienced contributors it would be a mercy killing to WP:NUKEANDPAVE. Send them all to the "Primer for newcomers" to get a little CLUE. His works as an actor are minimal and fail WP:ENT. As writer/creator/producer'host of the non-notable series Sergio's Blog,[19] while an interesting method of self-promotion, has not itself received recognition and thus fails WP:CREATIVE. As other's have noted, there are very few reliable sources used to source this, but one article in the Hudson Reporter is decent enough and specifically deals with the subject directly and in detail.[20] SFL Music Magazine (page 29) did review his work Sorrowful Psalms: Uplifting 'Depressing' Music. If/when he gets more actual coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, or his works get the coverage to meet WP:MUSICBIO, we might consider a recreation of a properly formatted and properly sourced article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:RHaworth, CSD A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oyiza Momoh

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

Subject of this BLP, a 17 year old actress starring in the BBC children's tv series, MI High, does not not meet the requirements of WP:ENT or other notability criteria. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:09, 11 February 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergio Michel

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 AEK (sports club). (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 09:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AEK Athens Boxing Club

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

This is an article without any sources that provide signficant coverage. It's WP:NOTINHERITED to claim the club is notable because it produced an Olympic boxer. I'm not trying to delete this article, I just wanted to Redirect it to AEK (sports club) (of which the boxing club is a part). That attempt was reverted, but I couldn't find anything to show this club is notable on its own. Papaursa (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Agree, per WP:NOTINHERITED the fact the club had (2) prior olympic boxers does not merit notability for the subgroup of the organization. Send to live with the full AEK (sports club) article. Barada wha? 01:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The only sources are to the former Olympic boxers and the only mention of this club is in their infobox "Club:AEK". The club has no significant coverage on its own.Mdtemp (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Solid nomination where the club itself fails to advance its own notability. A lot of run of the mill coverage and not directed at the club but associated subject matters. Mkdw ^talk 09:23, 17 February 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 Userfy (Userfication). J04n(talk page) 14:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Evolution in Humans

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

While well-sourced, this article reads like a non-encyclopedic report or essay, and does not meet criteria for inclusion. dci | TALK 00:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Userfy. A few edits are still being made on the mentioned page to improve it. As a page based on scientific origins theories, it's tone is meant to incorporate the validity associated with such theories without having listed all the evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Origins3F03 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This looks like a paper submitted to an academic course which was copied wholesale into Wikipedia without having been adapted to encyclopedia style. Maybe it is possible to adapt the paper into encyclopedic style, but, if so, it needs to be done. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominating this article 7 minutes after creation, 7 minutes after the article creator registered as an editor, is far too soon. Please don't bite the newcomers; it would have been preferable to tag the article or better yet, send the editor a message explaining the problem. That said, I agree with Metropolitan90 that the article needs to be converted to an encyclopedic tone and format. The other major challenge with this article is that there is already a highly developed article on Sociocultural evolution and indeed a whole category of articles on this topic at Category:Sociocultural evolution. Given the explicit comparison in the article of biological and cultural evolution, Sociobiology and evolutionary psychology would seem to be related at well. Are the topics in this article already covered in these other articles, and how does this article fit in the context of all the others? --Mark viking (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you for your feedback. This is our first page and we are trying to learn the proper formatting and will try to adjust the tone and format if given the time. We have taken a look at the Sociocultural pages as well as pages on Observational Learning. The topics covered in this paper are unique as they focus on the importance of culture in human evolution. We do understand few of the topics on the page such as neolithic revolution have been covered and do plan on providing hyperlinks to such sources. These pages however do not discus the evolutionary importance and our focus is to expand upon that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Origins3F03 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you plan to edit this article significantly and want more time to do so, I suggest you request that the article be userfied -- that is, moved out of the main encyclopedia and into your userspace. You can then devote, basically, as much time as you need to improving the article before bringing it back to the main encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for the suggestion. I have made the request above.
Comment. Other articles on similar topics include: Memetics and Dual_inheritance_theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.54.239 (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with userfying. This has potential, but needs some work before we put it on display. Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with userfying. This article does have potential, but it is way too narrow focusing on a few ideas and models in the literature. The article [Sociocultural evolution]] is not too good as it stands either. This is a difficult area to write an adequate article on. In this case, the emphasis on Nakahashi's, W. 2010 models seems odd, when, for example, Boyd R. & Richerson P.J. have published many more articles and books over the years. Right now it comes across as WP:POV and WP:OR, but I think it can be turned into an article. There are other approaches, which at least should be mentioned.--I am One of Many (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy This is the best option at this point. It protects the article from deletion and gives the creator a chance to improve presentation and to incorporate some of good advice given by other editors. --Mark viking (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - there definitely seems to be information worth preserving here.--Staberinde (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy The creator has expressed an interest in improving the article. Since they're a new editor and likely not familiar with AfC and so much work has been done that userfying seems like a good option. A reassessment can be done by a reviewer at a later date. Mkdw ^talk 09:16, 17 February 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) 14:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Lee (fighter)

