Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 February	3 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The result was KEEP - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lach

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

No indication it meets WP:Bio or WP:NPOV. Even if the several paragraphs of complaining about anti-folk were deleted, I'm not sure if the article has enough real, notable information to justify keeping. Strachkvas (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's a 1987 profile in the New York Times. Add other search terms like anti-folk, and sources appear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sources on Google Books: Billboard 23 Mar 2002[1], Spin Sep 1990[2], New York Magazine 12 Sep 1994[3]. Plus NY Times and AllMusic. Also, I tidied it up and deleted the rant about antifolk which had no place in an article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fair enough, I didn't do enough proper research to determine if the subject was notable. In its current form I believe the article is acceptable — thanks for helping to clean it up. Strachkvas (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrose Mendy

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

This article is full of grammatical and spelling errors. I've made a few edits but it still falls short of wiki standards. There are many unreferenced facts. I'm also not convinced this person warrants an article dedicated to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HallucigeniaUK (talk • contribs) 16:55, 29 December 2012‎

Keep No shortage of sources, I have stubbed the article and am adding references now. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned AfD Relisted. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's plenty of coverage of him. --Michig (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD is not for cleanup. And the RS coverage meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears the article has been gutted. In conducting WP:BEFORE there appears to be plenty of sources. The article needs work but seems to meet WP:ANYBIO due to WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw ^talk 00:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 7 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) 21:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Native (OneRepublic album)

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

Per WP:NMUSIC this album is not yet notable. It actually fails WP:GNG as it has not been the main subject of reliable sources. I would have just userfied but there isn't even enough information that is references from HQ sources to warrant userfying. Coverage is trivial or non-reliable and nothing that doesn't suffice from a mention on the group's page. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page is currently being worked on and new references are being added. The album is getting more and more information released almost daily so it's pretty much a work in progress. User:Contactman7 —Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, twitter is not a reliable source and if that's the case it should be worked on in a WP:Sandbox not in the mainspace. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Incubate. The album is out in about 8 weeks, the artwork is out, the first single from the album is out, all reported in reliable sources such as Billboard and MTV. There are bound to be more sources for this within weeks, so deleting it seems pointless. --Michig (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Thank you. This is exactly what I think. If it does get deleted, someone is just gonna make it again because it's going to be released in a month. Deleting now seems pointless. --User:Contactman7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the fact that there is enough information for it to be on Wikipedia. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though there is a touch of crystal-ballery about this, it seems silly to delete the article now with the release imminent. The coverage received by the single in major music sources can be used as an indicator that the album will also receive a similar level of coverage, so let's just WP:IAR and hang on to it for now. — sparklism ^hey! 11:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Exactly, Billboard released 3 articles covering the single and one about the album release. Jonthejerk (talk) 15:51, 8 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 by User Request (g7). Bensci54 (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Man On The Bottom (2013)

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

Non-notable film lacking ghit and Gnews of substance. Fails WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I've created this page in haste, and will wait for independent listings and more sources (after the film premieres) before re-submitting. I'm new at this (obviously), so please commence with deleting this article. Thanks. Coreywhowell (talk) 22:55, 2 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) 03:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Cantrell

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

Unsourced WP:BLP created before March 18, 2010. Fails WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not have any fights in a top-tier organization and as a result does not meet WP:NMMA. No significant coverage outside WP:ROUTINE for his events and WP:GNG. Mkdw ^talk 23:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No top tier fights (failing WP:NMMA) and no significant coverage.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Green Man 20 (talk) 21:26, 7 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) 03:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Clifton

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

Fails WP:NMMA, no fights for top tier organizations. LlamaAl (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not have any fights in a top-tier organization and as a result does not meet WP:NMMA. No significant coverage outside WP:ROUTINE for his events and WP:GNG. Mkdw ^talk 23:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and meets no other notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let the man RIP (Justinsane15 (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA and lost his only notable fight to Shamrock. Green Man 20 (talk) 21:35, 7 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) 03:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tapsiru Dainkeh

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

Non-notable person in reliable sources to indicate significant coverage. The user appears to have a conflict of interest and article has already been deleted under A7 twice. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 22:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just not notable? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanded. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 22:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No adequate sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and salt. I think WP:GNG is the more appropriate notability criterion for the subject's career trajectory than WP:PROF, despite this being listed as an academic deletion case. I found a handful of news stories quoting him, but none with the non-trivial depth of coverage required by GNG. Given the article history, protection against recreation looks like a good idea. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 7 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) 03:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Seumanutafa

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

Fails WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has participated in 1 Strikeforce fight but remains 2 top-tier organization fights shy required to meet WP:NMMA. No significant coverage outside WP:ROUTINE and WP:GNG Mkdw ^talk 00:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails WP:NMMA with only 1 of the 3 necessary top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 7 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) 03:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Huckaba

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

Fails WP:NMMA. Only one fight for a top tier MMA promotion. LlamaAl (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has participated in 1 Bellator MMA fight but remains 2 top-tier organization fights shy required to meet WP:NMMA. No significant coverage outside WP:ROUTINE and WP:GNG Mkdw ^talk 00:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 7 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) 03:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleo Kwan

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

Fails WP:NMMA. Only one fight for a top tier MMA promotion. LlamaAl (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has participated in 1 Strikeforce fight but remains 2 top-tier organization fights shy required to meet WP:NMMA. No significant coverage outside WP:ROUTINE and WP:GNG. Mkdw ^talk 00:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was speedy keep (withdrawn by nominator). (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yancy Medeiros

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

Fails WP:NMMA. Two fights for Strikeforce. LlamaAl (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this might be a case for incubate or userfy. The only reason I say this is because it has been announced three days ago that he will be brought into UFC. He also already has two top-tier fights WP:MMATIER, making him 1 shy from meeting WP:NMMA. While WP:TOOSOON has some strong arguments, some WP:COMMONSENSE would suggest to userfy at the least. Mkdw ^talk 21:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:COMMONSENSE. His third top-tier fight has been announced and scheduled. Luchuslu (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 01:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Borborud

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

A dab page with two entries, both of which violate WP:Partial title match. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: without knowing the Arabic, I'd guess they are similar to Henley-in-Arden and Henley-on-Thames listed at the Henley dab page - likely to be referred to as "Henley" or "Borborud". PamD 13:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC) (typo fixed 15:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Keep PamD has it right (Gharbi means "West", and Sharqi means "East".); like Ham, London (disambiguation), Kalskag, Alaska, and many other disambiguation pages out there - entirely proper aper WP:Partial title match (see the example there of "Mississippi River" properly at "Mississippi (disambiguation)" even though a "partial match" and the inclusion of numerous people with matching surnames or given names at disambiguation pages even though only part of the title is "matched". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful Disambiguation page. It would be nice to have more entries, but I think this is one of those cases where a hatnote wouldn't quite fit. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 7 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) 03:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Po'ai Suganuma

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

Fails WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not have any fights from a top-tier organzation required to meet WP:MMA. No significant coverage outside WP:ROUTINE for his events or enough to meet WP:GNG. Mkdw ^talk 23:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and there is no significant coverage of him--just routine fight results, etc.Mdtemp (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 7 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) 03:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Noble

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

Fails WP:NMMA. Only one fight for a top tier promotion. LlamaAl (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has fought in only one top-tier promotion (in 2006 albeit) at and ultimately does not meet the three required first needed WP:NMMA. No significant coverage outside WP:ROUTINE for his events and does not meet WP:GNG as the alternate policy. Mkdw ^talk 21:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Much of the article deals with people he's associated with, but that's WP:NOTINHERITED.Mdtemp (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 7 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) 03:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Holscher

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

Fails WP:NMMA. Two fights for Strikeforce. LlamaAl (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has fought for Strikeforce but ~~is not recognized as a top-tier promotion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability and~~ ultimately does not meet WP:NMMA. No significant coverage outside WP:ROUTINE for his events and does not meet WP:GNG as the alternate policy. Mkdw ^talk 21:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strikeforce is indeed a top tier organization. But he has to have at least three fights for TT MMA promotions to meet WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, its listed under defunct top-tier. Mkdw ^talk 22:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 7 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) 03:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Petras Markevičius

