Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 February	18 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 no consensus. The main debate that has developed in this discussion is whether or not to merge. That debate can continue of the articles' talkpages. J04n(talk page) 12:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Harbor

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

As a distinct geographic entity, Dutch Harbor is a major component of the city of Unalaska, Alaska, whose article isn't so overly long as to warrant a sub-article. "Dutch Harbor" is also a colloquial term to refer to Unalaska, and is perhaps more commonly used in that regard than Unalaska is. If a sub-article is warranted, this isn't it; this is far more blatantly a collection of images and templates and little useful content than even your average NRHP stub. Unless someone has a vision to substantially make a useful article from this topic, it was just fine as it was redirecting to Unalaska's article. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 23:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Unalaska, Alaska. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable due to the naval base and the Japanese attack; keep and expand in those directions. squibix (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Northamerica1000, the nom also has a good reason for the merge, and expand the article with the merge, if the harbor becomes way too big into a big article then fork it. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 13:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Unalaska, Alaska per Northamerica1000. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge to Unalaska, Alaska, without prejudice to an expanded article at this title.Synchronism (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and not merge - Dutch Harbor refers to the physical harbor while Unalaska, Alaska refers to the municipality. The Dutch Harbor article should be expanded like most harbor articles to include information like depth, currents, geologic make-up, surface area, wildlife (both sea and land) and perhaps natural resources. This is all out of place in an article about a municipality.--Oakshade (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As mentioned, this is an article about the harbor, not the town of Unalaska, Alaska. While the name may be synonomous to some people with the city, that doesn't remove the fact that the harbor itself is notable as a geographic feature. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Flat-out delete Already mostly covered in the Unalaska and Battle of Dutch Harbor article. Someone can add the bit about the attack to the Unalaska article, and it'll all be covered. Doesn't really need it's own article. --Fbifriday (talk) 09:16, 23 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Tweedles

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

Non-notable local group. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Clear conflict of interest: article written by User:Tweedlescomedy. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Their show is apparently only on the local cable access channel. -- Whpq (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. With some coverage in reliable sources, you might have a case for notability. WP:USUAL applies, though - if they get really popular or go viral or something, you might find your coverage. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:38, 21 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion (album)

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

Does not meet notability guidelines for albums (WP:NALBUMS); no reliable independent coverage about this album, save for a few mentions in amateur blogs. Dan56 (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 11:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails all relevant notability guidelines. No reliable coverage, no accolades, no chart rankings. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 13:40, 15 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CREATIVE, fails WP:MUSIC and fails WP:GNG. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 13:47, 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 redirect to Megadeth discography#EPs. (non-admin closure) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 20:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum Megadeth

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

This EP appears to be a non-notable release in that it seems that it was a promotional-release to radio stations only. Additionally, none of the sources cited are really infallible, either L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails music notability guideline, and also fails general notability. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 13:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Megadeth, per standard for non-notable albums. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Megadeth discography#EPs, no individual notability. Listed in the ep section of the discography page. J04n(talk page) 13:08, 24 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 Minchinhampton. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beaudesert Park School

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

Non-notable school. Claims to have lots of notable alumni are unsourced and therefore should be discounted. As per normal outcomes this could be redirected to the local settlement - something I did twice, but as others undid this I am bringing it to AfD instead. Bob Re-born (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Bob Re-born. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The school has many notable alumni including Zara Philips, a prominent member of the British royal family. Lots of notable alumni inevitably means substantial press coverage. Lack of sources is no reason for deletion. It would help if people could source articles rather than nominating them for deletion. Here's a source for Zara Philips which I will add later http://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/news/8898283.Zara_Phillips_and_Mike_Tindall_announce_wedding_date/. Dahliarose (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Minchinhampton per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES because this school does not appear to be part of any school district. In any, that is the well-established precedent that is typically followed, as primary schools do not meet the general notability guidelines, thus non-notable in reliable sources. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 05:25, 23 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. No prejudice against recreation should the subject pass WP:GNG or related guidelines in the future — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Hughes

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

Search of google and google news is unable to establish WP:N. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources do not establish notability; few outside sources available and those are not appropriate for inclusion. dci | TALK 23:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Being president of the AMSA is an accomplishment to be sure, but that is not something that makes for automoatic notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe it's just WP:TOOSOON and we will hear more of this talented young woman in the future - but for now she does not have the required coverage by independent sources to qualify her as notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 21 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. No prejudice against recreation should the subject pass WP:GNG or related guidelines in the future — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hurley

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

Search of google and google news is unable to establish WP:N, but is complicated by a hockey player with the same name. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Being president of the AMSA is an accomplishment to be sure, but that is not something that makes for automoatic notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly seems like an up-and-comer, but not yet notable as Wikipedia defines it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:03, 21 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. It does not appear that there are any reliable sources at this point. Would be happy to userfy for someone to work on it until sources become available. J04n(talk page) 13:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PhpLD

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

Article about a web application with no indication of notability and a lack of secondary sources. Contested PROD. bonadea contributions talk 19:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more sources, and as I understand the requirements I certainly want to conform to your guidelines. I am not an expert with using Wikipedia but I am trying to learn how to edit and talk. dvduval —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our software truly is on thousands of sites but it is not the sort of thing covered in the newspaper. We are regularly in the Alexa top 10000 sites on the net. If you have to delete it, you certainly know the policies better than I do, but if there is anything I can do, please let me know. -- dvduval (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I wouldn't expect something like phpLD to be covered in a general circulation newspaper, but a reliable source is any sort of publication which exercises editorial control in selection of topics to cover, and has a repuation for fact checking. If there is coverage in more specialised trade press, that can be used to establish notability. If the software has been covered in academic studies, that might be useful for establishing a case for inclusion. If there is coverage in special books, that would help advance the argument for inclusion. For example, if there is coverage in one the O'Reilly books, that would be considered a reliable source and count towards establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:56, 20 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) 13:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vogue towers

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

Unremarkable building. No sources provided. Man way 19:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Though far from perfect, Google Search sources suggest some degree of notability. dci | TALK 23:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having done a search myself, I would concur with dci. This appears to be a recently built shopping mall. These newspaper clippings may help add credibility Lahore: Launch of Little London Company in Vogue Towers (The Saturday Post); Object’s flagship store opens in Lahore (Express Tribune) (quote: I am delighted to finally be opening doors at Lahore’s most prestigious shopping destination Vogue Towers; Waseem Noor at Vogue Towers, Lahore (Express Tribune) plus the many general non-news links on web. I would be willing to improve this article when I have some free time with more references. Mar4d (talk) 14:21, 20 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was it love?

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

DePRODed solely because several editors were sqabbling over how to use the PROD and PROD2 tags. So here we are procedurally without anyone arguing over the merits of the PROD concerns. sigh. DMacks (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, DMacks, but this is an entirely inaccurate reflection of the facts. I spent quite a bit of time with this new editor yesterday, attempting to explain the deletion policy. This is an article about a book, but another editor placed a BLP prod. (The actual article about the author may be found at Arpan Sharma) I removed the BLP prod and contacted the new editor to explain my action. At that point, the other editor complained on my talk page, then revised the rationale that I offered in the PROD, stating that the article was a BLP. I removed the added statement and contacted the other editor with guidance on placing a PROD2. In essence, the other editor failed to follow deletion policy in regards to this article. Rather than continue speaking to a brick wall, I removed the PROD, due to the diluted process in following policy. I would rather not have a PROD that I added revised to state an invalid reasoning for deletion. Process was followed here. Your misrepresentation of the facts though is rather puzzling and questionable. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 20:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unsourced article. A search for sources turns up nothing but this page and one Wikipedia mirror. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metropolitan90. Leadup to AfD nom seems to have been less than optimal; however, process appears to have been followed. dci | TALK 23:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom of DMacks. Sorry about squabble! Star767 (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources can be established to verify its notability. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 13:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no reliable sources to speak of (Google search term "was it love" "arpan sharma"). CtP (t • c) 23:27, 21 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 Withdrawn. Puzzling nomination and withdrawl though (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Kumar

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

Notability not observed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jussychoulex (talk • contribs)

Comment What do you mean by notability not observed? JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator.The nomination was a mistake for some reason. Jussychoulex (talk) 12:24, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Kaul

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

This subject is not the topic of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, and none of the activities or accomplishments described rises to WP:ANYBIO or WP:MILNG note; the military award seems not to confer automatic notability (see the list of recipients; few if any seem notable on that basis alone). The WP:RESUME-style and image gallery to me indicate a probable WP:COI — not a deletion ground, but it would explain this article's existence at all. JFHJr (㊟) 17:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not observed as per Wikipedia criteria. This page should be deleted.Jussychoulex (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article do not meet notability per WP:MILNG or WP:BIO. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 03:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:SOLDIER & WP:ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a general and recipient of a third-level gallantry decoration. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 22 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 (withdrawn by nominator). WP:NAC. JFHJr (㊟) 03:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Wilson (photographer)

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

This person is not the actual topic of substantial coverage to meet WP:GNG (lots of announcements by associated publishers and schools that would naturally promote her, though!); her publications seem not to rise to the level of greatness contemplated in WP:WRITER; she's facially very distant from WP:PROFESSOR; and her family relations alone are insufficient to help her WP:INHERIT anything. If anyone can verify the existence and import of the book reviews (that is, whether they were actually substantial reviews of works themselves lend to WP:WRITER, or substantial coverage by an unrelated party), along with some links, I'll gladly withdraw this nomination. JFHJr (㊟) 16:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if exhibitions are confirmed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Both Laura and Wilson are such common names that their combination is common too. Luckily for the hurried googler, her work linked her with the easily googlable Richard Avedon. Googling "laura wilson" "richard avedon" brings us interviews with her at digitaljournalist.org, a press release from the University of Texas Press (NB this is quite unlike the vanity publishers whose names often appear in AfD discussions), fairly plausible mentions of articles by her that will be behind the Murdoch paywall but perhaps accessible for many WP editors, and an article by her in Variety. Dig around a bit more, and I find a notice of an exhibition at SMU of her work, and perhaps most convincingly, the information that "5 document boxes and 7 oversize boxes (12.2 linear feet)" [3.7 metres, for us non US Americans] of her materials are thought worthy of storage at the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center. And that was just ten minutes' work; I wonder how much time JFHJr put into his research. -- Hoary (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the same amount of time. I wonder about how your parting question squares with WP:AGF. As stated in my nomination, I'm withdrawing it. Cheers, and thank you everyone. JFHJr (㊟) 03:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added three sources from highbeam and expanded the one that was already there. It seems clear just from those sources that she passes WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:02, 20 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. WP:PROF#C1. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Brault

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

Subjects notability not established. atnair (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:ACADEMIC. I found 18 publications by the author. @SmithAndTeam (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GS h-index of 23 passes WP:Prof#C1. Nominator should carry out WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment Searched for notability, but not found any.--atnair (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe. Clearly meets WP:PROF#C1. I also second Xxan's suggestion that the nominator study the notability guidelines more closely. Ray^Talk 04:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ray: Reason justified above to Xxanthippe. While nominating there was no source--atnair (talk) 16:23, 23 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Dar

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

This subject fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources. No accomplishments apparently approach WP:ANYBIO. Note, his colleague Venita Kaul has a similarly pointless bio here; the theme by the creator seems to be non-notable World Bank employees. JFHJr (㊟) 16:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy DeletePage made for the self promotion and publicity. It should be deleted immediately.Jussychoulex (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h-index of 13 not really enough for WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO, per nom, and WP:PROF, per Xxan. Ray^Talk 04:27, 23 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Venita Kaul

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

Going through WP:BEFORE, I found this subject is not even once the subject of substantial coverage to meet WP:GNG. Her work accomplishments do not approach WP:ANYBIO, and it's hard to tell exactly what would be her claim to notability. JFHJr (㊟) 16:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy DeletePage made for the self promotion and publicity. Notability not observed. It should be deleted immediately.Jussychoulex (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Wikipedia is not a ads issuer. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Found nothing to suggest notability per WP:BIO. Some trivial quotations in the Gnews search, little more. Ray^Talk 04:25, 23 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. Hoax WP:G3 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jokhai Pal

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

Unsourced biography with dubious claims. I'm unable to find any reliable sources that support notability of this person. Fails WP:BIO. - Mr X 16:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:G3. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 16:10, 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) 23:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Winckley Street

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

Article reads like a press release, created by user with potential WP:COI
Does not appear to meet WP:GNG as only ghits are non-notable businesses, and no gnews other than passing mention. It is a minor shopping street containing no notable businesses, residents or buildings
Appears to be WP:PROMO for businesses in the street Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 15:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable at all. Dough 48 72 22:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The street has three listed buildings, one notable person (Francis Thompson) was born there but there's not much on the local newspaper's site (only one page would be significant coverage[1]) or other sources. Peter James (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is only a directory. Agree with nom. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 22:11, 24 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. Hoax WP:G3 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sheetal Prashad Pal

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

Unsourced biography with a dubious claim. I'm unable to find any reliable sources that support notability of this person. Fails WP:BIO. - Mr X 14:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Tried to get it speedied but apparently " prominent freedom fighter" without anything to back it is enough of an "assertion of importance". Surely an assertion of importance has to be backed up with something. I couldn't find a single mention of this person apart from this article when I did a Google search. Hardly "credible". 15:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete - per nom and perhaps WP:G3 is applicable here. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 16:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per above. FrigidNinja (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced biography that asserts in way that it meets WP:GNG and WP:HOAX may also apply per MRT3366 above....William 17:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Utterly unsourced, no historical context provided. I'm not seeing a thing on the Google either, taking a look with a sympathetic eye to expansion of coverage of Indian history. There might be non-English sources out there or perhaps this is a really bad name spelling, I suppose, but this is a clear GNG fail on the face of it. Carrite (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom, no references. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It passes through WP:G3 criteria for Speedy. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:30, 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 delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Renee