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

Unsourced WP:BLP, fails WP:V, WP:NOR. Subject does not meet WP:NMMA with only two fights for top tier MMA promotions. LlamaAl (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA and the only source is a link to his fight record.Mdtemp (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject remains one fight shy of the three required to meet WP:NMMA. His last fight was in 2008, and appears retired. No WP:SIGCOV other than WP:ROUTINE to warrant a standalone article outside WP:NMMA. Mkdw ^talk 05:08, 9 February 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article about an MMA fighter that fails to meet WP:NMMA and whose only source is his record (hardly significant coverage). Papaursa (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA with two top-tier fights. Fails WP:GNG with no references. Luchuslu (talk) 15:48, 13 February 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) 14:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National team appearances in the UEFA Women's Championship

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

Contested PROD. Article consists entirely of sports statistics. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed article for deletion is simply a mirror to National team appearances in the UEFA European Football Championship. While I understand that Wikipedia is not a sport almanac, statistics pages for well-established, highly prestigious competitions like these are common.

I am okay with deleting the proposed article IF AND ONLY IF equal treatment is given to similar articles (e.g. the men's EURO page linked already, National team appearances in the FIFA Women's World Cup, National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup, etc.) CyMoahk (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I should've said explicitly: my vote is to keep, unless similar articles are also deleted. CyMoahk (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to address something: I think this article was identified because, at the time, it had only one article linking to it (the main article for the competition). While I haven't checked through every article in the "what links here" for the three other competitions I referenced above, I'm fairly certain that the only reason they have so many articles linking to them is that they appear in the templates for their respective competitions, something I didn't do when I first created the nominated article. I don't know if that affects the discussion, but I thought I'd point it out. CyMoahk (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reasons for deletion. Keep all. Othervise delete all. NickSt (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 10 February 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gosh I hate saying this, but Wiki doesn't do: "If A,B,C; Then X,Y,Z". We gave up on Basic programming long ago. Though it seems a wonderful argument to hold that "if we have this, then we have to have that...and if we don't have this, then we need to delete all that"...but it just doesn't hold water in a true conversation. You gotta pick your fights one-by-one or find another approach. Let the landslide of disagreement begin... Barada wha? 04:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and the fact that this subject has not been covered in any significant detail by reliable, third-party publications. I suggest some of the keepers read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Giant Snowman 15:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Snowman. This pretty clearly falls under WP:NOTSTATS. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - the page is just stats and boxes of colour, which is as clear a violation of WP:NOTSTATS as you can get. C 679 07:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear Stat Attack. Besides, isn't all this information available in other articles and has just been combined here in a series of tables, the selection of whch seems to be entirely arbitrary and therefore unencyclopaedic. Fenix down (talk) 09:33, 16 February 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) 14:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Study New Testament for Lesbians, Gays, Bi, and Transgender

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

Not a notable book - the coverage is similar to that described in WP:1E - there was a bit of coverage when the book was published, but it has no lasting significance. Also, I note the book is self-published. St Anselm (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Australian source showing in the footnotes on a boycott is a good one. A quick visit to Mr. Google isn't finding anything else similar. One would think there are similar efforts somewhere else in the world which would get this title over the GNG hurdle. Carrite (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it was an Australian book - it doesn't seem to have generated controversy anywhere else. St Anselm (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One event briefly covered isn't sufficient. And as noted, self-published as are a number of her books. Dougweller (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, secondary source coverage across multiple different languages. — Cirt (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are you sure you posted this at the right AfD? No one's provide the sources you mention. If you meant this AfD surely you are expected to show those sources exist so they can be verified, right? Dougweller (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established by multiple secondary sources. Also the author is not notable, or as least does not yet have an article here. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:44, 18 February 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) 14:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shepard Ambellas