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

Fails WP:NMMA with no fights for a top tier organization. Only source is his MMA record. LlamaAl (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has fought for Shooto Lithuania but Shooto (Japan) is the only recognized as a Shooto top-tier promotion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability and ultimately does not meet WP:NMMA. No significant coverage outside WP:ROUTINE for his events and does not meet WP:GNG as the alternate policy. Mkdw ^talk 21:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 20:45, 7 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) 03:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edson Claas Vieira

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

Fails WP:NMMA. Two fights for PRIDE. LlamaAl (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has fought for Pride Fighting Championships but ~~it is not recognized as a top-tier promotion at WP:MMATIER and~~ ultimately does not meet WP:NMMA. No significant coverage outside WP:ROUTINE for his events and does not meet WP:GNG as the alternate policy. Mkdw ^talk 21:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PRIDE is indeed a top tier organization. But he has to have at least three fights for TT MMA promotions to meet WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Not sure how I missed that. Mkdw ^talk 22:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has only 2 of the 3 top tier fights required to meet [[WP:NMMA].Mdtemp (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 7 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) 03:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mārtiņš Egle

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

Subject fails WP:NMMA with zero fights for a top tier MMA promotion. LlamaAl (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has fought for Shooto Holland but only Shooto (Japan) is the only recognized top-tier Shooto promotion at WP:MMATIER and ultimately does not meet WP:NMMA. No significant coverage outside WP:ROUTINE for his events and does not meet WP:GNG as the alternate policy. Mkdw ^talk 22:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no fights for a top tier organization. Papaursa (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 7 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 . Author claims the subject is three different people (including a school principal and a state legislator), and has admitted falsely claiming the subject is a cricketer as well. ... discospinster _talk 03:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Pandit

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

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

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

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

Biographical article about an Indian 'actor' who apparently has never actually acted. Every reference in the article serves to validate secondary trivial facts, like a festival existing, rather than him having anything to do with it. There are two references to 'Vivek Pandit' company executives, neither of which are the person in the article. Also featured is a link to a Times of India topic listing which has no articles whatsoever about this person. The references to his cricket 'career' are the best, including a link to a gaming website. I would have speedied this as a hoax, but given the size of the article I prefer for this to receive some consensus. Completely and utterly fails WP:GNG, not to mention the intention to deceive. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC) MOnUa12345 (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be deleted. I know this person, he is a well known actor in regional cinema. Reference links seem to be a bit researching but overall since the actor comes from a backward region of India, the online information available about him is very low. Still, the sources which he linked are reliable and should not be deleted. He is afterall a successful actor, maybe a regional actor of a backward area with low access to technology and electronic media platforms. He is well covered in print media of his area as i also hails from the same area of Madhya Pradesh.MOnUa12345 (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC) {{MOnUa12345 (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)|MOnUa12345}} — MOnUa12345 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Ahanaa (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC) this person is a regional actor from a backward area of India with little access to Internet. He is a well known figure in Madhya pradesh, India. He regularly features in local print media and is a well known personality regionally. This page has a healthy audience, you can see it in statistics. He is a celebrated actor among tribals and villagers of Madhya Pradesh, India. The reference links are Ok as per Backwardness of the region are concerned. Still the links are reliable. so keeping in mind the audience of this page and popularity of this guy among masses of backward area with little or no access to internet, i request you to not delete this page,added, it do have reliable and accountable references. Ahanaa (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC) — Ahanaa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm sorry, but your opinion on the subject (an disparaging comments about "backwards people") aside, can you please specify which links are reliable? Failing that, can you provide some that are not so obviously deceitful? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahanaa (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Sir, you said, "...'Vivek Pandit' company executives, neither of which are the person in the article..." which is wrong. He is the same person. He did engineering from Indore and had worked for some firms for some time. He became executive for TCS then he joined doon school where he was appointed board of governers. He then got a role in a regional film and started acting thereafter. The cricketing career may not have reliable references but its true that he often plays cricket for NGOs. He is not a cricketer. Backyard cricket is played by actors in backward areas of India to collect funds for poor. I request the article should not e deleted. It is a new article and i promise to add more reliable references to page. You can also see my work en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragash_Band where i have listed 100% authentic media sources. Sir please review my work and kindly donot delete this page as i had to expand it furthur with reliable sources. Thank You. Im waiting for your response. Ahanaa (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that this person: [4][5] who is a businessman, is the same as person as this politician: [6][7], and that those two people are the same as the subject of your article? I'm waiting for your response. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahanaa (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Yes sir obviously. He is the same person. He was a executive, co-owner of doon school, a social worker who works for poor and a shiv sena MLA. Dont get offended by two pictures as the one i have provided in page is an old one. His current status is of a "MLA alongwith working on two film projects". He is nomore an executive or co-owner of doon school. Sir, i am going to add more references for the accuracy of my facts. YES, i confess the cricketing link was a hoax but majority of the other portion is from official source. I will expand the article with his more works with more authentic references. Thank you sir im waiting for your response. Ahanaa (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know that I'm 100% convinced that they're the same person. I have found a link to the facebook page of the politician Pandit here and the two look to be fairly different. One of the biggies is that the politician looks to be in his forties at the very youngest, while the actor looks to be in his twenties in the picture here in the article. The book link here also states that the politician Pandit would be in his fifties. I can see where the politician would be notable enough, but I am highly skeptical that the young actor on the page is the same person as the politician. The photo on the Wikipedia article isn't that old. I'm leaning towards most of the claims in the article being outright hoaxes at worst or at best, someone taking any mention of a Vivek Pandit as a mention of one person rather than several people with the same name.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing goes for the executive Pandit. It's clearly not the same person. This guy is in his 40s, as evidenced by this article. He looks nothing like the guy in the Wikipedia article's photo and nothing like the politician Pandit.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Upon looking at the article's sources, it quickly becomes apparent that it was sourced with links about two different Pandits that have nothing to do with the actor/model other than them sharing the same name. A look for photos of the politician and the executive easily show that they are separate people. I'm left wondering if this was all done accidentally or on purpose in the hopes that none of us would really check that deeply to verify that the young man in the photo is actually the same person as in the photos of the older men discussed in the news articles. I've decimated the article down to a one sentence stub because all of the information in the article was sourced by news and book articles that had nothing to do with the Pandit the article is discussing. That means that even if the info would be useful in establishing notability for the other Pandits, it doesn't give notability to this Pandit and we can't keep incorrect material in an article.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yep. What I suspect is happening here is that the author wanted to make a bio about someone (or himself), so he googled for the name, uploaded the photo and pasted all the links he could find. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and while links come up for several different Pandits, I was unable to find anything about this specific Pandit that is a model/actor. Given the complete lack of sources about this particular Pandit and the editor linking to various articles about other people that have nothing to do with the actor/model except having a similar name, I'm honestly wondering if this person really even exists. I didn't find anything except for junk hits that would come up with any search topic. (IE, sites that will mirror whatever you type in, whether they have anything about the subject or not.) I'd try to speedy this, but this should be deleted via AfD so that we can speedy any other attempts to recreate the hoax page. I'd also suggest a possible blocking of the editor that added the page, as this is a fairly clear hoax. Even if there is an actor/model out there by this name, adding links to other people that are very clearly not the same person and adding various incorrect info about someone in order to promote them is pretty much a hoax, whether it was intentional or not.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahanaa (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Believe me its not a spam. Im not a spammer. View my history, i always created valid and authentic pages. I know this person personally and he is surely the same. why are you not acknowledging the person. he is same. and let me again repeat im not a spammer who will do random search and create apam articles. you can view my user history and also view my page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragash_Band Ahanaa (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahanaa (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC) PLEASE DONT DELETE why are u not acknowledging the user, he is same Vivek Pandit.Go through my user history im not spammer Ahanaa (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahanaa (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Tokyogirl deleted bulk of content from the page as "SHE" couldnot identify between three mere photographs.Is this policy of wikipedia???? I had worked very hard to gather all information about Mr. Vivek pandit and didnt took a second to delete it...why so??? i have provided with enough references and also justified it here on this talkpage then why are u deleting the article??? Ahanaa (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, it's not just via photographs. It's also using the information given in the sources given. The information in the "Hottest Young Executives" article does not correspond with the information given in the book "Slavery in the Modern World", not to mention that the ages of the two Pandits does not correspond. It's two different Pandits. This link also confirms that it's two different people. If these were the same Pandits, then it would mention at least a few of the accomplishments mentioned in the slavery book. Businesses are very big about promoting their people's accomplishments and fame, even if that doesn't actually directly pertain to the business at hand. It's also fairly easy to see that none of the people in the pictures are the same Pandit. These are three completely different Indian men. Other than sharing a name, there is nothing to suggest that they're the same man. It's like trying to say that Peter Graves the actor is the same person as the sportscaster and cricketeer, when a search clearly shows that they're not. As far as your article history goes, I see where this article has been repeatedly deleted and I also see where you've added one other article. Given the poor sourcing in this article, I'm going to recommend that someone double checks the article for the Pragash Band to verify the information and links given. Even if you had a long editing history, that doesn't excuse incorrect usage of sources. I can't say enough that the person in the Wikipedia article and the people in the links in the article are not the same person. And I did take longer than three seconds to verify this. Although I will say that it didn't take long for it to become very obvious that you were using links that were not about the actor/model. None of the links for any of the Pandits mentions them moving into the acting field or working as a model. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, I've opened up a sockpuppet investigation, given the extreme similarities in the two "keep" arguments. I'd like to mention that AfDs are not decided on votes. Also, I'm wondering why "she" is in quotation marks? Is that because you are unsure of my gender (which shouldn't matter in an AfD) or is it a form of an insult? Either way, it's rather inappropriate to put it in quotations like that. If you're just wondering what gender to address me as, I am female. And yes, the policy of Wikipedia is to remove any information that looks to be obviously incorrect or mis-cited.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:40, 3 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) 21:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hringsolal Thomte