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

Short article about a dancer and mime that has danced on stage for different notable bands in the late 1960s and 1970s. Sources are web sites from fans of the bands. Own research shows that she has an IMDB entry for a supporting part in a notable film Echo Park and has at least one time danced in a Greatful Dead show [2]. WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG or nothing? A CSD has been declined with being a member of a notable band ...; dancers are usually only hired for one tour or one show (as the article confirms). Ben Ben (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no information available to assert notability, and she was not a band member, otherwise (obviously) we would have much more information.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. There doesn't seem to be anything about her in Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 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) 23:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012-13 Goa Professional Relegation League

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

Article is not needed. The relegation table (and results) can be located on the main page. The only time a separate page should be made is if the relegation league table and results take up to much space which in this case... it does not. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary content fork. Information can be retained at the parent article as detailed in the nomination. C 679 14:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge. As per ArsenalFan no need for a separate article this is merely a part of one season of a league. Should be merged and the results truncated into tabular form to save space. Top scores would be added to the overall league top scores table. Fenix down (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overkill, content is sufficiently covered in existing article. Giant Snowman 10:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 12:39, 21 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, A7. GB fan 14:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dhiraj Patil

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

This an article appears to be an autobiography of the author himself and is highly avoidable as per Wikipedia's rules. The tense, context and content are all confusing and is not of encyclopaedic standard. Ajayupai95 (talk) 13:01, 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. Nominator has been indefinably blocked as a sock and no one else has supported deletion. J04n(talk page) 00:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucien Jayasuriya

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

Non notable person. Davidjohn13 (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - a poor article that needs development. However, he has achieved fellowship of a number of seemingly highly reputable organisations, which I think indicates he is of some recognised importance. Sionk (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling is wrong. if you search as Lucian Jayasuriya there are many more references to his work, He was Additional Secretary Ministry of Health and Director General of Health Services in addition to being the president of the National Medical Association and chairman of the body regulating Medical Education in the country.

Changing name to Lucian Jayasuriya may change the nature of this discussion to the fact that the article is poorly written, badly referenced and not to the fact that Dr Jayasuriya is a non notable person. The misspelling of the subjects name should be corrected to ensure that this discussion is carried out according to the standards expected of wikipedia

I suspect hat this discussion originated through a simple google search under the wrong spelling of the subjects name in this article

I say keep but it needs extensive rewriting.

Vishwakoshaya (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There actually seem to be more mentions of him under 'Lucien Jayasuriya'. He's often quoted in news articles and mentioned briefly. Sionk (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the copy and paste move, and restored the VfD nomination. (No vote from me.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does it make a difference to the discussion if the person requesting the deletion has been tagged as a sock puppet and blocked indefinitely? Under the circumstances should we be considering the tag as an act of vandalism particularly when a senior editor has declined the nomination for deletion in the page Davidjohn13 and continuing the discussion on vandalism particularly considering the annotation about A7? Liannalianna (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin: please note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vrghs jacob. --Rs chen 7754 20:50, 22 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) 00:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Lee (academic)

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

Article about a political commentator and Associate Professor, but I can find no reliable independent coverage about him. I can't find any reliable reviews about his book, "Will China Fail?" either. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Sionk (talk) 12:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

?. Has this BLP come to AfD before? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, In attempting to search for references to indicate notability as defined by WP:GNG, WP:PROF, and WP:ANYBIO I found no significant coverage where the subject is the primary subject of the source. Therefore, not finding sources to verify notability of the subject, deletion is the appropriate course.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preserve, An independent profile on John Lee can be found here: http://www.aberdeen-asset.com/aam.nsf/tradingplaces/speakersjohnL

Self-written. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

This article in the Washington Times by Kim Holmes, VP of Foreign Policy at the Heritage Foundation also refers to the work of Prof Lee (especially his book Will China Fail?) in an exceptionally favourable tone: http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2010/11/freedom-trumps-chinas-economic-model A google search on John Lee will reveal that Prof Lee from Sydney University is the first person that comes up, indicating a strong presence from a number of reputable sources. A search of "john lee china" reveals even more about Dr. Lee and his work which is extensive and in highly prominent and reputable sources. One review of his book, Will China Fail?, can be found here: http://www.viet-studies.info/kinhte/will_china_fail.htm One of many independent articles based on Prof Lee's work can be found here: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/11/the-losers-in-chinas-leadership-transition/264966/ Another can be found here from the Far Eastern Economic Review: http://www.viet-studies.info/kinhte/will_china_fail.htm And also here: http://chinabookreviews.weebly.com/4/post/2008/06/1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.83.137 (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC) — 121.217.83.137 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

?. Is there some connection here? Xxanthippe (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Seems to be no pass of WP:Prof#C1 from GS. I can't see much else. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:29, 22 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bunkley

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

Seems non-notable (WP:BIO) - in the best case, on the very cusp of notability. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find plenty of routine reporting by the subject, so he is clearly a man with a verifiable job, but I have located no coverage about the subject as is needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per AllyD. Plenty of news hits by this NYT journalist but having trouble finding non-self referential sources about him. Funny ^Pika! 12:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 20 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) 00:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fishbowl Inventory

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

Article appears to be purely promotional in content ★★Retro Lord ★★ 10:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy-edit to remove promotional tone. The topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples of significant coverage in reliable sources includes: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If it is kept, for how many more months will this purely promotional article remain on the wiki before someone comes along and copy edits it? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 09:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it really annoys you, that is why WP:SOFIXIT shows up as a strong recommendation. Editing pages is much harder than trying to delete it. This may take years, not merely months and that doesn't matter as Wikipedia doesn't have to be 100% perfect and will still be around decades from now. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It may need some copy editing and cleanup, but that is not rationale for deletion. If you want to put some cleanup notes with some specific problems asking for editors to help improve the article, that would be strongly recommended. Otherwise, cite a specific policy point that this article violates that would justify its deletion from Wikipedia. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am currently working on this article to bring up to Wikipedia's standards of quality. I apologize for not getting it quite right the first time. It's always a learning process on Wikipedia and anywhere online, really. Thank you for your patience. I don't think it will take months to fix this. I've already removed much of the content that could be deemed questionable. Robertlo9 (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have cleaned up the Products section, which appears to be the biggest problem on the page. Please let me know if those changes are adequate and if more are required. Thank you. Robertlo9 (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up some more. I deleted one paragraph that was contributing nothing to the article but promotion> — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:49, 24 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 Finnish exonyms#Russia. J04n(talk page) 00:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish exonyms (Ingria)

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnish exonyms (Sweden), this article is essentially a list of translations from Russian to Finnish. Whilst it might be suitable for Russian and/or Finnish Wikipedia, it is unnecessary in English Wikipedia. If anyone needs to know the Finnish name for a Russian place, then the interwiki links on the place's article would help. Bazonka (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Bazonka (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bazonka (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --DonaldDuck (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Finnish exonyms#Russia. Ingria was largely Finnish-speaking up until the last three hundred years, so most of the names listed are actually the local historic names of the places. However, the list is short, and most (but not all) of the names are already listed under Finnish exonyms#Russia - so adding the rest there would not be a problem. PWilkinson (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Finnish exonyms#Russia is the logical solution. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 22:16, 24 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. If anyone would like to merge any of this I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 10:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish exonyms for places in Norway: Troms

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnish exonyms (Sweden), this article is essentially a list of translations from Norwegian to Finnish. Whilst it might be suitable for Norwegian and/or Finnish Wikipedia, it is unnecessary in English Wikipedia. If anyone needs to know the Finnish name for a Norwegian place, then the interwiki links on the place's article would help. It could be merged into Finnish exonyms for places in Norway, but I have also nominated that for deletion. Bazonka (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Bazonka (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Bazonka (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:If the decision is a keep, please look at the links Hatten is in Niedersachsen, also in Alsace, -Nasen is a charitable organisation. Now to the quiz question- do we keep. For an English researcher encountering Kolsevuopionvankka- this article is maybe the only article Google finds and this will lead through to quite a bit of information about this part of Troms. If it does go then the data needs to be transcribed through to several articles so the minority langauge is represented. Could this be c&p'd over to Wikivoyage?--ClemRutter (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed all the inappropriate links, which now means that the list only has three blue links left. I really don't see the point. Bazonka (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Considering that Wikipedia has articles about hardly any of these Norwegian places, it's unclear to me why we would need a list of what they are called in Finnish. This is the English Wikipedia. If the Finnish Wikipedia wants this list, they can have it transwikied over to there. Some of these may not even be proper names. The exonym for Horsnesvatnet, a pond in Storfjord municipality, is "Järvi", which just means "lake" in Finnish. The exonym for Bukta, an inlet at sea in the same municipality, is "Lahti", which just means "bay" in Finnish. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Considering that Wikipedia has articles about hardly any of these Norwegian places, it's unclear to me why we would need a list of what they are called in Finnish." is the sort of view why wikipedia has grown so unevenly. That we do not have articles on most of them does not mean they are not notable or warmly appreciated here. I think this is useful for not only identifying the features but for those which have Finnish names.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge selectively. As Dt.B and I explained for the general article, that this is the English WP means that this is the WP written in English -- we cover the entire world, to the extent that people who can write in English come here to write the articles. But some of the items listed here are places about which we should have articles, and the information should be transferred to the main list. That would include all the villages, rivers, fjords, mountains, and probably lakes & peninsulas. It would not include the streams, ponds, hills, moors, marshes and inlets. Unless it should happen that one of these is actually important, we'll never have articles on them, and more than we would if they were in England. If we mention them in an article, we can include the local Kven or Finnish name. DGG ( talk ) 14:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. No need for this on English WP as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 22:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICTONARY which I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned on this debate. Dr. Blofeld keep comment is more like oh a bunch of redlinks, keep them for that, which isn't grounded in policy. Secret ^account 03:31, 25 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of football matches broadcast on SingTel mio TV

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

I guess the sport program is notable, but not the list of every game they broadcasted. This list adds nothing to the sports program nor to the games played. But it does add promo and is a coat rack for almost 150 external links. The Banner talk 09:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTDIR. An unencyclopedic list containing details of European football matches over the last 4 months shown on a Singaporean IPTV channel. Funny ^Pika! 12:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and FunnyPika. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, point #4. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - horrendous WP:NOTDIR failure, I simply can't think of any reason why this level of detail would be even remotely encyclopedic -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:NOTDIR. Giant Snowman 14:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SNOW close. Clearly not appropriate for Wikipedia. C 679 09:26, 22 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.

Candace Dempsey

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Social anxiety disorder(Book)

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

The book appears to exist, according to Amazon and similar websites, but has received no reviews that could be discovered and is not referred to in any available reliable source. Fails WP:GNG Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From the screenshots on the selling sites, this appears to be published via Lambert Academic Publishing. No references, no evidence of meeting WP:NBOOK. (In the world of today, a speedy category is really needed for books, in my opinion.) AllyD (talk)
Delete , If you really want to delete it , You Can put it as a source in the main article of Social Anxiety Disorder, This book was written By Fadi Arodaki who is my brother.GhiathArodaki (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no reliable sources to show that this book is ultimately notable per WP:NBOOK. It exists, but existing is not notability. I would argue against putting it in the SAD article, as there is nothing to show that this is a particularly noteworthy book about the disorder that would merit it being added. There are already a variety of sources in the article and a selection of books in a "further reading" section, so at this point we need to be selective about what we include in the article. I don't mean this to sound insulting, but unless your brother is a particularly noteworthy person in his field (which doesn't seem to be the case here), the book shouldn't be added. We can't add every book by every author to the article and at this point we have to be very selective about what we use as sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Faris El-Gwely (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 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 delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Petsguide

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

Non-notable magazine. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage found of subject to prove notability per WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:03, 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 closing as speedy keep. Nominator's comments at User talk:Mike Rosoft#Sorry for the AfD..., plus WP:SNOW seem to be sufficient indication that this can safely be closed early. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sakthikulangara

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

Possible importance but limited content and context, with no indication of significance. Article can be retained if expanded. Ajayupai95 (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Villages are generally notable, as long as reliable sources exist. In fact, this article is better than the most pages about villages of India; the village has its website, which can be used to expand the article. (The original version of the article was copied from the website.) Keep. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as norm for settled places. AllyD (talk) 07:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, genuine places are considered notable. We really ought to have a 'Village' template which contains some wording about this to save AfD time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent. —Theopolisme (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:15, 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. No policy based keep !votes, default to delete — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of American public officials convicted of crimes

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

This was considered for deletion in 2009 (nominated by me) and it was kept on the grounds that it could be improved. But it has not been improved since then. My contention is that the list inherently violates WP:NPOV by indiscriminately preferring some officials and crimes over others. Obvious examples: there are no governors; some of those convicted through Watergate are listed and some not; Patrick Kennedy, who was given probation, is included, while Dan Rostenkowski, who did serious time (along with dozens of other congressmen who have been to jail), is not; and of course "public officials" is ridiculously broad--there are probably thousands of American public officials who have been convicted of crimes. Given that there is no way this list could be or will be edited to give due weight to each crime that falls within its category, it is biased, and about some of the most contentious issues in American society. Renaming it is impossible without completely changing the scope as written; for example, I'd have no objection to a list of members of congress convicted of crimes, but that would leave out all the Watergate people (and there have been so many that aren't here that it would be just as easy to start over from scratch). It's time to delete this. Chick Bowen 06:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per WP:DEL, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.". The list is stated to be incomplete and it is our policy that articles may be imperfect. AFD is not cleanup but I have demonstrated that improvement is quite feasible by adding a good source: Mark Grossman (2003), Political Corruption in America: An Encyclopedia of Scandals, Power, and Greed, ABC-CLIO, ISBN 9781576070604. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs)