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

Biography of a seemingly non-notable person. The article contains numerous fictitious and spammy external links. Unable to find any reliable references for the subject in Google news, Google books, Google news archive, NewsBank, HighBeam, Questia and Credo. - Mr X 01:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find in depth coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources. He is mentioned on websites he writes for, which are not independent. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE *Shepard Ambellas has appeared on hundreds of radio shows. This is absolutely NOT a fake wiki page. A small Google search will show you Shepard Ambellas is WELL KNOWN and not just on his own websites. Someone doesnt have to be in GOOGLE NEWS to be real. Shepard has had an article appear on the Drudge Report as well as The London Guardian! His news outlets reach over 60,000 people a day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.221.194 (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply No one is arguing that the page is a fake. But we need reliable, independent sources discussing him, and so far, none have been furnished showing notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply There are thousands and thousands of websites and radio shows linking to his work. The website has over 7,000 pages linking to it according to Alexa. theintelhub.com is in the top TWENTY THOUSAND websites on the entire planet. I am gonna spend some time gathering all the source links in that regard and will update the original page. If you arent purposefully attacking him because of the content of his work then we will not have an issue because I do agree the page needs more source links. There are at least 20 people in the alternative media that have wiki pages whose websites are not in google news. Google News censors alternative media outlets regardless of their size. Also are you saying someone who reaches millions people a month cant have a wiki page if a mainstream news outlet owned by corporations hasnt written about him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.221.194 (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, links and Alexa ratings are not sufficient to establish notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. The subject has to have been covered in a non-trivial fashion by reputable sources. There are many news organizations with editorial oversight which will gladly report on alternative media outlets. That is why, in the nomination, I mentioned several other vast news and information repositories, not just Google news. Please review WP:N, WP:RS and WP:BIO to gain a better understanding of these policies. - Mr X 22:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Ok no matter what anyone says here Shepard Ambellas has appeared on dozens of nationally syndicated radio shows, his website reaches over a million people per month. His PHOTOS have been picked up in the London Guardian. In these photos Shepards website is in the CAPTION and he is actually in the photos taking pictures of businessman entering a meeting in Chantilly Virgina. The Drudge Report also linked this information. On top of that multiple mainstream news outlets have cited his website when they were attacking conspiracy theorists. All this is more than enough to have a wiki page. Should I just take it upon myself to revamp the page and include ALL source links for everything I just mentioned? Please let me know instead of linking me to pages that arent specific in any way. I have followed theintelhub.com work for a long time and I am not going to let Shepards page get deleted when it is legit although it DOES need source links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.221.194 (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there's not an instant solution to fixing the article, if that is what you are trying to do. You would do well to read and understand the help tutorials, so that you understand what Wikipedia is about and how it works. Adding a bunch of links to the article will not help, because a link in itself is not necessarily a reliable source. A mere mention of the subject on another web site is not a reliable source. A caption in a photo is not a reliable source. The subject's own publications are not sufficient for establishing notability. I earnestly searched for this individual in thousands of publications and couldn't find him. I may have very well made a mistake in my search, but since you seem to be familiar with the subject, you should have no problem introducing some good sources into the article. - Mr X 23:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - - REVIEW --

The article Shepard Ambellas just reached it's 30 day mark on Wikipedia. Criticism are vague as to Notability & Reliable Sources. Shepard Ambellas receives 48,900 results from doing a simple search. The original issues with the article are:

   * This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. (January 2013)
   * This article does not cite any references or sources. (January 2013)
   * This article appears to be written like an advertisement. (January 2013)
   * The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (January 2013)

Before allowing any correction or edits to address these issues, you have rapidly come along to delete the article.

   This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

Objectively, without even allowing the suggested edits to be made it appears the Alternative Media nature of Shepard Ambellas is the actual target. Can you address why you have aggressively marked the article for deletion without even one concrete suggestion?

Follow my logic:

   This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. (January 2013)

Grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling are simple to correct given time to do so.

   This article does not cite any references or sources. (January 2013)

The article has numerous citations / links to third-party sources although the formatting may not be correct. These corrections are slated to be made asap.

   This article appears to be written like an advertisement. (January 2013)

That is a somewhat personal interpretation and the language "appears" substantiates that fact. It either IS an advertizement or it IS NOT. This is a style issue and the article can be cleaned up as that is likely to be the intent of that criticism.

   The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (January 2013)

The Notability Guidelines criticism is where edit can be made to demonstrate that Shepard Ambellas as an article DOES meet the Notability Guidelines.

Taken in total, the issues seem to be primarily style and presenting links and formatting the article properly. Can you address the question asked as to the aggressive position that you've taken to mark "considered for deletion"?