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

Player who passes WP:NFOOTBALL but who has no stats available nor does he have any background information available and fails WP:GNG. He is also 29 and deep into his career so most likely this article will remain empty. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:NFOOTBALL so should be no debate. If the members of WP:Football spent more time improving articles and less time trying to find reasons to delete them then Wikipedia would be a better place. A stub article is not inherently worse than no article at all - an average user may be inspired to add additional info to an article they come across but has much less likelihood to start one about something they have knowledge of. A two minute search found his stats for this season - a speaker of the regional language could probably find considerably more info. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG should be the case here. The only time exception is granted is for young players but this guy is different. He is entering the ending chapters of his career, we have no information about himself anywhere on the internet (that includes Hindi sources as well), and we do not have stats available as well. The page is barren. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Given the poor quality of the article and the clear absence of sources, this falls under the portion of WP:NSPORT which says that not all articles which meet that criteria must be kept. It's purpose is to be an indicator of general notability, but given that general notability is clearly not met in this case, deletion seems a reasonable course of action. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG which outweighs WP:NFOOTBALL; there is plenty of precedent that making one pro appearance is not enough to keep an article that comprehensively fails GNG. Giant Snowman 11:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted, meeting WP:NFOOTY doesn't make a player notable; it should mean he meets WP:GNG, but this doesn't seem to be the case here. There are some statistics out there, but those are WP:ROUTINE and don't help establish notability. Sideways713 (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even though this subject passes WP:NFOOTY, it is more important to pass WP:GNG, which this one doesn't. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:59, 9 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) 03:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adrià Carmona

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Oleola (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:38, 3 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) 15:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He plays in a Primera División team (and previously in a Serie A team), non with the reserve side. --tot-futbol (talk) 7:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 7 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 Oceania films. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema of Oceania

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

Only some external links are listed. Does not have meaningful content. Professorjohnas (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No connection between these "subjects" (which are nothing more than IMDB links) other than they are in a nebulous geographical area; attempting to connect them on that basis (which this appears to do) smells of WP:SYNTH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 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, Hue Sat Lum 16:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Oceania films as a possible search term. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Oceania films; that this is a reasonable search term is already demonstrated by the article's existence. Oceania itself is a notable concept, so a listing of films from the region is no more a synthesis than a List of European films --Mark viking (talk) 21:48, 2 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) 03:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Student of the Year

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

Unremarkable article with no content except for categories. --Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 15:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - how the hell has this article lasted since 2005? No references, no real content (one thing is a blatant dictionary definition), and no indication of importance. Bin this, then move the Indian film article here. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing worth keeping in this unsourced stub article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Teen Challenge article - I say merge, but there's not much is there really - I'd be happy to go with a delete consensus too. ---- _nonsense ferret 18:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Indian film looks far more notable where Ghits are concerned. Far too generic a title and should at least be named Teen Challenge Student of the Year, if the award is kept. Can't seem to find any non-self referential sources though. Funny ^Pika! 02:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather Queensland Teen Challenge Student of the Year. Local chapter of a international organisation. Funny ^Pika! 02:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Funny ^Pika! 02:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. Mkdw ^talk 01:41, 8 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, no longer necessary. Jac16888 ^Talk 18:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valmet 361 D Tractor

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

Such a bad translation that this is basically gibberish Jac16888 ^Talk 14:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - could you give me a little bit of time to attempt to clean up the appalling English in the article? Lukeno94 (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a big improvement to the article - I intend to get hold of a Suomi-speaking contact I have and ask him for further help. The article will need to be moved to Valmet 361 D if kept. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also notified the person who created this article about the discussion. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An already nice cleanup of the article prose and structure by Lukeno94 seems to have answered the the nominator's criticism of gibberish. I find the article easy to read and well structured. Of course further improvements could be made, but the motivation for deletion has been addressed. Are we done here? --Mark viking (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the English is all that is wrong, than this article shouldn't be listed for deletion. Just put up the proper tag and see if anyone and yourself can do anything about it. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 21:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It had been tagged appropriately, when I made my edits, I removed the tag. :) Lukeno94 (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll be getting further input from this Suomi-speaking contact within the next few days. Could the AfD be withdrawn please Jac16888? Lukeno94 (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 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, Courcelles 00:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The motivation for deletion, that the article was gibberish, was well addressed by Lukeno94. He cleaned up the prose and structure so that the article is now easily understandable. --Mark viking (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the work I did (bad argument, but it addressed the AfD reason). I'm a bit disappointed that Jac16888 didn't return to withdraw the AfD, but that's life I guess. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:46, 9 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) 03:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dual Short Film

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

Absolutely no indication of notability. Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a young people's film project on bullying, expected to premiere at a High School and Arts Centre in Harrow, but not mentioned on the Harrow Arts Centre website yet. But that is partly my guessing: absolutely nothing found to back this up; fails WP:NFF. AllyD (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above comment Josh1024 (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not reach the standard of WP:Notability (films). JohnCD (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced amateur film failing WP:NFF. There's not much to go by here, but as AllyD mentioned it's not on the high school or arts centre website. The only other sources I could find was its 8 month old Facebook page and a trailer that was released a month ago on YouTube. My feeling is that the filmmakers are using Wikipedia as a means to promote their film. Funny ^Pika! 18:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Funny ^Pika! 18:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NF. No coverage. No release. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:SIGCOV to warrant an article. WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFF. Mkdw ^talk 01:39, 8 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Wrestling Xpress

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

This article suffers from multiple issues which are no promotion history, no title lineage, and it's not up to Wikipedia standards in formatting. One major problem by what I can tell is that the promotion is not notable and may or may not have lasted a year. Also, having worked with the likes of Al Snow, Rick Steiner, Butch Reed, Jake "The Snake" Roberts, Hardcore Holly, and Jerry Lynn while having Simon Diamond and Shark Boy on the roster still doesn't make the promotion notable. Independent promotions bring in names all the time to attract fans. There are references, but they are poor references or in the very least not enough. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 13:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 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, Courcelles 00:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which would evidence the notability of this promotion under WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:36, 10 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. A consensus of editors appeared to believe the article was unsalvageably promotional, and with one exception, editors argued there was not available sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Salt for repeated recreation, future attempts can always be pursued via AfC. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gage, Randy Paul

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

An article about this man had been created in the past (see Randy Gage). It was deleted because Randy Gage did not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It was also deleted once for blatant advertising. I believe that Randy Gage still does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The only purpose I can see for this article is pure promotion of the subject.Electric Celery (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The articles you are talking about probably were created by someone, who didn't take enough time to read all the guidelines and help on how to write an article. I assume they didn't provide enough balanced information, links and resources. As you can see from the article I put a lot of efforts to create neutral and informative article about the person. I am not affiliated with him or his company. However his books and blog inspire me. And he is really known and famous, even more famous than some other persons in Wikipedia. I am from Kazakhstan, and I can see from here how much he is being appreciated in Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and other former Soviet countries.