Last AfD was four years ago. Re-nom is acceptable p b p 23:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment - Inherent problems with the parameters. We are informed that this is a list "which includes only those in the highest levels of the executive, legislative, or judicial branches," but then you've got two presidential advisors (arguably not "public officials" at all), a congressman, and an Attorney General listed for the "Executive Branch." Then you've got five more or less random Congressmen and a US Senator, plus a Vice President, who is a member of the Executive Branch, listed for "Legislative Branch." And exactly one judge for "Judicial Branch." A truly pathetic effort, issues of coatracking and the utter lack of of historical context or logical connection between any of these aside. What about Governors? State legislators? Are these not the "highest level" of politics for their respective states? Oh, so you mean federal officials then? Completely worthless list, illogical and poorly executed, uncompletable. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The parameters are not inherent as the article has not had them for most of its life and they just seem to have been added as the idea of one editor during the previous AFD. It will be a trivial matter to develop the list by basing upon a substantial source such as Political Corruption in America: An Encyclopedia of Scandals, Power, and Greed. Note also that we have category:American politicians convicted of crimes which seems much the same. Warden (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So an elected county commissioner convicted of Driving Under the Influence of intoxicants would have been includable in this piece "for most of its life"?!?! Yikes. I don't have a problem with a category, I do have a problem with a stand-alone article, which is like a deep pocket around a molar and apt to catch food and bacteria and gunk and to get infected. There is no logical connection between the figures on this list. List of persons convicted in the Teapot Dome scandal or List of persons convicted in the Iran-Contra scandal and suchforth would be encyclopedic and fine, in my opinion. This is an amorphous catch-all (which incidentally catches almost nothing) and is thus simultaneously inherently problematic as a magnet for POV warriors and ineffective as an internal navigational device. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been around for 7 years and doesn't seem to have attracted any inappropriate cases like your straw man. So the rhetoric about teeth is just a fanciful way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Against this we can set the existence of multiple third party encyclopedia such as the Encyclopedia of Corruption in American Politics which demonstrate the notability of the topic per WP:LISTN. Warden (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually more a question of WP:ITSHOULDNTBEHERE for me. We keep seeing a cite for the same "encyclopedia of corruption" as if that is somehow synonymous with the subject here, which it is not. Carrite (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the second encyclopedia that I have cited and I cite a third one below. Warden (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Richhoncho (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad nomination. Don't game the system by nominating the same article repeatedly. This is an obvious encyclopedic topic. All of these events get coverage of course. I'm rather surprised the list isn't much longer. No valid reason to delete it. It would be useful to list the years they were convicted for all entries, and perhaps add in a column feature for easy sorting. Dream Focus 19:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the last AfD was in 2009. Perfectly acceptable to re-nom now. Also, you haven't considered WP:NOT p b p 23:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things, folks. First of all, I really don't see how it's "gaming the system" to relist an article after four years when there has been no improvement. In any case, my actions are immaterial to the question at hand, which is whether the article meets WP:NPOV. Also, a book on "Corruption in American Politics" has been mentioned several times. Please note that we have List of United States federal officials convicted of corruption offenses, List of United States state officials convicted of federal corruption offenses, List of United States local officials convicted of federal corruption offenses, which are clearly encyclopedic topics. The list under discussion does not address corruption, but any crime, and indeed several of those listed committed crimes that have nothing to do with their office. Chick Bowen 20:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiment that it is extremely bad form for a single editor to nominate a Keep-ed article at AfD a second time. However, community standards do change and the standards for lists in particular have been trending towards "more stringent" rather than "more loose." I don't find this particular second nomination unreasonable. My two cents. Carrite (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem that anyone, including the nominator, did anything much with the article since the last AFD — the talk page is almost empty — and so that's just WP:NOEFFORT. Warden (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:NOEFFORT is just an opinion piece, an essay. Carrite (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As there are several lists and categories to which the nominator does not object, this might be made into an umbrella list of lists for the most part. There are other crimes which are politically and historically significant too. Chappaquiddick is a major example here and that appears as an entry in The New Encyclopedia of American Scandal, for example. A similar example in the UK recently is Chris Huhne#Conviction for perverting the course of justice in which a motoring offense blew up and brought down the minister. Warden (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. What does Chappaquiddick have to do with Teapot Dome and what does that have to do with Iran-Contra? Nothing. Absolutely no logical connection. Each of those have articles, there will be nothing lost by putting this poor idea for an article to permanent rest... Carrite (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a far inferior content fork of the encyclopedic articles List of United States federal officials convicted of corruption offenses, List of United States state officials convicted of federal corruption offenses, List of United States local officials convicted of federal corruption offenses. Carrite (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT: What exactly constitutes a public official? A city councilman in Anadarko, Oklahoma? The Harding County game warden? And what constitutes a crime? A parking ticket? Public urination? Sure, the people in this article, and sometimes even the crimes they committed, are notable. But NOT trumps the GNG. The reason it makes sense for specific crimes lists to exist while this one is deleted are that they are more clearly defined than this article. People know what murder is. People know what treason is. People know what bribery is. A "crime"? Not so much p b p 23:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we are listing those found guilty of perjury, unlawfully withholding information, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and whatnot, not just corruption as the other list do list. Its important to show how many times elected officials have been found guilty of these things. The list can be renamed to have "Federal government" in it somewhere, since that's all it list. Dream Focus 00:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Its important to show how many times elected officials have been found guilty of these things". That is a by-the-book POV statement. Wikipedia's job isn't to argue that all politicians are corrupt, nor is it to argue that all politicians are upstanding. And as for the "whatnot", that's the rub, what constitutes whatnot. Far better to have lists of a few significant crimes. p b p 06:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing that all politicians are corrupt, just listing those that have been found guilty of that in a court of law. Since corruption is a huge part of politics, and all crimes have ample coverage when a politician at the federal level is involved, and these crimes do in fact affect their positions, people voting against them in the next election, if it not major enough to force them out of office entirely. Dream Focus 10:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the vague and unclear requirements and the better formed articles which overlap on the subject listed above.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague overgeneralizing content fork of other articles that Carrite mentioned. This list's inclusion criteria is so vague that you could probably insert Thomas Paine there.--Staberinde (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an alphabetical-by-branch list of American public officials of the Federal government convicted of crimes or misdemeanors. Dream Focus 18:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Staberinde is right; Paine would meet the criteria you name. He was secretary of the Congressional Committee on Foreign Affairs, so he was a federal official, and years later was convicted of sedition in absentia in Britain. Chick Bowen 21:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's just stupid. You have to use common sense on these things. He was not convicted of any crime that anyone in America then or now or ever would consider a crime. Foreign leaders in the crazy nations convict in absentia, recent American presidents, of various war crimes and whatnot, but we don't take them seriously. And he wasn't part of the American Federal Government, he held that job before the United States of America existed, so it wouldn't meet there criteria anyway. Dream Focus 23:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV WP:BLP violating content fork with no certain criteria for inclusion. Secret ^account 06:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any list that can include such a wide range of individuals (public officials?) by crime (which crime? what crime?) can and must fail POV and WP:BLP. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:Content fork with some apparent POV; inclusion criteria are indiscriminate; seriously incomplete -- particularly in view of the broad inclusion criteria; and the selectivity inherent in its incompleteness creates a BLP issue. It was reasonable to keep it 4 years ago, on expectation of improvement, but nothing happened. (There were only about a dozen edits between the end of the last AfD and the beginning of this one; most of those edits were changes to the categories.) Unless this is a totally transformed article (i.e., near-FL quality) by the end of this discussion, it's time to delete the article. --Orlady (talk) 17:10, 21 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Merston

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

Subjects notability is not established atnair (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is unreferenced, and I was unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a ref. to a biographical entry found via Google Books. This probably needs input from someone acquainted with military decorations as to whether the subject's decorations (verified against that biography) are enough to denote notability? AllyD (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, see WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Fails WP:SOLDIER; no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to be considered notable per WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. EricSerge (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 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. Meets WP:GNG and criterion #1 of WP:NBAND. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hard Lessons

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

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

Band fails to meet notability requirements. Criteria number ten appears to be the only one met by this act. Additionally, the page appears to have been created by the band itself.Hsxeric (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I've added just a sampling of the many sources available; the subject meets criterion #1 of WP:BAND. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paul Erik's additions, which demonstrate the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Gong show 08:51, 21 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Danza

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

Hasn't played in a fully pro match, which means he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. He hasn't received any significant coverage either. So he also fails WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 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 redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2010. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Potosnak

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

Article that makes no real claim of notability besides having been an unsuccessful candidate in an election (failing WP:POLITICIAN.) Article was kept the first time because of that old classic fallacy that Wikipedia somehow accords a greater degree of notability to unelected candidates in pending elections than we do to unelected candidates in past elections — except for one thing: we don't — and at any rate, he's now an unelected candidate in a past election, and there's still been no particularly strong evidence of additional notability since. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN, his only claim to notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Bearcat. I had this article on my watchlist as a potential AFD candidate, since he is one of about a dozen unsuccessful candidates who have no notability outside their runs for office. Horologium (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think he satisfies the general notability guideline, though admittedly without a lot of room to spare. In addition to being a candidate, he is director of the New Jersey chapter of a notable agency, the League of Conservation Voters, and there has been some coverage of him in this role, though it doesn't currently appear to be in the article. Neutron (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ORG#Local units of larger organizations, the subject of this article is not primarily notable for being a member of the organization, and said organization would normally be redirected to its parent organization article if not independently notable. Moreover, as not having a significant national leadership position of the parent organization, the subject isn't notable in that regard IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article provides multiple reliable and verifiable sources about the individuals, covering his career in education and politics. Not our greatest article, but notability is established. Alansohn (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 16 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2010; although the subject has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, the majority of that coverage is related to an event, that being the election of 2010, therefore the subject falls under WP:BLP1E. Furthermore, the subject is not notable per WP:POLITICIAN; as such the appropriate thing to do is to redirect the article to the election which is the event which the subject is primarily notable for. If the subject becomes notable for things outside of those related to the event, the article deletion can be reviewed, and if approved, redirected.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2010. RightCow has it right, misses WP:POLITICIAN and his significant coverage is all related to one event. EricSerge (talk) 18:44, 20 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. My mistake. I have verified, and he eventually passed NFOOTBALL. Apologies. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elhad Naziri

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

Fails ~~WP:NFOOTBALL~~ WP:GNG. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He actually meets WP:NFOOTBALL because he appeared in an international match with Azerbaijan. Needs improvement to meet WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, was that an international one? Well, then I'd change my rationale, as he still needs to meet GNG. Thanks! — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Michael says, the subject passes the subject-specific notability guideline WP:NFOOTBALL because he has played at full senior international level. The point of subject-specific guidelines is to set a standard at which the subject of the article can be presumed to meet the general notability guideline, and to allow time for the article about the subject (note the difference) to be improved to demonstrate the validity of that presumption. This article has been in existence for thirteen (13) hours. That isn't quite enough time..... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Michael.--NovaSkola (talk) 15:04, 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 redirect to Porridge (TV series)#Cast. The history will remain incase anyone wants to merge this or any of the other character pages. J04n(talk page) 10:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warren (Porridge)

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

Unreferenced for more than 6 years. A search on Google and Google Books returned no sources that could be used to establish notability. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Porridge (TV)#Cast (which should probably be renamed "Characters" if this happens), along with the other minor characters, e.g. Harris (Porridge), who might deserve a cursory couple sentences in the series's article. Failing that, delete. Storkk (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest that your !vote be better formulated as Merge into Porridge (TV)#Cast. Merge implies Merge & redirect as one cannot merge without redirecting and avoid violating the attribution editing guideline, in other words, merge and delete is a no-no. Avoid confusion with redirect (WP:ATD-R), which is a distinctly different option. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure how this would be confusing to a closing admin, considering this is a discussion and not a vote (there's a reason for the exclamation mark you used before the word "vote"): I'm describing what I believe should happen to the page (and indeed the other relevant pages, as I implied). I understand it may be slightly redundant: what I meant to convey is that the page should end up as a redirect, but I wanted to emphasize that there may be a sentence or two per character that might be worth saving for the article. Storkk (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Porridge (TV series)#Cast {{R from cast member}} – My online search for sources turned up: IMDb • British Comedy Guide. One would probably need to search 1970s TV guides and newspapers for anything more authoritative. I have no problem with removing it from the encyclopedia as I feel that Porridge (TV series) has an adequate overview of the series' characters, and detailed information on each character may be too much information for a general encyclopedia. However I point out that template {{Porridge}} includes nine other characters, and none of them are referenced either: Norman Stanley Fletcher • Lennie Godber • Ingrid Fletcher • Mr Mackay • Mr Barrowclough • 'Genial' Harry Grout • Blanco Webb • McClaren (Porridge) • Lukewarm (Porridge). Each of these articles was started 27–28 July 2004‎ by Crestville (talk). It seems arbitrary to delete this one Porridge character without deleting the others as well. This article was previously nominated for a merge into Porridge (TV series) in May 2009, however that "merge" was completed a week later via deletion by redirection (see Porridge (TV series): June 2009 Revision history). The idea of merging just this one article without merging the others as well also seems arbitrary to me. I see that the deletion by redirection policy (WP:ATD-R) says: "Sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect. In these cases, deletion is not required; any user can boldly redirect to another article. If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made on the talk page to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect." Crestville and others obviously feel this topic is worthwhile, as they have put some time & effort into these articles. While I'm inclined to steer them to IMDb (I've never contributed there, so I'm unfamiliar with their citation policies), as long as these pages don't have copyright violations or other show-stoppers, I see no harm in redirecting them to Porridge (TV series)#Cast, where some future editor willing to locate 1970s-era sources which establish notability, might find them and more easily resurrect them. Maintaining the history in redirects is a way of letting other editors know that there is some level of interest in the topic. I'm disinclined to support a merge, as this is all unreferenced material, priority should be given to referenced material, and there is a large backlog at Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion—unless a merge supporter here volunteers to actually do the merge. I advise opening a deletion discussion on the other {{Porridge}} characters as well. Is there a way to convert this to a centralized, multi-deletion discussion on all of these? – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC) added proposed redirect category template: {{R from cast member}} – Wbm1058 (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 8 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Porridge (TV series), where there is certainly scope for expanding the detail on characters. --Michig (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge/Archive 2#Automation of merge proposals (specifically the subsection titled Deletion by redirection), for policy and procedures discussion of this Articles for deletion case, as it relates to Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:20, 15 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) 01:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Fletch: Advice to the lovelorn, you want, is it, Warren? Compose an appropriate reply?