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Excaliber12 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this article be deleted? Looks perfectly fine to me, is this a censorship issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.45.234 (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In no way does this article appear like an advert, as I can find no advert. Looks fine to me. There are sources at the bottom, I see Ambellas pictured there in the London Guardian, and pictures he took. What's the deal? There are many references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.45.234 (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - To suggest that the article Shepard Ambellas is a Conspiracy Theory and should be included in a Deletion Debate under that category is Absurd. He is a living person, not a thing (Conspiracy Theory) This is becoming a disgrace the way this is being handled and appears to be outright censorship and a violation of Freedom of SpeechBold text - at least in the United States. Explain you reasoning for including Shepard Ambellas is a Conspiracy Theory Delete Discussion - I'd like to hear it as would many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Excaliber12 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and Cullen.Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe only reason this can be deleted is lack of notability. All the arguments about the warning templates are moot. They don't apply to deletion. Being listed as a conspiracy related discussion is not making any comment that applies to this discussion; it is simply a clerical note that this discussion has been listed on a list with that title. It will most likely result in more editors that favor the inclusion of conspiracy related articles coming here. The lister was simply doing a clerical job and User:Excaliber12 jumped all over him, both here and on his talk page. FYI, EXcaliber, the only freedom of speech you have promised to you in the US Constitution is that the Government will make no law restricting your freedom of speech. Try working at Burger King and telling one of your customers they are a fat pig then come talk about your so-called freedom of speech. This entire AfD is nothing but a bunch of wasted space. The only (absolutely only) on point arguments are the nom and the other delete vote. None of the rest of the ranting has made any point at all. Please read WP:GD to learn how to make a proper argument here. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:46, 9 February 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First off, the piece is highly over-flagged. Please don't do that. While the subject has a substantial internet presence, I'm not seeing anything in the way of independently published biography or reporting on the reporter. This is often times the case with journalists, so it's with some hesitance that I agree with the nominator and Cullen here. Carrite (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with Carrite above. I can see a number of articles by the subject, but very few about the subject, which is what we need to meet the "significant coverage" criteria of WP:GNG. Being a prolific content creator, unfortunately, doesn't not make a person automatically notable for WP's purposes. Had he been extensively cited or reviewed (per WP:AUTHOR), it might be a different story. Stalwart111 05:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article about a Fringe dweller and not well sourced. He is a cipher on references pointing to him. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 09:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Cannot be notable as unpublished book. No suggestion as to any form of notability - CSD was more appropriate (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Ladies of Disco

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

Non-notable book. Not even published yet. —teb728 t c 00:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:A7 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Cubis

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

Fails WP:ENT and general notability criteria. Looks like he's appeared as a supporting actor in a 2012 pilot that hasn't been picked up, and starred in a 10,000AUD short film. Might be notable some day, but I'm not seeing it yet. Sperril (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has nominated this article for speedy as well. This can be closed immediately if the speedy deletion is accepted. Sperril (talk) 00:09, 11 February 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) Mediran (t • c) 09:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kekuta Manneh

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the Gambian League is not listed at WP:FPL. However, in the absence of reliable sources confirming the the league as fully pro, we cannot assume that it is. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot assume it isn't either since you're speaking from absence of any information. I started the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#GFA League First Division when I removed the PROD and it has not been followed-up. We must find some proof that it is or isn't a fully professional league before deciding whether to remove players from the league. Not to do so is dishonest.

Worst case scenario, if it is decided to delete, I would request that it be moved under my user space in case the player is capped for the Whitecaps, as is expected. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article indicates that Gambian first division clubs participate in the African Champions League which would be a solid indicator to me that it is likely fully-professional.

http://thepoint.gm/africa/gambia/article/another-win-for-real-de-banjul gri3720 (talk) 4 February 2013

Participation in the CAF Champions League indicates nothing more than that the Gambian FA is a member of the CAF. Two leagues confirmed as not fully pro at WP:FPL had entrants in the 2012 Champions League. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The WP:BURDEN is on those wanting to keep the article to prove notability. GiantSnowman 11:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not delete, but move to my user space if it fails.