In the article I put 25 bullet points of media coverage, but actually there are more stuff can be added

His new book "Risky is the New Safe" has become The New York Times bestseller and #1 Wall Wtreet Journal bestseller

And as I already stated in another section he sold more than 10 million copies of his books and translated them into 20 languages

I don't think he needs any more promotion than he already has. But I am sure the article is able to contribute the Wiki project. Zhankus (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the subject of this author seems to be the only subject you have edited on the english language wikipedia. I wonder if you would be prepared in the interests of openness to declare whether you might have a relationship to the author per WP:COI ---- _nonsense ferret 19:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC) - withdrawn question ---- _nonsense ferret 19:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ok, so I checked out every link in the Media Coverage section. They are 4 YouTube videos of interviews with Gage, 7 articles and 9 interviews archived on Gage's site, 2 articles by Gage, 1 Chicago Tribune article containing financial advice from Gage, 1 article that quotes the Tribune article, and 1 dead link. Unfortunately, the links to parts of Gage's website are not reliable, because Gage would likely pick positive articles for archiving. YouTube is not reliable either. This leaves 1 source, the Tribune article, which is not enough to establish notability. Howicus (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote: "because Gage would likely pick positive articles for archiving". Notability does not come from a fact the person is being positive or negative figure. Hitler is not positive, but he is still in wikipedia. --Zhankus (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I meant was that the sources from Gage's website probably are not reliable because Gage picked the articles, so they are likely to be promotional in nature. I wasn't trying to say anything about the kind of person Gage is. Howicus (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote: "YouTube is not reliable either.". The youtube in the way you used the word is only a technology. The videos that were put on those video channels are videorecordings of actual TV Shows. While videoblogs can be called unreliable, you can't call TV an unreliable source. The same goes for the articles from real paper magazines that have been scanned and put out on the website. Do you really think it matters where the scans are placed whether on the Randy Gage website or any other? --Zhankus (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps they were referring to WP:NOYT which show the official WP guidelines around when youtube is and is not to be considered a 'reliable source' ---- _nonsense ferret 19:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: I'm trying to find evidence that "Risky is the New Safe" was ever a New York Times or Wall Street Journal bestseller as Zhankus claims. The place only I this it mentioned is on that book's page on Amazon.com (www.amazon.com/Risky-New-Safe-Rules-Changed/dp/111848147X/). Is there an archive somewhere of New York Times and Wall Street Journal bestsellers? Even if one of his books was on these lists, I'm not sure that would be enough to establish notability. See section 5(c) under the notability guidelines for "Creative Professionals": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. It states: The person's work (or works)...has won significant critical attention. If indeed "Risky is the New Safe" was on two bestseller lists, would that be considered significant critical attention? Electric Celery (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer:
  - Link for the NY Times bestsellers list: The New York Times bestsellers
  - Link for the Wall Street Journal Best-Selling Books: WSJ Bestsellers
- --Zhankus (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question: It would seem that at least one book by Randy Gage has appeared on those two bestseller lists. Again, I pose this question to those more familiar with Wikipedia's notability guidelines; is this considered significant critical attention as per section 5(c) of Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals? It should also be noted that Zhankus did create an article on Randy Gage on the Russian Wikipedia (see http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Гейдж,_Рэнди_Пол). I can not read Russian, so I don't know what's going on with the article there. It looks like the English article may be a direct copy of the Russian article. The Russian article is tagged for something, I think it's a fact check tag of some sort based on what I could read using google translate. Electric Celery (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- About the russian page Yes, I have created the russian page first, then having some english language skills I challenged to create English version as well. The english version is not a copy of the russian version, but independent article in which I used same sources that I used creating the russian page. The english version is a bit more extended. Anyways it is not prohibited to use wiki articles in other languages by translating them into english. --Zhankus (talk) 09:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this has the distict whiff of WP:Vanispamcruftisement to it. (Also, if kept, it needs to be moved to Randy Gage.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This kind of hating words can be left under any article of a living person out there, especially if a person is a businessman. Please provide grounds for accusations like that, otherwise it's just not nice. --Zhankus (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article, upon reading, had the air of a vanity piece, spam, cruft, and advertising - hence, vanispamcruftisement. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep the edited article~~ Ok, I have edited the article to add more neutrality and new feel to it. I hope you keep it. Also I am going to renew and add more informaiton about publications and books. I hope you give me more time for it. --Zhankus (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are only allowed to !vote once at an AfD. Therfore I have struck the bold text in your comment, as you have already !voted above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, after re-reading the article in its current state, my !vote for deletion stands; the WP:BOMBARDMENT doesn't change that he isn't notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 28 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, Sandstein 11:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, SALT, and incinerate this hideous piece of promotional-spam. Even the title of the article doesn't belong on Wikipedia in this format. How on earth the creator can argue this is not promotional or is appropriate for Wikipedia when sections are written like this:

"Randy made many poor choices in his younger years and was a teenage alcoholic and drug addict. This culminated in his arrest at age 15 for burglary and armed robbery. In 1975 Gage received probation from the court and was determined to change his life."

"He was left with no job, about $55,000 in debt, and even began selling his furniture to survive. At this low point in his life, he began a study about principles of prosperity."

"Public activities

Randy Gage personally met with: Bob Graham, United States Senator from Florida Connie Mack IV, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's 14th district Bill Nelson, United States Senator from Florida Lawton Chiles, 41st Governor of Florida Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States Placido Domingo, world-famous opera singer (tenor)"