Warren: No, it's simpler than that, Fletch. I just want you to read it to me.

I have added a couple of sources. Warden (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good research by Colonel Warden (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) and Cirt (talk · contribs). JJ98 (Talk) 22:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Porridge (TV series)#Cast. While finding and adding sources was indeed a good move, they only demonstrate WP:ITEXISTS - they do not establish why this character is notable enough to be broken out into his own article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as none of the sources that Warren added show notability of this character. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:38, 24 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. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cretan Airways

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

This subject fails WP:CRYSTAL. It is about a proposed (and ultimately failed) business idea, so it's all just pure speculation and product announcements. The whole info that can be found originates from self-published advertizing. FoxyOrange (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. --FoxyOrange (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per above.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the opinion above, and further propose that the article violates WP:NPOV due to its product-announcement style. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 16 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) 01:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An airline that never made any flights is most likely non-notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom and others. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 09:53, 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 rename to List of advertising agencies. There was no consensus to either rename or delete, but nobody expressed any interest in keeping the article under this title. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of advertising agencies by revenue

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

no source given for revenue, nor which year. the target article may have these numbers, may not. the list should be deleted, or renamed "list of advertising agencies" with revenue removed as unsourced. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no List of advertising agencies (that title just redirects to this one), your second suggestion seems to be the only way to go. Renaming and removing the revenue column could of course been done without AFD. Speedy close? postdlf (talk) 17:33, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another laundry list. The agencies mentioned in this article could all be mentioned in the article Advertising agency, so I don't think it should be moved, merged or redirected. Epzik8 (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Moving this list into the main advertising agency article would actually be merging it. postdlf (talk) 17:42, 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 02:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as suggested above by Postdlf. The advertising revenue can still be in the chart, but the broader topic will allow other columns of data for further comparison. Them From Space 23:00, 12 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) 01:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Information is timely, not encyclopedic, and the data would be better suited as a summarized description rather than a large table of information that will regularly require update and can be found by interested parties at other sources with better results. @SmithAndTeam (talk) 17:13, 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. Sufficient evidence of notability not provided J04n(talk page) 10:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Europe Business Assembly

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

Article does not assert notability, and a google search does not appear to turn up any references which are substantial and reliable and independent. ColinFine (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the article, I'm obviously for Keep. EBA is used by many institutions and persons (quite a few of which are in Wikipedia) to assert their own notability or quality. Note that Google searches for EBA will not turn up a lot of results because of frequent misspellings ("European Business Assembly" or even "Assembly of Europe", for instance) and because it's usually not EBA, but one or several of their many different awards that are listed on websites of various institutions. In a few cases, the awards are even claimed to be "from Oxford University" (see e.g. http://www.megatrend-edu.net/prof.php?bs=mica_jovanovic). I'd also add that the article is currently under heavy edit-warring by someone probably affiliated with EBA, and that it would be a lot more useful if the criticism section hadn't been summarily deleted for the simple reason of citing a blog. --Brindt (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the EBA is a racket. It's not actually doing anything illegal, but (from the evidence in the article) it awards people prestigious-looking prizes than asks them to pay for them themselves, and it confers bogus knighthoods. Obviously the EBA itself would like a WP article which gives it some credibility, while WP would be providing a better service to its readers by warning them that the EBA is a racket. However, what is relevant here is its notability. I am inclined to think that it's not notable, but I don't feel strongly on that issue. Maproom (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 02:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two source URLs are dead links, and there doesn't seem to be extensive coverage in RS independent of the subject. Company apparently exists solely to perpetuate its existence. Miniapolis 15:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the hint, it appears that Companies House does not like direct links to company information. Fixed. I'm not sure, though, how broken links are relevant for an AfD discussion. I'm even more puzzled about the "exists solely to perpetuate its existence" bit – how is this relevant for assessing notability, and isn't this what every company, regardless of size, is striving to do? --Brindt (talk) 14:04, 19 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) 01:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that in my opinion this article fails WP:CORPDEPTH; the sources that are not self-published are primarily directory listings. Miniapolis 14:26, 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. J04n(talk page) 10:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Ashworth

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

I dont believe he ever played first team football so therefore doesnt pass wikipedia notibility Telfordbuck (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, could consider redirecting to The Football Association. Giant Snowman 15:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although there are only 4 citations a simple web search on google yeilds all the major tabloids have covered his move from WBA to the FA. A few state he played for Norwich City. If anything isn't it best to fully investigate what material is avaliable on the web and construct the article better. I am sure it can be made better and should pass WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 8 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) 00:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Could pass GNG if his professional career was expanded. Fenix down (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For info, he never played professionally for Norwich........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:30, 16 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) 01:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't care about his career, but he's been the director of the FA's Elite Development program, which has got to be a grounds for notability on its own. As does the role he held at WBA.[7][8][9][10][11] Based on those, I'm wondering: has anyone actually looked for ANY sources? Lukeno94 (talk) 21:16, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valdas Pocevičius

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

Subject fails WP:NMMA with no fights for any top tier organization. LlamaAl (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nomination is solid against WP:NMMA. No top tier fights, let alone 3, as described at WP:MMATIER. No significant coverage outside WP:ROUTINE for his events and does not meet WP:GNG as the alternate policy. Mkdw ^talk 22:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep had 3 top tier fights in RINGS, the essay known as MMATIER does not specify unlike the Shooto portion, in 2002 thus making notable. Sepulwiki (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those fights were for Rings Lithuania, not for Fighting Network RINGS. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At Sherdog it lists the RINGS Lithuania fights under Fighting Network Rings. Mkdw ^talk 20:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are Rings Lithuania, Rings Holland, but the top tier is RINGS. --LlamaAl (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many top ten ranked fighters fought under RINGS Holland, how is it not considered top tier? Type RINGS Holland into the search engine and you will see even Japanese fighters from the RINGS you concider top tier also coexisted under the RINGS Holland promotion, seems all are one in the same just in different countries. Sepulwiki (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - As WP:NMMA currently stands, all RINGS fights between 1995 and 2002 count as top-tier. It may well be narrowed down later, but that's for a different discussion at a different time. As it stands now, he passes. Luchuslu (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 7 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 01:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to point out that despite User:Sepulwiki having a considerable number of edits, they !vote 100% keep for only MMA related articles with only a 32% rate of matching consensus. Mkdw ^talk 07:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And why exactly is that relevant? He's a registered user in good standing, so he gets a vote just like everyone else. Luchuslu (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's relevant for the discussion and for the closing admin. Sepulwiki's votes are never based on policies or guidelines. --LlamaAl (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI if you look a few lines above this, he made a ~~policy~~ argument for keep. Luchuslu (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What policy? MMATIER? --LlamaAl (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was talking about WP:NMMA which is a guideline. Either way, you get my point. Luchuslu (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It shows an indiscriminate trend and lack of comprehension about applying policies/guidelines to articles regardless of their state making their assessment habitually either wrong or 100% of the time influenced by ulterior motives than creating notable articles of MMA fighters. If they disagree with NMMA's outline, they need to take it to RFC and not use the AfD process as their battleground for disruption. Mkdw ^talk 20:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I simply feel it's unfair to make that stipulation in an AfD. From what I've noticed in his voting patern, outside of TUF fights, he's given policy reasons for all of his keep votes. That's more than can be said about many users in the past few year who just argue WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Luchuslu (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would not invalidate people also mentioning that they're habitually use WP:ATA. A weak argument from others in the past is not a precedent for future editors who indiscriminately keep. I'm not saying User:Sepulwiki is a bad editor. I'm saying in regards to AfD's, he hasn't shown a good record of applying guidelines and policies that follow the consensus, most likely due to the fact that he only argues 'keep' and not on a case-by-case basis otherwise there would be deletes in there. Mkdw ^talk 20:34, 15 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the intention of WP:NMMA. The guidelines may not specifically call out that Rings Lithuania isn't the same as Fighting Network RINGS, but common sense dictates that it's not a top tier organization. CaSJer (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As stated before, look at the list of Rings events on Sherdog. If you want to have a discussion about changing WP:NMMA to only include Rings events that took place in Japan, we can do so on the talk page. But for now as WP:NMMA is listed, Rings Lithuania counts. Luchuslu (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with LlamaAl's interpretation of the meaning of Rings in the WP:MMATIER essay. I don't think we have to procedurally keep a fighter just because there's a glitch in the tier list that hasn't been corrected yet. We should correct the glitch, but that doesn't mean this guy should automatically sneak through when he has no other fights for a legitimate top tier organization. CaSJer (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep multiple fights in Shooto and Rings so he should pass WP:NMMA. Green Man 20 (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Green Man 20 has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of Entity of the Void. Papaursa (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please note that at WP:MMANOT Shooto Lithuania fights do not count as top tier--only the original Shooto. I think common sense would indicate the same things for Rings. If so, then he has no top tier fights and fails WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between Shooto Lithuania and Rings Lithuania is that Shooto considers its international branches as seperate leagues. Its events in Luthuania were part of Shooto Europe. Rings simply had events in Holland and Lithuania that were considered part of the main Rings organization but featured mostly local fighters. It's not an apples to apples comparison. Luchuslu (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much of a difference with Shooto Lithuania and Rings Lithuania--they both loaded up on local fighters and that's hardly convincing enough to show they're top tier. It really does the opposite.Mdtemp (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently consensus at the MMA project is that RINGS Lithuania is not top tier, so he fails to meet WP:NMMA. Since the article's only source is a link to his fight record at Sherdog, he doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG either. Papaursa (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per change in WP:NMMA. Luchuslu (talk) 21:35, 22 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. Note that WP:NOTENGLISH is not a reason for deleting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mojtaba Tehrani

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

Delete: impossible to gauge the notability of this individual as all source references are in Farsi; what tiny amount of explanatory text exists in the article provides no particular evidence of notability. Quis separabit? 00:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This man was a Marja', a very high ranking cleric in Shiite Islam. He was a Grand Ayatollah, and here is an article from Tehran Times about his funeral. Here is a story from Iran English Radio. Farsi sources are perfectly fine, and the article should be expanded not deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know foreign language sources are accepted but we should have some idea what they say. And I admit to not being an expert whether or not all ayatollahs are equally notable. Quis separabit? 02:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read both English language sources ([12], [13]). They are almost identical and neither provides any particular notability aside from the presence of the country's most powerful men at his funeral, which would likely be customary anyway. Quis separabit? 02:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in suspecting that all ayatollahs are not equally notable. I don't claim expertise either, but have read about Shiite Islam as an outsider for decades. The claim to notability is that he was a Marja', a Grand Ayatollah, a much higher religious rank than lower ranking ayatollahs. My understanding is that there are only about 70 Grand Ayatollahs among approximately 200 million Shiites. This book describes him as "imam of one of Tehran's largest and most important mosques". It is not impossible to gauge his notability, as we have many Farsi speaking Wikipedia editors who can assist, and Google Translate will give you a rough idea of what Farsi sources say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana University Press has published a book solely about the history and religious importance of the marja'. In my opinion, a marja' is as notable as a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church or a U.S. Senator. It is just that most of the references are likely to be in Farsi. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article a bit, adding the references discussed here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the reasons outlined about about the significance of the position. To put things in context a Grand Ayatollah is Shiite Islam's equivalent to a Catholic Cardinal. Due to its significant role, there are currently lists on wikipedia of both current and deceased marja. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_Maraji and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deceased_Maraji.Kabirat (talk) 06:33, 21 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. Michig (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ittiam Systems