Also burden is not about whether keeping or deleting an article, it's about references. Again, misusing policy is not appropriate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's by no means abuse of policy. It may not be the letter of what is written in WP:BURDEN, but it is common sense that something as important to the encyclopedia as a claim to notability be supported by reliable sources. This is backed up by other policies as well. Notability requires verifiable evidence. Given that notability in the general is not met, notability is dependent on the subject having played in a fully pro league. In the absence of verifiable evidence that the Gambian league is fully pro, the requirements for notability are not met, ergo the article should be deleted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not worth arguing over. BURDEN doesn't comply with this situation though, COMMONSENSE may. However, it seems like pure laziness to say "it's not on some list" and not try to prove that it should or shouldn't be on the list. Again, not contesting that the nation's first division isn't on the list. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have scoured search engines for hours trying to find any information at all about wages and standard of living for players in the Gambian league and have been able to find almost nothing. However, on the website of Real de Banjul F.C., they provide an outline of their philosophy on the club as a business and their view of their players as professionals. Here it is if it will be of any use in the discussion on the topic. http://realdebanjul.gm/club-profile

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whether a league is on a Wikipedia-made list, or if a player has played 1 match or not if not the biggest deal. What's worth arguing about, is if this player passes the general notability guideline, and in my eyes the citations in the article from The Point and Soccer America is "significant coverage". Mentoz86 (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that Manneh meets GNG, which was accepted the first time this article was proposed for deletion. That point makes the debate of whether the Gambian first division is fully professional irrelevant, although worth determining for future pages. gri3720 (talk) 9 February 2013
Keep - clearly shown to meet the general notability guideline. C 679 12:48, 10 February 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There are clear reliable, third party sources. Whether these are substantial enough is questionable, but for a young player seems sufficient, at 18, how many interviews and articles would one expect. The discussion about whether the Gambian league is fully professional or not seems to me to be yet more weight to the arguemtn that the awful FPL essay at WP:FOOTY should be binned as fundamentally divisive and subjective whilst simultaneously being wholly irrelevant as GNG and NFOOTY are actual guidelines. Fenix down (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:GNG --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:47, 16 February 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) 14:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Dextrous

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

Does not satisfy notability requirements.

The article has been subject to a request for additional citation since February 2012. It reads like it was written by a promoter. I'm not personally satisfied that the person meets notability requirements following a Google search. I can find no secondary sources that validate notability. It's worth mentioning that Dextrous does not appear to be signed to any of the major genre-specific labels. Nor does it appear he has performed to any significant audience. Matthew (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, whilst the Ivor Novello Awards may be notable and respected, I do not believe notability in this or similar cases to be inherent. Matthew (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not confuse the person stated in the article with J Majik, who previously used the pseudonym in the same 'scene'. Suggest possible redirect. Matthew (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject appears to be notable per WP:BAND and WP:GNG. We should consider any subject in accordance to wiki-rules, but not as our personal satisfication, we have to follow only the rules. Actually this seems to establish the notability and cited source 1 in the article clearly endorse the notability.Justice007 (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to recognise the one, trivial source you've provided (it'd appear to be a small, independent radio station that probably doesn't warrant an article either) that as "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician". Now the most important bit: I cannot see how this article satisfies points two through 12 at all. Matthew (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage in Shapiro's book and the awards and nominations give a pretty clear indication of being notable enough. --Michig (talk) 08:39, 10 February 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ and/or Clarification needed I'm a bit detached from the British music scene; the awards, nominations, and otherwise aren't real convincing from across the pond as listed here - maybe someone with a more British flavor could expound some. However, there is this in the article; "He released his first record in 1992, on Ruff Quality Recordings (the sister label of Shut Up and Dance Records) entitled "Ruffneck Biznizz" which topped the Kiss FM House Charts"... Now the labels aren't majors, important indies, etc, but KISS-FM is an Album Oriented Rock (AOR) radio station in the major, regional market of San Antonio, TX. I am wondering if the article writer meant KIIS-FM Los Angeles, CA which is a primarily pop formated station and would typically play something "House music" oriented. The inherent conflict here leaves me wondering as to which station they are attributing; KISS-FM as listed would not rotate a single like this nor would it have a "House music" chart. KIIS-FM would probably be more inclined to play it. Since it appears the stations are incorrectly attributed, they should be fixed, or the article ~~Deleted or Userified as misrepresentative until it can be correctly addressed.~~ Barada wha? 01:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should, I believe, link to Kiss (radio station), a major national dance music station. The Ivor Novello and Bafta awards are major awards in the UK. --Michig (talk) 07:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I agree with Michig.Justice007 (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thank you for shedding some much needed light on the matter. It's an English thing! Thanks blokes Barada wha?

10:12, 11 February 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Play the Immutable Truth

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 10 February 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no references, and a Google search reveals nothing more than stuff that would appear on a Google search for any album, just iTunes entries and stuff like that.^King Jakob _C2 02:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Barely evades CSD, and notability isn't asserted or implied in any way. —Rutebega (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meets none of the 12 criteria for WP:BAND. Literally nothing to rely on. Barada wha? 05:13, 11 February 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.