is completely and utterly beyond me. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see on your page that you "aim to tidy up any grammatical or spelling errors I spot in articles, and improve other articles". So it would be kind and noble of you to help to edit the article in the way you see it should be. --Zhankus (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there was any evidence that this person was notable, I would. There is absolutely none, after a Google search. Nothing in the article whatsoever is enough to show notability. And this article is so heavily promotional it would have to be nuked and started from scratch even if he was. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it even possible to prove notability of living people for you, wiki guys? )? --Zhankus (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... read WP:GNG. The article doesn't pass that at the moment, and I couldn't find any sources myself to help it pass. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:NPEOPLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The author meets very well one or more criterias of Creative Professionals WP:Author Zhankus (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People are quite likely to read comments like this as a WP:VAGUEWAVE - you might want to expand on that ---- _nonsense ferret 01:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following table is for reference only in order to help proving the notability. It's not a final edition, I am going to edit and add more to it. Zhankus (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Publications, Randy Gage wrote 9 books (2001-2012)
His books	Were translated into at least 18 languages (Bulgarian, Hungarian, Russian, German, Bahasa (Indonesia), Polish, Czech, Slovak, Portuguese, Spanish, Korean, Thai, Romanian, Moldavian, Chinese (simplified), Hungarian, Turkish, French)
	Were published by at least 27 publishing houses: Prime Concepts Group (USA), Anhira Publishers Ltd.(Bulgaria), Bagolyvar Publishing (Hungary), Grand-Fair (Russia), Life Success Media GmbH (Germany), Manjul Publishing Company (India), PT Gramedia Pustaka (Indonesia), Studio Emka Klara Molnar (Poland), The Success Shop (Singapore), The Vision s.r.o. (Czechoslovakia), A.R. Business Press Company, Ltd. (Thailand), Dilya Publishing House (Russia), Ediotora Pensamennto-Cultrix LTDA (Portugal), Panorama Editorial S.A. de C.V. (Spain), Pantaloon Retail (India) Limited (India), Parabooks Co. Ltd. (South Korea), Meteor Press (Romania, Moldova), Pentagon Press (India), John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (USA), Muhan Publishing (South Korea), Pragma Publishing (Czechoslovakia), PT Menuju Insan Cemerland (Indonesia), Triskel Press (Spain), Zlote Mysli SP. Z O.O. (Poland), Editions du tresor cache/Net Libris (France), Beyaz Yayinlari (Turkey)
	Were sold in at least 18 countries: USA, Bulgaria, Hungary, Russia, Germany, India, Indonesia, Singapore, Czechoslovakia, Thailand, Portugal, South Korea, Romania, Moldova, Spain, Poland, France, Turkey
	Were sold in at least 10 million copies worldwide
	The book “Risky is the New Safe” has become a bestseller: according to The New York Times, #1 Bestseller according to the Wall Street Journal, #1 USA Today bestseller
Articles and Interviews about Randy Gage
The articles that were based on books and interviews with Randy Gage	At least 15 articles were published: Succeed Magazine South Africa, January, 2012; The Straits Times, Singapore, November 2009; Inside Business Online, December 17; 2010, Inside Business, December 20, 2010; Daily Herald, July 13, 2011; Inc., july/august 2011.; Livingston Parent Journal, August 2011.; Soul & Spirit Magazine (UK), August Issue 2011; Awareness Magazine, September/October 2011; Personal Excellence Magazine, November 2011; Chicago Tribune, January 10, 2012.; Bank Tracker, January 13, 2012; The Daily Buzz, February 27, 2012; Daytime в Tampa, April 5, 2012; Inc., October 31, 2012
	in different parts of the world: South Africa, Singapore, USA, UK
The interviews with Randy Gage on TV and Radio Shows	At least 11 interviews were taken: Randy Gage interview on KCAL news channel 09/12/11; Radio Show, Outside the Box with Mitch Henck, December 15, 2010; San Diego Living TV show, January 13, 2011; KOMO ABC 4 Seattle, January 17, 2011; FOX 35 Orlando, February 22, 2011; Radio Show, Frequency with Mark Farrell, May 22, 2011; Intrepid Radio, January 24, 2011; Radio Show The Willie Jolley Show on SiriusXM Radio, August 5, 2011; Beyond 50 Radio Show, September 15, 2011; Careers From the Kitchen Table Radio Show, October 27, 2011; The Morning Show, Sidney, Australia, May 14 2012
The interviews with Randy Gage on TV and Radio Shows	In different cities and countries: Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle, Orlando, Sydney (Australia)
Highlighted Publishers
John Wiley & Sons published two books of Randy Gage	The global publishing company that specializes in academic publishing and markets its products to professionals and consumers, students and instructors in higher education, and researchers and practitioners in scientific, technical, medical, and scholarly fields. Founded in 1807, Wiley is also known for publishing For Dummies. Wiley’s Professional/Trade brands include For Dummies, Frommer's, Webster's New World, Jossey-Bass, Pfeiffer, CliffsNotes, Betty Crocker, Wrox Press, J.K. Lasser, Sybex, Fisher Investments Press, and Bloomberg Press. Wiley has publishing alliances with partners including Microsoft, CFA Institute, the Culinary Institute of America, the American Institute of Architects, the National Geographic Society, and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Wiley-Blackwell also publishes journals on behalf of more than 700 professional and scholarly society partners including the New York Academy of Sciences, American Cancer Society, The Physiological Society, British Ecological Society, American Association of Anatomists, and The London School of Economics and Political Science, making it the world’s largest society publisher.
Inc. (magazine) published an article based on Randy Gage’s book “Risky is the New Safe”	The magazine was founded in 1979 and based in New York City, is a monthly publication focused on growing companies. It publishes an annual list of the 500 fastest-growing private companies in the U.S., the "Inc. 500." Inc. Magazine, for more than 30 years has been the premier print publication for entrepreneurs and business owners.
Chicago Tribune published an article based on interview with Randy Gage	The Chicago Tribune is a major daily newspaper based in Chicago, Illinois, United States. It remains the most read daily newspaper of the Chicago metropolitan area and the Great Lakes region and is currently the eighth largest newspaper in the United States by circulation (and became the second largest under Tribune's ownership after the Chicago Tribune's parent company purchased the Los Angeles Times)

Delete. A page with this title has already been deleted three times by three different admins.

23:33, 16 August 2011 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Randy Gage (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): G11, promotional )

18:48, 23 December 2008 Jclemens (talk | contribs) deleted page Randy Gage (WP:PROD)

15:05, 24 November 2008 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) deleted page Randy Gage (G11: Blatant advertising)

I also agree that it qualifies as G11: (blatant advertising). - ʈucoxn\^talk 12:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That had already been mentioned above. It does not mean much anyway. The fact that those articles had the same or similar titles doesn't mean that the article is the same. I don't know what those articles were like and I don't know who made them. I created my own article and I want it to be considered as separate and independendent from those. This article is not blatant advertisement. More or less it has the same style of writing as other articles in wikipedia. If you can improve it to make it look better, please do it. Pushing "delete" button is fast and can be done at any time, but it takes a lot of efforts and time to create something new or improve smth. Zhankus (talk) 16:37, 9 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 Revert. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hang On

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

non-notable-band has no article, links are blogs and amazon.com Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete content and revert to disambiguation page that was clobbered. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Revert as per JHunterJ. This is actually an album from a band (The Goodnight Fields) whose page was deleted for copyright infringement a year ago. The album doesn't seem to be all that notable in its own right. The band's website is gone and the only source that seems to work is the Amazon link listing the album. Not quite sure why the page links to a different album (Hot Fuss) on other Wikipedias either. I'd have tagged this as WP:CSD#A9 had it not been a DAB page prior. Funny ^Pika! 08:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Funny ^Pika! 08:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to dab page: non-notable band, well-formed dab page. PamD 13:39, 3 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 nomination withdrawn. Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milind Gunaji

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

no text; just photo and categories. Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. I did a little looking at the article and found that for some reason, the bulk of the article had been removed via a typo or glitch of some sort. The current state of the article seems to show that he has notability, but in any case the argument for deletion isn't really valid at this point in time. Could use some cleanup, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was some sort of bug. Now I can see article. Please regard this as resolved. Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can withdraw nomination, so that the discussion can be closed! Speedy Keep! --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:18, 2 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 George Psychoundakis. Merge any significant content not already included at George Psychoundakis into that article. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Cretan Runner

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

I came across this when it was PRODed and did some searching, but was ultimately unable to find any in-depth coverage of this book specifically. Most of the coverage I did find talked about the book heavily in relation to its author, George Psychoundakis. There are a few brief mentions here and there, but ultimately I wasn't able to find where this really passes WP:NBOOK and wouldn't be best served as a redirect to Psychoundakis's article. I had redirected the article, but that was challenged on the basis of WP:CHANCE, but the article has gone largely ignored since its creation in 2009. I'm bringing it to AfD to get more eyes on it to see if there was anything that I missed to potentially save the article. I do think that the author is notable for an entry, but I'm not seeing where this book is specifically notable outside of him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- Since the book is not that notable on its own, it would probably best be served by merging it into Psychoundakis' article. Constantine ✍ 08:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with George Psychoundakis. That will provide the subject with appropriate coverage. Not independently notable. Of course the resultant redirect should be kept. I find it hard to believe that an autobiographical work could be independently notable, distinct from its subject, though no dount there will be exceptions. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are exceptions, but the trouble is that most biographies tend to receive coverage that primarily talks about the person rather than the book. It's kind of a tricky thing, but I have noticed that most of the time the RS for this stuff tends to fall along the lines of either book reviews or controversy raised over things included in the book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I wasn't able to find any additional reviews. Google scholar has several cites to the book but in my opinion none of them help establish separate notability. Garamond Lethe 16:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Psychoundakis I originally placed the PROD on the article after an inconclusive WP:BEFORE search. The fact that Tokyogirl79 couldn't find anything means it does not exist on the face of the earth as she's proven before to me. The article only contains a plot summary and the article already mentions the book including a quote. Redirect under WP:PLOT and WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw ^talk 22:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep.'. Translated by Patrick Leigh Fermor. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain if the fact that he translated the book makes it inherently notable. He didn't write it and many of his own books do not have articles. Mkdw ^talk 05:36, 9 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 Incubate. The article is now located at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Entity (film). Mark Arsten (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entity (film)