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

There is no evidence of WP:CORP. I am One of Many (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough evidence has been added by referencing external listings . naufik —Preceding undated comment added 08:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the references that are not directly from Ittiam's website are press releases. We need reliable, 3^rd party sources to establish notability. Apart from the NASSCOM Innovation Award, which is unsourced (and this doesn't look good), I can't even see an assertion of notability. Storkk (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sufficient coverage at mainline newspapers in India: google search "Ittiam Systems" site:thehindu.com, google search "Ittiam Systems" site:deccanherald.com, google search "Ittiam Systems" site:telegraphIndia.com.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Simply listing search results with no analysis of the results proves nothing. Is there particular hits which you feel support notability? -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Why is that a supporter of keep has to work on it? Are others so determined to delete it? I have used few refs in the article. Now the only usage of primary source as a ref is where its authorized representatives are, which is very difficult for a 3rd party source to acknowledge or claim.--GDibyendu (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - As somebody advocating keeping the article, you need not work on the article (although it is appreciated, so thanks!), but to effectively refute the nomination, specific articles are needed. Simply pointing to search results with no analysis of the result is essentially counting Google hits which is generally not been accepted as a valid reason for keeping an article. If you aren't familiar with AFD discussions, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is a good essay on types of arguments that are generally not accepted. -- Whpq (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~, patent nonsense and unambiguous advertising, possibly without prejudice to re-creation. Ittiam’s mission is to be a world class Embedded Software and Systems Design Company. Ittiam strives to create significant value for its customers, partners, people and investors through its technology and customer focus.....Ittiam continuously invests in R&D to build futuristic designs of high performance and high quality. Customers who license Ittiam designs benefit from the technology differentiation and the time-to-market advantage gained for their products. Customer satisfaction is very high on Ittiam’s priority and Ittiam topping the Forward Concepts’ DSP Professionals Survey as the Most Preferred DSP IP Supplier in every edition during the period 2004-2007 is an acknowledgement of the same from satisfied customers across the industry. While minor trade awards don't count much for notability, this isn't even an attempt at writing an encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The material was copied directly from the company website. I've removed it. I don;t have time to review any further but I suggest that this version of the article is not spammy, and represents a more neutral tone so a speedy deletion is unwarranted. -- Whpq (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum - I've had to remove so much material I have restored the body text back to the one in the history. This version is how it looked before the reversion. - Whpq (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, simply, then. The restored version isn't quite so obviously advertising, but is still vague on what they actually do. I gather that the business itself involves codecs and other AV compression and decompression software, which they develop and license to other businesses to incorporate into their products. I don't see trade awards for "Innovation", making Top 100 lists, or eveb being "The world's most preferred DSP IP supplier" as conferring encyclopedic notability on the business; and the remaining citations are to routine announcements of funding, products, or earnings. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sourcing in the article is not particularly good, and the version of the article at nomination was a promotional copyvio, but there does appear to be sources out there to establish ntoability. [14] and [15] represent to the best of teh sources I could find. They are articles that are both substantial, and feature the company as teh primary subject. Beyond that, there is coverage that is less substantial which feature the company as the primary subject: [16], [17], [18]. Additionally, there is also coverage availabel where the company is not the primary subject. -- Whpq (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason why it does not have more coverage in newspapers is probably because ittiam systems does not sell its products directly to end customers. There are many references at site:ti.com, website of Texas Instruments. If someone has access to tech magazines published in India (which are not available online), then probably more information/references can be produced. Will ask in noticeboard of WP:India.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's very different. Initially, the article was clearly delete, but with cleaning up the spammy aspects and hard work in finding reliable sources, I know think it should be kept.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Whpq's sources get me there, I'm convinced by the Economic Times and the first Hindu source--for some reason, the MSN source smells like a barely warmed press release to me. Whether I'm right or wrong about that particular source, there's enough for GNG, I feel. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:49, 15 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 00:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' enough sources for an article. Even prose like that cited by Smerdis can be fixed. Some more fixing is still needed. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been considerable improvement in this article since I nominated it. I had serious doubts that sufficient reliable independent sources existed, but I know believe the threshold has been met.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:18, 23 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) 21:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Villareal

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

Fails WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep - While he does fail WP:NMMA, he should pass WP:GNG with a few more sources. I'll try and add some over the next few days when I get the chance. "Warpath" is a very well-known fighter and more notable than a large portion of fighters that pass WP:NMMA. Luchuslu (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sources for his more notable fights and his pro wrestling career. He fought twice for Japan's biggest pro wrestling organization and has two top-tier MMA bouts. While not part of WP:NMMA, it could easily be argued that the World Fighting Alliance could be included in the top-tier ranks. I feel the preponderance of the evidence shows he passes WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you would argue that the WFA is top tier when they held 4 events in 5 years and are not currently even considered second tier. I think you could make a better case for "not notable" than "top tier". Papaursa (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WFA: King of the Streets was one of the most stacked cards in MMA history with multiple former and future champions competing. The fact that Villareal was one of the fighters in that event should count toward his notability, if not for WP:NMMA then for WP:GNG.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails WP:NMMA and currently lacks the sources to pass WP:GNG. I'll reconsider if significant non-routine coverage is added.Mdtemp (talk) 20:51, 7 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 00:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA and I don't think the fact that he had two wrestling bouts (where he went 1-1) adds to his notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. IronKnuckle (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA. GladiusHellfire (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- GladiusHellfire has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of IronKnuckle. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, we all realize Villareal does not pass the WP:NMMA, a guideline which is prefaced with "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I am arguing that he passes under the guideline WP:GNG. I have demonstrated numerous sourced which give him "more than a trivial mention," from secondary sources that do fact-check and are not blogs, that are independant of the subject. That should be enough for a keep. Luchuslu (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please just vote once. Those source look like WP:ROUTINE coverage to me.Mdtemp (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick clarification, WP:ROUTINE is part of the event notability section. This does not fall under that guideline. In fact, the word "routine" does not appear in WP:BLP or WP:GNG. If you want to argue routine coverage, use WP:NOTNEWSPAPER where it has a brief mention. Luchuslu (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction. I'll try to remember that. However, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER makes the same point--"routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."Mdtemp (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Luchuslu. Sepulwiki (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

per X; argument to avoid. I would also like to point out that Sepulwiki !votes 100% keep for only MMA related articles with only a 32% rate of matching consensus. Mkdw ^talk 07:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NMMA and when discussing WP:SIGCOV for GNG, none of the coverage appears any different than WP:Run of the mill (MMA Weekly and other MMA only publications). Mkdw ^talk 07:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Luchuslu. Entity of the Void (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC) confirmed sock puppeteer[reply]

per X; argument to avoid. Mkdw ^talk 02:01, 16 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 00:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA, and the coverage seems too routine to allow him to pass WP:GNG. I'm not seeing any signficant coverage of him outside of MMA only sources. CaSJer (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep He may only have one top tier fight in Strikeforce but he also has a win over Don Frye as well as other big fights against Dan Severn, Ricco Rodriguez, Antonio Silva and Bas Rutten he may fail WP:NMMA but should pass WP:GNG if you include his pro wrestling career. Green Man 20 (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Green Man 20 has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of Entity of the Void. Papaursa (talk) 05:06, 20 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karabakh Council

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

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

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

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

Delete - This article needs to be deleted, because:its not true'

It doesn't have any reliable source since it was created some years ago;
It gives fake information about the council which never existed. Best, Konullu (talk) 02:46, 9 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 9. Snotbot t • c » 03:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable source in article. It was written in order to promote propaganda. --Verman1 (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, until a creditable case for it's being a hoax is made. It is certainly inadequately referenced, but it:Consiglio_del_Karabakh seems to give what may be a print reference.Sparafucil (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There was no goverment of Nagorno-Karabakh during 1918-1920. Therefore, there was not any council of non-exist goverment. Alismayilov(talk) 9:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC+1)
Delete No sources for such a council. Hittit (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article lacks reliability with only one referenced link and many statements miss citations making the article inaccurate and not fact based. 212.10.32.89 (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable source in article. It was written in order to promote propaganda and it tries to give fake information about an organisation which never existed ahuseynov86 11:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete - All the fake information around. Delete the article , everything is fake here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.217.148.122 (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC) EyyubVEVO (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The English article only supplies a dead link, yes, but here is a print source, easily googlable. If the deletion request is being made in good faith and it's indeed a hoax I'm open to persuasion, but for now it's looking like the burden of proof is the other way around. Sparafucil (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Google for Emanuele Aliprandi, it is very "strange" that there is no information online about researcher and his other publications. Only Armenian sources talk about this book. If he were professor or researcher, he would have personal page on the web-site of the institution where he works (most of this kind of researchers even have their own page). Best, 195.212.29.185 (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sorting link, Gene93k! I've noticed the wording of this Afd is identical to WP:Articles for deletion/Armenian Congress of Eastern Armenians. No doubt Konullu knows more about both subjects than I do myself, but for an I've never heard of it argument to work he should demonstrate how much more. Sparafucil (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sparafucil. Even the briefest look in Google Books shows that there was a power vacuum in N-K 1918-1920 and given Armenian and Azerbaijani claims about that an article is notable even if the present title may need changing to Armenian and Azerbaijani claims on Karabakh 1918-1920 or something more neutral. Obviously it's a concern that Emanuele Aliprandi seems to be the only researcher working on the topic. The Azerbaijani source I found and added telling the other view isn't exactly academic in its approach. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a reliable source confirming that this existed, so the "delete" opinions based on it not existing can be discounted. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several other sources covering this, e.g. this - renaming the article seems a good idea. Some of the delete voting here seems suspicious. --Michig (talk) 10:16, 16 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 00:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, but I hope that there will be more sources that surface later to help better the article. Dreambeaver(talk) 01:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OUTCOME Outcome is clear delete, vote is complete and comments are provided. Why are these discussions kept still going? Hittit (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome is far from a clear delete. Most of the "delete" opinions claim that the subject did not exist, which has been proven to be incorrect, so those opinions should be discounted. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hittit. Verbatim as Phil Bridger: Most of the "delete" opinions claim that the subject did not exist, which has been proven to be incorrect, so those opinions not only should be discounted, but already have been. Participation in AfD discussions on notability requires ability and willingness to look for sources. Please take note. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thirty seconds of searching confirms that this article is about a real and notable subject. — C M B J 01:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think that this article should not stand on its own, as it is a part of a history of a country, a very specific, should we discuss about the council which was formed to start the militar regime on Germany or Brazil or Chile? It is unnecessary, I think this article should be merged into its parent article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, we should start articles on those councils as well. It just hasn't happened yet. — C M B J 11:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eduemoni, sorry, what are you identifying as "parent article"? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable; sources turn up if you put a little effort forth with your searching. It seems to me, however, that it may have been called the "National Council". Once source (albeit an official, Armenian one) notes that Nagorno-Karabakh was effectively a state from 1918-1920, and others suggest a lack of established external authority. dci | TALK 20:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep there is evidence for it existence, and sources are available to make a NPOV article. Temporary governments during conflicts or of disputed areas are appropriate for separate articles , because there is otherwise fair way to cover them. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 23 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Design and Developement

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

Non-notable specific academic course at specific school. Suggest merger to The Science Academy of South Texas. Woodshed (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 29 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct the spelling and redirect to Project Lead the Way. If the information in the article is reliably sourced (I can't tell), merge that information to both that article and The Science Academy of South Texas. When I looked at this AfD and article, I recognized Project Lead the Way as the name of a national curriculum. I discovered that an article about it had been PRODed some time ago, so I undeleted the old article, took it to my user space, and built it to the point of being a credible contribution with citations to independent sources. It turns out that "Engineering Design and Development" is the capstone course in this program's engineering sequence. Since Project Lead the Way is an academic program that enrolls the kinds of teenagers who are often included to contribute to Wikipedia (and sometimes contribute articles about their favorite classes), it's probably a good idea to keep a redirect to this course name. --Orlady (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to explicitly indicate the point (implicit in my comment) that I agree with the nominator that this particular school course is not independently notable. --Orlady (talk) 01:46, 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 01:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not redirect. Greglocock (talk) 01:25, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this course (even with proper spelling) is individually notable. The term is too generic to justify a redirect. AllyD (talk) 08:59, 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 and history-merge into the newly written Armenian National Congress (1917). The new article was created after the AfD, which means it would normally count as a content fork. But whatever the technicalities, it is now so well sourced and so substantial that the "delete" votes here have been made obsolete, especially in view of the fact that the AfD was evidently affected with tendentious and sock editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Congress of Eastern Armenians

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

Delete - This article needs to be deleted, because:

It doesn't include any reliable source since it was created some years ago;
It gives fake information about the congress that never existed. Konullu (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EyyubVEVO (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Please delete this page as it does not refer to any reliable source, which is expected, as there were no such Congress. Ricardo Shaxvelyan. 94.21.93.77 (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC) — 94.21.93.77 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yeah, "Ricardo Made-up-Armenian-name-yan". Good to see Wikipedia's traditions of sock/meat puppetry are still alive and well. Have fun! --Folantin (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It tries to give false information about an organization that never existed and no reliable source since it had been created. ahuseynov86 14:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahuseynov86 (talk • contribs)