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

I came across this while it was PRODed and made some big improvements to the article. I was able to find enough to show that principal filming has at least started and that the trailer has been released and received a review from JoBlo. It's just enough to where it may just barely squeak by WP:NFF. The coverage is somewhat local, but the trailer has received some notice from the usual horror sites such as Shock Til You Drop and such. I'm kind of ambivalent about whether or not it should be deleted. I can see a rationale either way. I removed the PROD because I feel that this would better benefit from a discussion here on AfD. If it is to be deleted, I would recommend it be incubated or userfied until more sources become available. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Incubate. From reading the sources it seems that filming has completed. I think incubation might be the best approach here - more sources are likely to emerge as it gets closer to release. --Michig (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate for a short while. From sources, release seems imminent, and as User:Michig points out, when it is released we'll likley have more sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per significant sources. LenaLeonard (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate. The coverage of the film has only been on it's trailer other than the SR Press Gazette article. It may receive more coverage when it releases. BOVINEBOY2008 00:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate Another low budget indie slasher flick with non-notable actors and actresses. Once more becomes available on this movie, significant improvements will be made. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:42, 10 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 The Broken Vinyl Club. Courcelles 00:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Broken Vinyl Club (album)

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

There is no evidence that this is a notable product. Stefan2 (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the band. It probably isn't a notable album, but that isn't a reason not to merge it to the band article. --Michig (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 05:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Broken Vinyl Club Not enough content or notability to warrant a standalone article. Merge as directed at WP:NALBUM. Mkdw ^talk 00:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Broken Vinyl Club, as this isn't a notable release by our standards. — sparklism ^hey! 11:45, 8 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. Courcelles 00:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North Branch Industrial Complex

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

Utterly WP:NN commercial real estate property. Toddst1 (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is all that I am finding on the subject of the article. Enough to confirm existence, far from enough to establish any form of notability. AllyD (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 05:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. NN.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 2 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 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Courcelles 00:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Hill Incorporated

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

Perfect example of WP:BLP1E if you follow their logic and assertion that a company is a person. I suppose we could come up with a WP:CORP1E. Toddst1 (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. --Jayron32 18:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 05:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission as proposed. This organization doesn't appear to have any other importance. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 2 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) 03:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Adams

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:V. The article is unsourced except for that link targeted to IMDb. Mediran (t • c) 05:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is not notable as evidenced by lack of reliable sources. I found no sources in Google news, Google news archive, HighBeam and NewsBank. Possibly eligible for speedy deletion A7. - Mr X 13:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wingin' It, as its her most notable role to date. There is one legit regional profile article of her [8], but not much more.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 7 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) 19:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alameda Muslim League

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

I have not been able to find any secondary sources that do more than mention this organization. I dont think that a planned but cancelled mosque makes it notable. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject has not received sufficient significant coverage to be considered notable as defined by WP:GNG or WP:ORG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 05:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete essentially just the corporation for a mosque, and being denied a building permit is not enough notoriety to justify inclusion here. Mangoe (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable organization. Google News Archive finds a grand total of two items. --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 5 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 The Hostile Hospital. MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pietrisycamollaviadelrechiotemexity

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

This is just a dictionary definition of a neologism with few implications outside the A Series of Unfortunate Events book series. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Wikipedia is not for something made up by Daniel Handler one day. A weak case could be made for merger to The Hostile Hospital but it's still something of a point of trivia, and it's hard to imagine a search for it that doesn't originate from knowing where it comes from in the first place. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism. --Lockley (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to The Hostile Hospital--just because one can't imagine why someone would come searching for the term doesn't mean it's a reason to leave it as a redlink. There appears to be no debate that this literary invention exists and is attributable to a particular work, so per WP:ATD a merge or redirect is the policy-preferred outcome. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 7 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 Alaska Native Regional Corporations. MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

13 Alaskan Native Regional Corporations

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

Delete: This is one of those legendary Ambassador Program train wrecks, and has been bothering me since I first laid eyes on it. The topic substantially duplicates Alaska Native Regional Corporations. Comparisons between the article's text and the text of the webpages found in the reflist would indicate only the barest effort to reword passages in order to avoid copyvio. Lots more effort put into making the article look pretty than in creating something which may last for the ages. I can safely assume that the only passing grade here was in the classroom. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 05:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete you have to love the long series of pictures of "Alaska state X" along the right side. You have to wonder whether they got a passing grade in the part about seeing if there's already an article on the subject. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This should be merged into Alaska Native Regional Corporations, instead of being deleted. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Merge to Alaska Native Regional Corporations per Uyvsdi.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say that delete is a better option than merging. We can't merge copyvios and there is no reason to anyway since these subjects are already adequetely covered elsewhere, in fact the individual corporations already have their own articles so I am struggling to understand why this was even created in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My smell after sampling a few of the sections is that the copyright violations are too numerous to tolerate a merge. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:19, 10 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 Trap (music genre). Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rapstep

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

Non notable WP:NEOLOGISM. Very little in reliable sources on google. No reliable sources in the article. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 10:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nomination.TheLongTone (talk) 12:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argument for inclusion of Rapstep

This is a valid sub genre of music. It takes elements from too separate genres (hip hop and dubstep) to create a different sound. That being said, alot of the songs done in this style are remixes, but hip hop artists are moving towards incorporating dubstep into their music to create new original content. examples would be Cypress_X_Rusko, Anthemic and the 2009–present: Mainstream influence#dubstep article notes others such as snoop_dogg and xzibit collaborting with dubstep producers]] ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittycolada911 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And none of those articles mentions rapstep. (Please don't edit them to add rapstep now, it will show up in the history). noq (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im a newb here (obviously) and just learned yesterday about secondary sources. I would not edit those articles to include rapstep. Its not that important to me, and that would be rather pretentious. However, I will see what I can find as far as sources. If nothing is there, then the term rapstep is just slang and not and worthy of an articleKittycolada911 (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding my research. Love to hear anyones EDUCATED opinion

I could only find a few blogs that talked about the term Rapstep. After some consideration, it seems that dubstep infused with hip hop was termed "rapstep" early in its inception, but very quickly evolved into whats known as trap_(music genre). So the contents of this article may only be a preface to the article about trap music.Kittycolada911 (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember WP:CIVIL. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they are uneducated. Remember also that by your own admission you are new to Wikipedia, which means that you might not be as aware of what constitutes a reliable source. For a term to be considered anything other than a neologism a small group of people are applying to a certain form of music (which may or may not fall into a larger musical genre), you need to show that people are talking about this in reliable sources such as books, newspapers, television, and other sources included in WP:RS. While it's not like people come up with new names for various subgenres of music every couple of hours, it is more common nowadays to see people give new names to various musical forms. That a small group of people might use the term doesn't automatically mean it's notable enough for a separate article from the larger subgenre. Be careful about being too immediately defensive and insinuating that the reason for anyone's dissenting vote is a lack of education. It puts people on the defensive because they'll assume that you're going to act that way against any opposing viewpoint.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Trap (music genre), which seems to cover the same ground. Neologism that, despite being fairly obvious, does not seem to have gained much currency. Turns up in some blogs, but don't see anything in newspapers, magazines, or books. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, redirect. There seem to be no published online sources for this subject on its own.—Baldy Bill (talk) 21:10, 15 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, -- Patchy1 23:48, 26 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:OR. No WP:NEO. Just a curio, but "Country" and "Rap" are having a few mergings. I wonder what neologism would come of that? Яεñ99 (talk) 04:45, 2 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 Amiga software. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga Internet and communications software