Strong keep (Now REDIRECT - see below) Evidence that this existed is given, for example, by Stephen F. Jones in Socialism in Georgian Colors: the European Road to Social Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2005), page 259: "In late September [1917], the Congress of Eastern Armenians was convened, representing all parties and organizations. The Dashnaksutiun had 113 of the 200 or so delegates." Google Books reveals other references to its existence. --Folantin (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: redirect to Armenian National Congress (1917). Almost certainly the same thing, much better sourced article.--Folantin (talk) 20:28, 9 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 9. Snotbot t • c » 15:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I searched for the name of this congress in the book you mentioned and search results show that it was mentioned only once which was small body of the organization in South Caucasus (articles about small bodies of similar organizations are not subject to the separate WP article), this article misinterprets the facts and overestimates its role. I also searched on Google and Google Scholar, they also show zero result that can be considered reliable third-party and verifiable source. Best, Konullu (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's mentioned in books such as Hrach Tasnapetean's History of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (1990). Moreover, it's now obvious this congress is the same thing as the Armenian National Congress of 1917. (In fact there is a disambiguation notice on Wikipedia saying this at the top of the page here). See below. --Folantin (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources provided, dubious article. Hittit (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no reliable sources, facts cannot be confirmed neutrally. --Verman1 (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Um, try using Google books. The existence of this congress is now established using reliable sources. --Folantin (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's also becoming increasingly apparent that this is simply another name for the Armenian National Congress held in Tbilisi in 1917, which is very well documented indeed. See, for example, Richard G. Hovhanissian The Republic of Armenia: The First Year 1918-19 (University of California, 1971) page 16 ff. --Folantin (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the sources that Folantin mentioned can be added, then I think we have enough to establish the truth and notability of this Congress. Howicus (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should probably be renamed as Armenian National Congress (1917—18) (not entirely sure when it ended) or something like that, as Armenian National Congress appears to be its most common name in English. Unfortunately, there is also a modern coalition called Armenian National Congress, so this would mean some disambiguation. --Folantin (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As you mentioned, I read in the book "Socialism in Georgian Colors" one sentence about "Armenian Congress of Eastern Armenians". However, I don't think that one sentence mentioned in one place is enough to create one wikipedia article. Alismayilov (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above "delete" arguments and per user:Folantin. "Strong keep" implies a POV position, especially if it is based on a one-sentence (or one time, I have not read the book) reference in a book which is not a monography. --E4024 (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - user E4024 received indefinite topic ban from Armenia related articles during the time this AfD has been running.--Staberinde (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a strong bias on this page but it's not mine. It's pretty obvious that the "Congress of Eastern Armenians" Jones (in his Harvard University Press publication) is referring to is simply another term for Armenian National Congress (1917) and should be redirected there. In both the "Congress of Eastern Armenians" and the "Armenian National Congress", the Dashnaks "had 113 of the 200 or so delegates." --Folantin (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While we are discussing here, one of the users defending the "strong keep" option at the beginning, later a merger (merger with an article that s/he is the creator of :-) makes me feel like we are being kind of ... (could not find an approppriate word). Do other people not think there is something weird here? Am I the only one who feels this way? Admins, please, this is a snow and speedy delete. (Not voting twice.)We are facing a smoke-screen here. --E4024 (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is your problem? I've provided evidence, based on books, that the Congress of the Eastern Armenians and the Armenian National Congress of 1917 are one and the same thing. I have consequently created a new article at Armenian National Congress (1917), given that that is its most common name in English. It has extensive sourcing. It is encyclopaedic. Everyone interested in building an encyclopaedia should be satisfied with this. A simple redirect will solve the problem of the many pages linking to the Congress of Eastern Armenians. If this page is summarily deleted then it will be substantially more difficult to deal with and assess those links. --Folantin (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Armenian National Congress (1917). Looking at google book search results it seems to be alternative name for same entity [19].--Staberinde (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or rather redirect and now keep redirect) ...I always look at the article BEFORE the discussion, so I didn't see a redirect new article had been created, it took precisely 3 minutes in Google Books to see that this was a highly notable subject, well supported in sources, but badly titled. So why couldn't Konullu, Ricardo Shaxvelyan, Hittit, Alismayilov, Ahuseynov86, Verman1 see that? ...and what is going on. How so many editors all apparently unable to do basic AfD checks arrive at this article so quickly and be so out of line with Google books?

...and...as for E4024.. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the comments regarding the google results on this topic written above by Konullu. Could you give any proof that Armenian National Congress and Congress of Eastern Armenians are the same? Best, 195.212.29.190 (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why you are editing as an IP and talking about yourself in the third person, Konullu? Best. --Folantin (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not answer to that question. Please answer it and give evidence that they are the same. Best, Konullu (talk)

Blatant sock puppetry is a serious issue at AfD. It looks pretty obvious that there has been some tag-teaming here too. --Folantin (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are sure, please report and provide evidences for this. Best, 195.212.29.185 (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. --Folantin (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect, as seems obvious. Some boilerplate text appears at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karabakh Council as well, which might also benefit from merging. Sparafucil (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the discussion is whether Congress of Eastern Armenians and Armenian National Congress are the same. Karabakh Council has nothing to do with these congresses. Best, 195.212.29.185 (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence this did indeed exist and is the same as the Armenian National Congress (1917): Anahide Ter-Minassian devotes a whole section to it (pages 30-35) in her book La République d'Arménie 1918-20 (Editions Complexe, 2006 ed.). Under the heading Le Congrès des Arméniens orientaux (i.e. the Congress of Eastern Armenians) she begins "Le Congrès National Arménien qui s'ouvrit le 28 septembre 1917 dans les locaux du théâtre artistique de Tiflis..." ("The Armenian National Congress, which opened on 28 September 1917 on the premises of the Artistic Theatre of Tiflis..."). She refers to the congress consisting of 204 delegates, of which 113 were Dashnaks. The discrepancy between the late September date of Ter-Minassian and Jones and the early October date of Hovannisian and others can be explained by the difference between the old Julian calendar then still in use in the Russian Empire and the new Gregorian one soon to be introduced in the region. --Folantin (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, 28 September 1917 Julian calendar is 11 October 1917 Gregorian calendar. See [20]. They are the same. QED. --Folantin (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 16 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 00:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OUTCOME The outcome is clear delete, not sure what further concensus is needed here. Hittit (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a head count; it is based on arguments and evidence. There is absolutely solid academic evidence that this existed and is simply an alternative name for the Armenian National Congress (1917). --Folantin (talk) 09:18, 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. The nominator has withdrawn his nomination and no one other than the nominator recommended that the page be deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indira Kastratović

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

This was a BLPROD that has now been given a reference. That the reference is in Hungarian is not a problem. This is allowed. My contention is that there is borderline notability despite the grand claims made for this athlete in the stub article. I will be happy to be proved wrong. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would it be possible to merge her into another article?--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an article in mind that would be an decent outcome. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Macedonia never qualified for the Olympics, but three times during the career of Kastratović qualified for the World Championship (a biannual event) and two more times for European Championship (also biannual). The question is then whather World and European championships can be considered the top level competitions in this sport, as required by WP:ATHLETE. I am leaning to yes, and consequently to keep, given that qualifications must be cleared out in order for a team to be able to participate in the finals.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Playing at the world championships fulfils WP:ATHLETE, and there does apepar to be coverage, just not in English. [21] is a short peice, and [22] is a substantial writeup. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 16 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 00:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination - I have taken the larger reference from Whpq above and added it to the article. For me this verifies sufficient notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:37, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against a renomination; not enough commenting here to make a proper decision — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pelé Rap's Revolutionary

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BASIC. The references in the article either don't pass WP:RS or are about the subject's father. I don't think the YFM Hot 9 countdown or the Hype magazine profile are enough to pass WP:MUSICBIO on their own. The TV appearance doesn't automatically confer notability either. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:18, 30 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 20:50, 3 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) 00:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO guidelines have been met, but are always more difficult when sourcing notable indie artists. References to the subject and the subject's father meet WP:RS as well. TV appearances certainly do not automatically confer notability, however, in terms of music entertainment "notability" means something completely different to people 12-34 than it does to older demographics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nostrand12 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nostrand, and thanks for commenting. Could you clarify which references to the subject exactly you think pass WP:RS? I think that is the point that is going to have the most relevance for the discussion here. Also, if you think that any criteria of WP:MUSICBIO have been met other than number one, it would be helpful if you could say which ones these were. And feel free to ask me if you have any questions about any of this. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:20, 14 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) 00:16, 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 no consensus. after multiple relistings, there is no consensus. I have an opinion, but I do not want to close in accord with it DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Craftsmen Industries

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

No notability, no references, pure self-promotion Drow69 (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look, found nothing notable - so its a Delete for me. ---- _nonsense ferret 16:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News shows plenty of solid references available, many behind paywalls. They verify this is an established firm that has made over 1000 large customized vehicles for major corporate clients, Weinermobile, Giant Peanut, largest mobile LED video display, human powered buses for the GOP and Dem conventions last year. The company is notable, and the article should be improved not deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

did you see any particular references that looked significant? The ones such as I could find tended to be quite localised coverage or was very much in the line of a press release type which isn't really independent ---- _nonsense ferret 20:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense ferret, admittedly, many of the articles are from the St. Louis area, but I dont think that's disqualifying,as there are several from other cities. This is an overall profile of the company published on the occasion of the founder being named "Missouri small-business person of the year". This describes construction of a 127,200 square foot building for the company. This article talks about the unusual vehicles they build to promote products like Bud Lite and Nestea. This is an article about the company's expansion plans. This article descibes their restoration of 26 classic Checker Cabs for Surge soft drink sweepstakes prizes. This describes acquisition of majority control of the company by outside investors. This is an article from the Chicago Tribune about the "Fun House" vehicle they built for Hormel. This trade publication article describes how they built the vehicle carrying a 19 X 33 foot LED video screen, the world's largest mobile display. This article from the Virginian-Pilot describes a giant peanut vehicle they built. This article from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution also describes the peanut vehicle they built for the National Peanut Board. This TV news report from KSDK-TV describes the company's products, including the Oscar Meyer Weinermobile, a Crest toothpaste tube vehicle, and human powered buses sponsored by Humana and used at the Democratic and Republican conventions in 2012. I don't doubt that much of this coverage may have been inspired by press releases issued by the company, but from what I can see, there is lots of independent reporting in the stories as well. I think this coverage is sufficient to show notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links - I've had a look - I agree they are very interesting local interest news stories, I have a really hard job ascribing 'encyclopedic' though - I do think on reflection in these days of multiple 24 news channels, that there is a lot reported which just isn't significant - for me, this is probably one of those examples. ---- _nonsense ferret 16:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would submit that "encyclopedic", in the context of Wikipedia with over 4.1 million English language articles and no practical limits on future growth, is a topic such as this which has received significant coverage in many reliable, independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Our text really sounds as if it had been taken from the corporate website. Unfortunately I can't check this because the corporate URL redirects to a dead website, suggesting that they are no longer in business. Mangoe (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply They are not out of business. It seems they lost control of their ___domain name briefly, but their website is up and running again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 29 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, MBisanz ^talk 21:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed the "History" section, it was a reworded copy of a section of this article from 2003. Guest9999 (talk) 20:51, 5 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) 00:07, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:15, 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 redirect to Three 6 Mafia. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laws of Power

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

This album has been expected since 2009 and remains unreleased with no release date or sense of release. Koala15 (talk) 00:42, 28 January 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 January 28. Snotbot t • c » 00:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:57, 30 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Three 6 Mafia as plausible search term and given the existing history. I agree that it's a pretty bad violation of WP:CRYSTAL and since it has never been released it fails WP:NALBUMS for a standalone article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:38, 3 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) 00:11, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:14, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Runway theatre company

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

Fails WP:GNG. WP:SPAM and WP:NOTMEMORIAL also apply. The article was created by the theatre company or someone closely associated with it, who also admits(on the article's talk page) the article is to 'promote the legacy of of founding member'. Most sources for the article company are the theater itself.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC) ...William 15:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have done a search of the national press and media - I found this right away [23] which at least shows some coverage in the national television station for Scotland. I'll have a look for some more before expressing an opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonsenseferret (talk • contribs) 17:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please note, I have moved the page to Runway Theatre Company to provide the correct capitalisation of the name, and I have substantially reworded the article to be remove some of the puffery, adding a new reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonsenseferret (talk • contribs) 18:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- It would have to be a very exceptional community (i.e. Am-Dram) group to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 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, MBisanz ^talk 21:55, 3 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) 00:07, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:13, 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 redirect to Nightwish. Consensus indicates that a redirect is probably better than an out-and-out deletion. Merger can be done, if needed, from the page history. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tero Kinnunen

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

Does not meet GNG. Restored per REFUND by an IP request with no reasoning given. MSJapan (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Theopolisme (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject gets a lot of coverage relative to Nightwish, particularly in "Once upon a Nightwish"; I suggest a redirect to Nightwish as per WP:MUSICBIO. AllyD (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nightwish if possible - Tero Kinnunen isn't currently mentioned in the article and it's probably because he's a producer and not a permanent band member but I have found results here for Nightwish and Amorphis although they seem to be minor. I found one Google Books result for Bitch Driven here which suggests he has been member of that band for quite some time. I also found this for the Ensiferum work which also briefly mentions Amorphis and Nightwish. For Demon, I found this (towards the end of the "Nightwish" section, second to last paragraph) and [www.darkmoonzine.net/dmz/history/issues_rtf/dmb.rtf this] (Rich Text Format file, interview with Pasi Kankkunen) which mentions Tero Kinnunen was also with a band called Carnification though I haven't found other evidence for this. Finally, I found this for E-Major studios and other relevant links that were minor for mixing and other background work. There may be other useful links in Finnish that talk more about him but, from what I see, I'm not seeing much for an article. SwisterTwister talk 20:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging with Nightwish seems to be worse decision than keeping or deleting the article. There's very little in his biography that would fit there, and he'd be more likely to be relevant for an article of his own than to have his own place in the Nightiwsh entry. /Julle (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 29 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, Stifle (talk) 15:43, 3 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 3. Snotbot t • c » 20:09, 3 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) 00:17, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:13, 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 merge to Old Rajans Scouts Association. J04n(talk page) 10:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RISGO Centennial 2013