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. The "Communication Protocols" section could potentially be merged into Amiga software. James086 ^Talk 17:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Amiga software. I love the Amiga, but this much detail is unnecessary, considering the Amiga has been a niche market at best for the last decade and a half. JIP | Talk 21:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:10, 15 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) 06:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 18:56, 26 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, merge into Amiga software, probably can not survive as a separate article.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:54, 2 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) 03:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tortallan Fiefs

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

Not notable. Relates only to a sub-set of a fantasy world. If it could be integrated into Tamora Pierce, that would be fine. Wholly unreferenced and mostly a list of names. Fails WP:BOOK Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tamora Pierce or Delete. Obviously non-notable and unreferenced and fails WP:BOOK. Vacation9 22:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent notability as a set of fictional places. The material is just detailed trivia and is not useful for any sort of merge. -- Whpq (talk) 14:34, 17 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tamora_Pierce#The_Tortall_Universe - Detailed Google News and Google Books searches provided nothing useful and only books authored by Tamora Pierce herself aside from one exception here. There is no evidence to suggest any of this has been used in other works to be considered notable. Like most cases, the article is entirely in-universe and there aren't any significant third-party sources (excluding, of course, forums and fansites). SwisterTwister talk 23:48, 19 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:20, 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 » 07:50, 26 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV in independent sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:17, 8 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) 03:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assurance services

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

Nominate for deletion Tagged for over 5 years as of doubtful notability. I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Speedy keep #2~~ deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this is a helpful encyclopedic addition, notable ---- _nonsense ferret 12:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK - you got me, I'll explain why - the majority of auditing financial service firms around the world describe the services they provide in terms of this distinction - see for example [9],[10], [11],[12] - the term is used in millions of places, and the distinction is rarely clearly explained. I was fascinated to see it here, because "what is assurance services" is often a question I've asked myself, and nice to see someone has bothered to explain it. ---- _nonsense ferret 01:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search to find significant coverage within independent academic journals and found the following references which show that there seems to me to be some notability here. I'm not sure how best to format these but here they are:

"Are Assurance Services Provided by Auditors on Initial Public Offerings Influenced by Market Conditions?" COPLEY, PAUL A.; DOUTHETT JR., EDWARD B. Contemporary Accounting Research Summer2009, Vol. 26 Issue 2, p453-476. 24p.
"Determinants of the Maximum Level of Assurance for Various Assurance Services" Ruhnke, Klaus; Lubitzsch, Kay. International Journal of Auditing Nov2010, Vol. 14 Issue 3, p233-255. 23p.
"The Different Types of Assurance Services and Levels of Assurance Provided" Hasan, Mahreen; Maijoor, Steven; Mock, Theodore J.; Roebuck, Peter; Simnett, Roger; Vanstraelen, Ann. International Journal of Auditing Jul2005, Vol. 9 Issue 2, p91-102. 12p.
"The Relative Importance of Firm Incentives versus Country Factors in the Demand for Assurance Services by Private Entities" FRANCIS, JERE R.; KHURANA, INDER K.; MARTIN, XIUMIN; PEREIRA, RAYNOLDE. Contemporary Accounting Research Summer2011, Vol. 28 Issue 2, p487-516.
"Assurance Services for Sustainability Reports: Standards and Empirical Evidence" Manetti, Giacomo; Becatti, Lucia. Journal of Business Ethics. Jul2009 Supplement 1, Vol. 87, p289-298.
"The Competitive Market for Assurance Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Statements: Is There a Role for Assurers from the Accounting Profession?" Huggins, Anna; Green, Wendy J.; Simnett, Roger. Current Issues in Auditing. 2011, Vol. 5 Issue 2, pA1-A12.

---- _nonsense ferret 01:26, 24 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, TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 05:44, 26 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources above given by User:nonsenseferret. The topic appears to have received significant coverage in reliable sources, and appears to pass WP:N. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks like there's a wealth of reliable sources about the topic (just search on Google Scholar). I'll try to add some to the article if I get a chance. —Neil 00:19, 9 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arevakhach

Failed to find any reliable sources for this. Obviously I could have missed something. It's been part of an edit war at Eternity between Georgian and Armenian editors which is how I came upon it. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the name. I can find sources that confirm the English language name Armenian symbol of eternity, the very name that is used on Ghazarian 2006, p. 171 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGhazarian2006 (help), for example. Armenia Today 1982, p. 4 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFArmenia_Today1982 (help) notes that one of the monuments in Oshakan to Mesrop Mashtots is a stele with the Armenian symbol of eternity carved at the top. A picture is at File:Oshakan tower.jpg.
- Ghazarian, Jacob G. (2006). The Mediterranean legacy in early Celtic Christianity: a journey from Armenia to Ireland. Bennett & Bloom. ISBN 9781898948704.
- "monument to alphabet". Armenia Today. Armenian Society of Friendship and Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries. 1982. p. 4.
- Everson, Michael (2010-09-24). "Proposal to encode two symbols for Armenian in the UCS" (PDF). ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N3924. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
Uncle G (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of sources about this symbol in Armenian, but no sources in English. That is problem. That is the reason why you couldn't find any information about the symbol. You can check all information you need from sources noted at "Futher readiing" section, but they are only in Armenian and Russian. Secondly, as previous user wrote, if even there are some information about this symbol in English sources, it's called just "Armenian symbol of eternity". So, Armenian symbol of eternity and Arevakhach are the same things. And finally, if it was edit war at Eternity between Georgian and Armenian editors, we wouldn't have the same article at Georgian Wikipedia, as you can see.Pandukht (talk) 22:06, 13 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, — Yash ^[talk] 12:15, 19 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:37, 26 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:09, 2 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. Courcelles 00:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yumiko Aoyagi

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

Nominate for deletion Tagged for notability for 5 years, still doesn't seem to meet guidelines Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the author has been given many years now to verify the claims. Currently (and from the outset) the article reads like an online CV with quite a bit of WP:PUFF too. Though there is the possibility of sources existing in Japanese, there's no hint of notability elsewhere. Sionk (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 03:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a mess, but she clearly passes WP:CREATIVE, especially condition 4. First, she was the screenwriter for the Asadora Kokoro, which was one of the top rated TV shows of 2003, with an average rating of 21.3%. Kokoro was the last Asadora to top 20% until 2012. I should note that the Asadora is one of the most important drama slots on Japanese TV and being hired to write the 150 episode series is one of the top honors for a TV writer in Japan. Announcing who will star and who will write for the Asadora is news, so the Yomiuri Shinbun announced it on 2002.08.30 on p. 38 (I checked the Yomiuri database--this is not on a public site). Riso no kekkon was also a hit drama for TBS, and Aoyagi was in the news for the unusual feat of writing three different shows in successive seasons (Yomiuri 1997.03.25, p. 9). Her work for the net drama The Scary City even got coverage in the Yomiuri (2008.10.28, p. 14). Checking the Asahi Shinbun database (also not public), I see she also has been featured in articles on 2008.12.8, 2002,8,30 (again the Asadora announcement), and 1999.11.5 (in which she is said to be "spurting out hit after hit on commercial television"). The article needs to be rewritten for WP:NPOV, but at least for a decade between 1995 and 2005, she was one of the top screenwriters on Japanese television. Michitaro (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I did add an interwiki link to the Japanese article. The article has been tagged for POV issues as well, but mainly with regard to post-2005 activities. Michitaro (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:10, 19 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the above comment that she passes WP:CREATIVE. There may not be much on her in English, but there's plenty in Japanese. Cckerberos (talk) 08:38, 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Michitaro's analysis. Jun Kayama 06:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has received coverage in several Japanese sources. Also passes criterion #4 of WP:CREATIVE. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:57, 6 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 Financial literacy. Courcelles 00:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Investor education