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

This is a routine scouting event with no claim or indication that this it will pass WP:EFFECT. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 01:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes an event, which scouts from all over the places will be participated. Other than the World Scout Jamborees, & regional scout jamborees organized by the World Scout Organization & regional offices, this event is organized by a single Scout Group - 1st Kandy Dharmaraja Scout Group. And that is to mark the 100th Anniversary of the group scouting. This is remarkable event, since World Scouting itself has 106 year history. Chandana.uduwela —Preceding undated comment added 10:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And all the given sources are reliable, secondary sources about the topic. None of the given references are related to the official web page of the event. If Google, you will find so many other sources which discuss about this event.Chandana.uduwela 10:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 16 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) 00:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is on a single meeting of a single scouting association. There might be some point in having an article on the series of meetings, or on the group as a whole, but an article on this is inappropriate.non notable individual meeting of a single scout group in a single college. There might conceivably be a point in a general article on the series of meetings, but the best way to handle topics like this is to mention them in a single line in the article on the national association. There's nothing significant worth merging, and no need for a redirect--anyone looking for information will naturally go to the page for the national association. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- I believe this event is notable enough to keep as a seperate article in Wikipedia. Scouts & scouts leaders from many countries gathered for this event, & President of Sri Lanka, Mahinda Rajapaksa was the chief guest for the closing ceremony. Objective of this event is to mark the 100 year celebrations of the scouting at Dharmaraja. There can be so many scout groups & so many scout events in the world, but very less has this kind of history (this scout group started just after 6 years form the birth of World Scouting) Chandana.uduwela 10:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The attendance of notable persons does not make the event notable, to keep in an encyclopedia it must have had some lasting significance, have a read of WP:EVENT and the section on WP:LASTING. LGA _talk^edits 21:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--If there no way that we can keep this artcle, please keep the article "Old Rajans Scouts Association". Will add these details as a section in there. Chandana.uduwela 22.06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge to Old Rajans Scouts Association and leave this page as a redirect. A trove of events tied to the central association were recently created, each one with one or two sources. Were they all put back into the article for that scouts association, it could be a decent stand-alone article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:18, 24 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Devereaux

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

Not notable. Only documented achievements are qualifying in a second round of an on-line screenwriting school competition (no further) and an option on a screenplay not published or produced. All other stuff lacks RS. (This is a second try by me. The first was via PROD this morning, which I self-reverted.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've been unable to find coverage by independent sources. --Orlady (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete - Given the lack of third party, independent sources, fails WP:GNG hmssolent\Let's convene 01:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, not notable. Fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article appears to fail WP:GNG, so it's a delete from me. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 10:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 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 delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Staghound

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

No secondary sources available to verify information; no mentions except on breeder websites; non-notable TKK ^{bark !} 03:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 30 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 3 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 03:04, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:12, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Bulldog

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

Fails WP:N, the only reference to the dog I can find out of primary sources is a passing mention here TKK ^{bark !} 22:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 8 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 02:30, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:11, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Aston Shuffle

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

PRODed over a year ago and endorsed by an additional editor, was dePRODED (unnoticed) without addressing the notability issue. Many claims remain unsourced and current searches per WP:BEFORE still fail to substantiate the claims and provide sufficient WP:Reliable Sources to assert notability per WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found a few pieces of coverage, and the four mix albums on EMI/Ministry of Sound are a strong indicator of notability. There's no obligation to address anything by the way when removing a PROD tag from an article. --Michig (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)~[reply]

Keep: Anyhow, the subject meets the requirements of the notability in some way. I have added and cited the few references, may those help to avoid the vote of deletion.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 23:32, 8 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 02:52, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep had an album in the Australia top 50 (source) and their ministry of sound stuff seems notable. Likely to be covered in hard copy magazines in addition to the triple J and in the mix stuff found on google news. The-Pope (talk) 14:48, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Yeubrey

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

There are two claims of notability. Registered football agent, and invented an onboard compact tuner. I don't think these give perceived notability nor can i establish that he is likely to meet WP:GNG. Blethering Scot 23:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 30 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 3 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 03:00, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO. coverage merely confirms he is a players agent but that in itself it not enough for notability. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

White English Bulldog

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

No reliable secondary sources, another case of "putting my breed on wikipedia makes it more legitimate" TKK ^{bark !} 03:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 30 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 3 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 03:05, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyn Braun

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

Poorly sourced biography of a reality TV actress. I was only able to find two (questionable) sources, which only make trivial mention of the subject. One of her claims to fame: "Kalyn loves all things fashion and loves nothing more then to shop." - Mr X 01:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 8 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 03:05, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gull Dong

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

No sources available on google books or google scholar; non-notable. I question if this is another case of 'putting my mutt on wikipedia makes it a breed' TKK ^{bark !} 14:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 3 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 03:06, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smrt English

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

The sources in the article don't look like they pass WP:RS, and I couldn't find any likely-looking sources online, so I don't think this company passes WP:CORP. Contested WP:PROD. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 16 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) 00:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources cited are either related to the program, promotional, self-published, or some combination of these. I looked for other sources but could find nothing about the program in LexisNexis. Although a search of EBSCO did turn up what appeared to be likely sources, these turned out to be papers about 'Silencing Mediator Of Retinoic And Thyroid Hormone Receptors (SMRT)' written in English. Cnilep (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also note that the article contains unreferenced sections in advertising bafflegab. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:58, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Abdul Hussain Waiz

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

No real indication of notability. Some mentions of vaguely worded offices, but no indication that this politician ever held a significant office, or that this author's books are in any way significant. No references provided to back up any claims. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 06:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 06:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - Fails WP:BIO. The article seems like a resume, highlighted by the fact that he (possibly) wrote a couple of books. - Mr X 14:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 8 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) 06:37, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete does not appear to have received significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources, thus is not notable per WP:ANYBIO & WP:POLITICIAN. However, I am wondering if there is non-english or non-internet published reliable sources that would denote the subject's notability. That being said, there are no references used of that nature in the article, and I cannot find any myself without travelling to Afghanistan.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:13, 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeshore Players Community Theater

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lakeshore Players Community Theater

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

Not only has this article still not obtained a single reference since its creation more than five years ago, the article is also written as an advertisement and was created by a member of the organization's board of directors. Article is not neutral, is promotional, and its subject is not notable (see WP:ORG). How it got past speedy deletion nomination when it was first created mystifies me a bit. KDS4444^Talk 08:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the theater is commonly called simply "Lakeshore Players". There are 143 mentions of that in the Star Tribune and St. Paul Pioneer Press in the past 25 years. Many are just mentions in passing but I noticed a few look like significant coverage. I'll try to look at the newspaper articles more later. Eóin (talk) 03:46, 16 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) 00:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When this was first listed I added some references, but these are effectively local passing coverage. I also sought wider indications of potential notability (for example participation in wider festivals/awards or their Ten-Minute Play festival getting wider note) but found nothing sufficient. So regretfully, without some such indicators there isn't enough to meet the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 09:04, 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 no consensus. Secret ^account 03:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1993 Llyn Padarn helicopter crash

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

Fails WP:AIRCRASH as it is a military plane and these crashes are quite common. Nothing notable about it. The grounding of the aircraft was temporary.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC) ...William 11:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Military aircraft, especially helicopter, accidents happen relatively often and it takes a truly spectacular/disasterous one to cross the bar of notability, which this does not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bushranger.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishhead2100 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 10 February 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
Comments

WP:AIRCRASH is not a guideline or policy.

Besides the temporary grounding, at least one of the 4 recommendations [24] made by the military inquiry board ("Existing training for Wessex pilots to be enhanced to include tail rotor emergency simulator training.") seems to have been implemented: "As well as SAR pilots, RAF Westland Wessex pilots use the simulator to practice control failures - particularly of the tail rotor."[25]. The reference is way too specific for it to be a coincidence. The article therefore passes WP:AIRCRASH. This is material that will be added to the article in due time, assuming it isn't deleted before. EDIT:done.

The Wessex has had very few crashes. This makes the event notable in itself.

To whoever wrote "Delete per Bushranger.": Sign your posts on talk pages!

JaneStillman (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ONLYESSAY. An essay that codifies and clarifies long-standing WP:CONSENSUS is very applicable in a deletion discussion. Also, having very few crashes does not make a crash of a type more notable, at all. This could possibly be merged into the Wessex's article? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring the fact that the crash seems to have had a discernible, albeit admittedly not huge, effect on pilot training practices, and therefore qualifies as per WP:AIRCRASH. Also, the article is way too long to fit on the Wessex's page. The one-liner that's currently there is enough. But if you want to delete it or merge it or whatever, do as you please. After all, I do not own the article by virtue of having created it. JaneStillman (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very high-profile accident in the United Kingdom, particularly as it was carrying air cadets, and heavily covered in the British media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The accident was notable due to the passengers/casualties and resulted in wide-ranging changes in procedures for experience flights and training of passengers for emergencies. Apart from that there was wide-spread \national news coverage at the time, of the the accident, inquests and BOI.--Petebutt (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a particularly notable military accident with the passage of time and out of the news of the day spotlight, sadly involvement of cadets doesnt lift the bar and a number have been killed in non-notable aviation accidents in the past. Could be listed in the Wessex article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is well sourced and easily passes WP:GNG. Most of the delete comments seem to focus on the comparative frequency and lack of notability of military air accidents. This is certainly true in the majority of cases, and indeed most never reach the public consciousness at all. However, this one did. The case is sufficiently notable that there was major national news coverage at the time, and there has been ongoing news coverage of the aftermath and survivor/witness stories for at least a decade since. It has been used as an exemplar in numerous magazine articles and training procedures, and has achieved a level of notability such that it is entirely reasonable to assume there may be someone who has heard of the event and wants more information, without that person being familiar with the specialist press and information sources. Pyrop e 22:28, 14 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) 00:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I am generally sympathetic to the argument made by Bushranger, I feel that the grounding of all helicopters of this type in the aftermath of the fatal crash gave this incident a broader, historic importance beyond the actual tragedy itself. Historians of British military aviation may well be looking towards this incident in the future, even if briefly, and that's really the thing that causes this to fall on the Keep side of the inclusion line for me — potential lasting importance, as opposed to ephemeral tragedy. Carrite (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it not unusual for the RAF to ground an aircraft type after a fatal accident pending an investigation and a board of inquiry not really a sign of notability. MilborneOne (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's also WP:RECENTISM; accidents in the past that would have been shrugged off as "[stuff] happens, now get back out there in the air" now cause weeks- or even months-long groundings, through no technical changes from the past, but rather institutional ones (lower "acceptable risk factor"s). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Had the page on watchlist since a saw it in NewPages, it is a hard one, on the one hand it fails WP:Aircrash, there is no claim to being of significance maybe even fails WP:NOT as being just a news report, on the other it comes close to and may even pass WP:GNG, so my question is, is there a target this could be merged to ? LGA _talk^edits 04:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Westland Wessex#Notable accidents would be a supported merge target... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or failing that delete) On reflection the coverage is just routine news coverage of the event and the article does not make a case for why this crash is of any lasting significance (so fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:LASTING) however I would support a paragraph or two in Westland Wessex#Notable accidents (subject to local consensus) and this as a redirect. LGA _talk^edits 00:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This was very high-profile at the time and it had long term effects as it instigated change in procedure with this type of aircraft.--Oakshade (talk) 17:07, 22 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sonti Venkata Ramanayya

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

Unsourced biography and contested PROD. The only sources I can find are passing mentions so I don't believe this meets the WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. However this is Indian history, so I'm not sure I'd be able to find them anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete I have found much the same: a few references to him as someone else's teacher, but not enough to write a meaningful bio. In particular, it's telling that nothing I saw gives any dates. As a side note, if the article is kept, it would need to be moved to Sonti Venkata Ramanayya given that Sri is an honorific. Mangoe (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 30 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, KTC (talk) 00:19, 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 14:05, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 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 redirect to List of The Inbetweeners episodes. After three relisting, this seems to be the consensus. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Home Alone (The Inbetweeners)

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

Contains no encylopedic content and unlikely to ever do so Indiasummer95 (talk) 15:33, 26 January 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 January 26. Snotbot t • c » 17:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It now contains encyclopedic content, i.e. the opinion of critics. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Inbetweeners episodes, merging any relevant content. Opinion of critics is insufficent to salvage what is essentiall a plotdump. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 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, Stifle (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Inbetweeners episodes Most of the information is already there and the article is only a plot summary at best WP:PLOT. Mkdw ^talk 10:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Episode received multiple reviews in reliable sources. Therefore it's notable. The article is currently biased in favor of plot summary, but that can be fixed by editing, and therefore isn't grounds for deletion. The only relevant issue is: are there independent reliable sources about this episode, and the answer is yes. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless this is not run-of-the-mill coverage it does not necessarily seem to indicate notability for a standalone article. Mkdw ^talk 07:29, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:45, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 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 no consensus. Perhaps allowing a few additional weeks for this to settle will make its notability easier to gauge. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 23:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anene Booysen

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

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BIO1E, WP:CRIME, WP:EVENT ukexpat (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The crime is horrific, and it is covered by newspapers, rightly so, as such. However, this horrific crime does not appear to have risen above the level of basic news coverage, and as such, I don't know that it will have lasting impact beyond the current news cycle. If, in the future, there is significant ongoing analysis of this particular crime, then no prejudice towards recreating then. But this is too soon to make that judgement on an event such as this right now. It is only with the passage of time to provide perspective necessary to decide if this crime raises to the level of analysis and coverage as one would expect of a Wikipedia article. --Jayron32 19:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: broad worldwide media coverage. Reason for the actual southafrican "BlackFriday"-campaign. Gets more coverage and notability in connection with the Reeva Steenkamp-case too. --Wistula (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - world coverage. seems to have recieved attention beyond a basic news coverage per Reeva Steenkamp and BlackFriday campaign. Even the SA president has made comments about it. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:21, 16 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) 00:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this crime seems to have received enough attention from the international media to be more than a run-of-the-mill event. In any case, I think the argument made by Jayron32 above is backwards - it's too soon to make the judgement that this crime was non-notable. As we don't know how things will turn out, we should assume it may be historically significant and only delete it later if it proves not to be, rather than deleting it now and have to recreate it later. Robofish (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that I do think the article should probably be renamed to be about the event rather than the person, along the lines of 2012 Delhi gang rape, since it's not a biography. Robofish (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a renaming.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If this "BlackFriday"-thing is really so notable, you need to write about that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS (if moved) and WP:ONEEVENT. If it's "too soon" to determine its impact, then the article was also obviously created too soon, and it should be deleted, incubated or userified until such time as the impact and merit for inclusion can be properly assessed. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The importance of the Anene Booysen case to the South African public is comparable to well known American cases of violence against vulnerable members of society, e.g. the case of Emmett Till. This deletion request is very premature. I don't think we can call something not notable after it was written about in, amongst many others, The New York Times and The Guardian and while the story is still developing. Raymond Ellis 08:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond Ellis (talk • contribs)
- Emmett Till??? Your assessment of historical importance is premature... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given the horrific gender violence issue in South Africa, this is on a par. I find your comment uninformed. Raymond Ellis 20:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond Ellis (talk • contribs)
    - You have no clue what you're talking about, unless you have a crystal ball for 2035. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I just don't want an innocent person consigned to the dustheap because we did not care (I did not know her). She is important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond Ellis (talk • contribs) 20:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:NOTMEMORIAL Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I have found, because WP is policy driven, you can always find a rule that works; what ethical rule drives your to delete this page? ( I can thing of one, but you have not raised it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond Ellis (talk • contribs) 21:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Supported by references but has nothing to be a notable and looks better as news only.---zeeyanketu ^discutez 19:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nothing to be a notable, there was a United Nations condemnation of this crime! Raymond Ellis 19:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond Ellis (talk • contribs)

Keep for now, per WP:VICTIM; it's too soon to assess the subject's historic significance (although I sympathize with the horrific nature of the crime). Miniapolis 21:18, 25 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatnot (Fictional Characters)

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

Notability not established. Full of original research. Only link is to another wiki (wikis are not considered reliable sources for establishing notability). SQGibbon (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although I'd like the Whatnot page kept, I had previously kept the Whatnots of the Muppets in a separate article and suggest the Whatnot Muppets be spared from deletion since they are customizable like the Anything Muppets from Sesame Street and the Unisaurs from Dinosaurs. Rtkat3 (talk) 2:58, February 3 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the history I see that it's only recently that the stuff about Marios Bros. and the "other universe" stuff was added (all clearly unsourced original research). But even if that stuff is removed the remaining information about the Muppet Whatnots still lacks any reliable sources. SQGibbon (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet all we got for sources for the Whatnot Muppets is the Muppet Wiki. I still think the Whatnot Muppets should be spared. Rtkat3 (talk) 10:20, February 6 (2013)

Keep 2 - There's other whatnots besides Muppets like the Mario Bros. universe and all throughout the world. There's lots of them spread across including the 3D animated characters or something real life. Escape from Planet Earth was the known cgi movie that had whatnots as aliens. Some of the other ones are naturally Humanoids but Planet 51 has green whatnots there of course. I would suggest keep it.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that none of this information has any reliable sources associated with it and thus fails basic notability. Provide reliable independent sources that discuss the subject in significant detail then it might belong in this encyclopedia, otherwise it shouldn't be here. SQGibbon (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your not helping, some of those aren't in the sites. Even though they don't have that information, just type it in just like of what it resembles to as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyLogolover2011 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know whom your response was directed toward nor what it even means, but the main point remains -- there are no reliable sources in the article to support the claims made nor any that establish the notability of the subject. That problem needs to be fixed for the article to survive the deletion process. SQGibbon (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It might help to clarify: is it a list of characters that are called Whatnots (irrespective of what that might mean in different contexts)? Or is it about a type of character (that may or may not be called Whatnots in their respective contexts), and if so, what's the definition for that type and what's the source for the term? —Tamfang (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally started the page under Whatnot (Muppet) to classify the Whatnots that are in the franchises of The Muppets until HappyLogolover2011 redirected it to Whatnot (Fictional Characters) to cover the other Whatnots. I still think that the Whatnots from the Muppets should've had their own page like the Anything Muppets from Sesame Street. Rtkat3 (talk) 8:48, February 9 2013 (UTC)
  - I'll paraphrase my question: Are "the other Whatnots" any characters called Whatnots, or characters that resemble the Muppet Whatnots in some important (but unstated) way? —Tamfang (talk) 03:04, 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 20:29, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a steaming pile of WP:OR with a healthy dose of WP:MADEUP. "From any universe"? Mario? Errrrr...can we have a big huge Darth Vader-esque "Nooooooooooooooooo!"? Seriously - this needs to be WP:BLOWNUP and the Muppet page - which are the things that are, y'know, actually called Whatnots - kept and/or discussed seperatly. Bluntly this article as it currently exists needs to be speedied as something that was made up one day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bushranger. This is an OR-only WP:CFORK of Character (arts). The newly split article at Whatnot (Muppet) is in need of major work as well. -Thibbs (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Bushranger and Thibbs have raised very valid points. In addition, apart from the obvious original research issues, it is still unclear what a "whatnot" actually is, apart from the Muppet characters. Also unclear is how anything else would qualify as a whatnot. If we are to go by the hopelessly broad definition currently present in the article, "characters that are associated with any universe," then practically any character from any form of vaguely plot-based media would seemingly qualify as one of these. CtP (t • c) 21:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a vengeance. Pure original research, as trying to apply a term for a generic, usually background Muppet to any character in media, even an undoubtedly lead character like Mario. There is absolutely nothing that they have in common. This isn't just original research, it is really terrible and dumb original research. oknazevad (talk) 02:08, 24 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. Michig (talk) 07:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Aviation Special Interest Group (AVSIG)

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

The only claim to notability ("oldest continuously-operated online forum") is clearly not true, and the only sources is a user-editable 'pedia. All other sources fail the WP:RS test as well. Original article created by WP:COI editor (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Noted aviation forum. Have added four sources which I think are reliable and I think lend support to the possibility that their claim to being "oldest continuously-operated online forum" is true. Rewrote to indicate that it is their claim. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Msrasnw (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of many hundreds of aviation forums with hardly any of note, I have never heard of this one so in my opinion it fails to meet the ..well known aviation message forum. mentioned in the article lead. MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Milborne, AVSIG was famous in the aviation community. Because Compuserve had its own telephone network (the internet was at that time for defense and some defense related universities - hardly anyone, but maybe Al Gore, knew about it) airline paid for contracts for their pilots, so they could log on and check their schedules and update information on their aircraft before their paper logs were in. There were older forums, like the on for Kaypro users in NYC I think titled PROFILES (it folded in 1984 I think - we are discussing continuous), but it was crude, slow and you had to use standard telephone connections$$$$$ AVSIG with Compuserve established the GOLD STANDARD for forums copied by about everyone, including the famous Georgia Griffin, who although blind, was hired by Compuserve and took the AVSIG model and established forums on about every subject, propelling Compuserve from a nitch for taxes prepares to ask for advise on pesty tax returns and legal issues to forum for professionals then the general public. Georia Griffin and the forum were so famous, that Readers Digest (then a big deal) did an article on her and the forums. I was worked for Compuserve starting in 1985 to 2003 as everything from Section Leader to Sysop (I got free access and free to all forums and sections/databases) and everyone on Compuserve and what other specialty non-Compuserve forums and computer magazines knew of AVSIG and wanted to be like them. (Note> I am a member of AVSIG - I use it to track down sources on little known aviation subjects)--Jackehammond (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability. A discussion forum surely cannot meet notability guidelines unless a discussion on it DIRECTLY resulted in changes in Law , Procedures or some other fundamental criterion. Proving such a thing would be near impossible, so it is unlikely that an internet forum will ever rate a stand-alone article. At best an entry in a List of aviation fora or something similar!!--Petebutt (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Why would a disussion forum need to have directly impacted laws or procedures? They need only meet WP:GNG. As for the unlikelihood of internet fora rating a standalone article, unlikely does not mean impossible as evidenced by our list of Internet forums. -- Whpq (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE AVSIG exited before it transferred to a computer forum. It was an organization dedicated General Aviation (private aircraft) on safety issues. AVSIG is so well known in the aviation community, if you talked to pilot and ask if he/she heard of AVSIG and they said no, it would be like a Marine saying they never heard of Parris Island, SC! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackehammond (talk • contribs)

Weak Keep - It may be difficult to defintively verify that AVSIG is the oldest such forum, but there is verifiabily part of Compuserve's forums way back in the day. Sources added to the article show coverage in book soruces about the forum. I also found [26] and [27]. Not the best of sourcing to establish notability, but sufficient to clear the bar for me. -- Whpq (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The sources added by Msrasnw and the ones found by Whpq seem just about adequate for notability, and there are several more of similar strength that show up fairly quickly in online searches. However, AVSIG's most notable period was fairly clearly pre-Web (even if one doubts their claim to be the oldest surviving online forum, they are veriably one of the very early ones), and a number of the better potential sources are likely not to be online. PWilkinson (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with another possibly useful extra source: Would a source from a European Pariliament published report (quoting a Guisnel J 1995 Des langages pour analyser la poussière d'info, Libération. 9 juin) in which the infomration discussed on internet newsgroups (and especially in AVSIG forum, supported by Compuserve) was quoted as being of vital significance to the understanding of the loss of American Eagle Flight 4184 . (The source is here:Bogolikos-Zeus, Nikos (1999) The perception of economic risks arising from the potential vulnerability of electronic commercial media to interception The STOA Programme, Directorate General for Research: Directorate A, European Parliament, Luxembourg, October PE 168.184/Vol 5/5.) (Msrasnw (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Keep The question of whether Avsig discussions resulted in changes in law, procedures, etc. was raised above. It's not easy to document the forum's early influence on FAA policy and on the aviation community in general, but when I joined the forum in the 1990s, there were two FAA Headquarters officials who were members and regular participants: Tony Broderick was Associate Administrator for Regulation and Certification, and Rick Cremer was with the FAA's Flight Standards Service.

http://www.spoke.com/people/broderick-anthony-3e1429c09e597c10082139df

http://www.avweb.com/news/atis/184422-1.html

http://www.avweb.com/news/profiles/182916-1.html

It's hard to imagine high FAA Headquarters officials participating in the forum for a number of years without its having an effect on FAA policy. In particular, the last link above details three specific examples of this while the forum was on Compuserve:

There were two inspectors doing ramp checks at an air show in California. They were looking for registrations and airworthiness certificates on airplanes parked on the ramp, and what got me involved is when they checked a warbird that had no flight manual, and the inspector insisted that it had to have a flight manual. I think maybe John Deakin was the one who posted the question. I got the note and went down the hall and talked to some people about the inspector's handbook. I also talked to the FSDO where this had happened, and as a result, a few months later the inspectors were told not to do ramp checks during airshows. That's one issue that started and ended on CompuServe.

The issue of safety pilots logging PIC time came up online. I walked that down the hall, too, and got an interpretation that because a safety pilot is a required crew member when someone is under the hood, both the safety pilot and the person under the hood can log PIC time. A couple of times pilots had been told at local FSDO safety meetings that only one person could log PIC time, so we straightened that out.

The ticket program got a lot of discussion online. I took some of those messages to the folks in charge of the program and, as a result, the program was stopped and reviewed.

Of those three examples, the revised policies in the first two are still in existence to this day. (Note: At the link, it's clear from the context that the mention of Compuserve is in reference to Avsig.) --Palmpilot900 (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of the influence of Avsig on aviation can be found in the article's second external link, which leads to an article in the Smithsonian's Air and Space magazine (linked again below for convenience).

http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/church.html

Beginning on page 2, the Smithsonian article describes the role that Avsig played in developing technology to enable piston aircraft engines to operate more efficiently. --Palmpilot900 (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further on the subject of notability, the technology mentioned above has been widely discussed in the aviation press, including Avweb, AOPA Pilot, Flying Magazine, and others. --Palmpilot900 (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned on another page that some might have questions about the reliability of the sources I cited above. I have no idea of the credentials of spoke.com, but Tony Broderick's tenure at the FAA is a matter of public record and therefore verifiable if anyone chooses to question it. As for Avweb, that is a respected online aviation news source. A wikipedia search shows that it is cited hundreds of times in various Wikipedia aviation articles. And I will be very surprised if anyone claims that the Smithsonian's Air and Space magazine is not a reliable source on aviation topics. --Palmpilot900 (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 16 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) 00:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to squeak past the GNG - barely, but that's enough. Pete's rationaile in his delete !vote is misguided; while those are things that can help notability, if it passes the GNG, it passes the GNG - which this appears to do. Should be renamed to Aviation Special Interest Group if kept. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:25, 22 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.