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

Nominate for deletion Tagged for notability for over 5 years; couldn't confirm notability. Boleyn (talk) 21:10, 12 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 12. Snotbot t • c » 21:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ESSAY - Definetely original content. Doesn't belong here on Wikipedia. Vacation9 22:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:28, 13 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:40, 19 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:28, 26 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Financial literacy, since it seems to be a subset of that. Otherwise it is just two words with an obvious meaning. Investor education has got to be a good thing, but not really notable by itself. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Effectively a WP:OR synthesis on the existence of a couple of studies, without independent evidence that they were notable in themselves, in any impact etc. Arguably, the content might be merged up into the (poorly referenced) articles on Canadian Securities Administrators and British Columbia Securities Commission but at risk of giving undue weight there. AllyD (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Financial literacy. There are good sources and content that fits in well there. I agree that this is not suitable for its own page but that does not justify deletion. WP:BEFORE is relevant. TerriersFan (talk) 02:06, 3 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. Courcelles 00:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion-shaping strategies of the press

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

Reads like an essay, purely subjective. No evidence of notability. Does not seem to be a term used widely by the press. Dmol (talk) 10:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads like a non-academic essay of opinion. The sources only marginally discuss the ideas in the article. Neither verifiable nor encyclopedic. —Ed!^(talk) 03:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like an essay because it is part of Wikipedia:USEP/Courses/Social Stratification and Inequality (Rich Ellefritz). Uncle G (talk) 22:00, 19 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an essay. I am sure there are already some articles on the topic of opinion shaping. BigJim707 (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Public relations might be the closest match. BigJim707 (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Although clearly an essay, and it needs better sources, there are valid points here about an objectively real phenomenon in public relations. The best term for this phenomenon is opinion formation and I'm a bit surprised to find no article there. The closest thing I find is here, and I suggest a merge/redirect maybe with a 'more sources' tag. --Lockley (talk) 00:39, 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's an essay about bad press behavior, all of which I am sure is covered elsewhere and under a more encyclopedic title. Mangoe (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:SOAP, and WP:OR. We don't provide space for essay-writing contests, blogs, or opinion pieces. Nor do we publish original thought, which this appears to be. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 5 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. Courcelles 00:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Jung

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

Very minor actor, does not satisfy WP:NACTOR or WP:N. Not even close, really. GrapedApe (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He has been working for a long time and GBooks and GNews turn up a lot of hits. Most are bare mentions in cast lists but some have more substance. I haven't had time to go through the many pages of the results, but examples include [13][14][15][16][17][18]. Might be worth more detailed investigation. --Arxiloxos (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. I think he does satisfy WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Article should could be improved, IMO. 173.13.150.22 (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please enlighten us as to this actor's "significant roles in multiple notable" works, "large fan base or significant "cult" following" or "unique, prolific or innovative contributions".--GrapedApe (talk) 04:50, 6 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:19, 19 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:21, 26 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are clearly moving towards no consensus closure, just to note that I could not find sources proving his notability according to GNG, so weak delete.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this actor under WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:15, 2 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-François Quentin

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

I cannot find significant independent coverage such as would render the subject notable. Promotional -- _nonsense ferret 00:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found to establish notability. Mcewan (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: author is a marketing employee of easyFairs ([19]) The Banner talk 13:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:19, 26 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete promotional employee bio which all but admits a lack of notability. Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 2 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. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 05:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hereditary in gross

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

Nominate for deletion Has been tagged as of doubtful notability for over 5 years. I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename -- to Hereditary offices in gross or similar. It might be better if it were merged, possibly to Serjeanty. They are not serjeanties, but the converse. Where land is held by serjeanty, there is an office to be performed as an incidnet of tenure. Here the offices are hereditary but performed, other than as an incident of tenure. This is not nonsense, but I suspect that they offices are so few that there is little room for expansion, so that it is not exactly a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move. This is a perfectly good stub or dab page. A merge is also an option. Bearian (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect to Serjeanty. I have been BOLD and followed by own suggestion of merging the content with that article. Accordingly the appropriate course is to complete the merger process by making this article a redirect, but I leave that to the closing ADMIN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:20, 26 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a redirect -- Following my last effort on this, my merger of the article into Serjeanty has not been reverted, so that whoever else is watching that article presumably has no objection. Last time I commented, I left it to the closing admin to convert it to a redirect. Since User:Mediran has not been willing to do that, I have now done so, leaving only also a category and defaultsort, which may be preventing the defaultsort working. Close NOW somehow. The discussion has bene open far too long. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect: have just removed irrelevant tags including "stub" as it's now a good redirect. PamD 10:29, 6 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Payfirma

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

An IP claiming to represent the company wishes this article deleted ("Take Payfirma off Wikipedia entirely."). I agree with this proposal on the basis that the company is at best marginally notable and most of the sources used have little more reliability than a press release or do not support the article's content. Kilopi (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DISAGREE

I don't know what kind of homework you did on if that user indeed came from the company but if you want to delete this page, you should be consistent and delete the other 2.8M company pages that are not notable or have no references outside press releases. Leave it to a Wiki super admin to think he/she defines what is notable and what isn't. Typical fascist control freaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.98.115 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 28 January 2013‎

Not much homework, I took the rant on his talk page ("letting us edit our own page") as an admission. The IP geolocates to Vancouver (as does yours), though that doesn't mean much. The style of writing is intended to promote rather than inform (eg. I cannot see how any honest person could defend the use of footnote 2) which usually means WP:COI, but not necessarily in-house.

As for the other 2.8M, I'd love to see them redone based on credible secondary sources, preferably by someone without a business relationship with the company. If that isn't possible, I'd like to have them deleted too. Would you like to help? Kilopi (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, who is more patient than I. The page is not offensively promotional in tone, but the subject does not seem notable. --Lockley (talk) 06:22, 6 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 Bioinformatics#Software and tools. J04n(talk page) 11:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalind (education)

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

Delete, does not meet notability standards, 4000 users is the only claim to notability. Sources likewise do not hold up as WP:RS Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalind recognized as Best Educational Resource in the Top Bioinformatics Contributions of 2012. --Vyahhi (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with that publication, is this a blog?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's bioinformatics blog. Vyahhi (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The BioInform reference is a reliable secondary source The others are not. Mark viking (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There also exists publication in Russian, but it may be not suitable for English wikipedia: http://www.polit.ru/article/2012/11/17/rosalind/ Vyahhi (talk) 08:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English reliable sources are fine in English Wikipedia. It looks like a reasonable article with enough coverage of Rosalind to be considered in depth, at least in Google translation. I don't know the website; would you consider this organization to be a reliable news source? Mark viking (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:21, 19 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:11, 26 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Bioinformatics#Software and tools. This is the result of US/Russia academic collaboration and seems well worth a mention in the main article. WP:BEFORE is relevant and I would have expected a explanation as to why a merge was not considered suitable in the nomination statement. TerriersFan (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I rarely think merge is a viable option. I am not opposed when it's brought up but I am a deletionist, I believe with a few exceptions that if it shouldn't be there is not much sense or use in merging it to an overall article it just spams up that other overall article. just my opinion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is completely notable and useful. 169.228.148.144 (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 169.228.148.144 is currently blocked, as one of a number of IP sockpuppets used by Rhinotate to try to rig another AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect per User:Hell in a Bucket above. Notable enough for a mention in the Bioinformatics article, but not enough for a stand-alone. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 07:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm discounting the "keep" opinion by Bgoldberg17 because of conflict of interest: They have not responded to the question of whether they are Brett Goldberg, one of the founders of the site at issue, and so I am proceeding under the assumption that they are. Notably, they uploaded File:Tickpick Logo.jpg with a CC-0 license. Sandstein 08:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TickPick

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

Created by WP:SPA - Who is refspamming(?) other articles with links to tickpick.com (not WP:RS)

Adding "guest commentary" from non WP:RS and assumed to be closely associated with the editor: here

Added link spam to blog.tickpick.com: here

WP:GNG - Fails
WP:PROMO

adding links to tickpick: here here

Possible WP:COI (note editor's username) PeterWesco (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG. There is "Significant Coverage" from numerous and "reliable" "sources" all which are "independent of the subject".

~~*Keep~~ - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. This company / organization is notable due to the fact that it has been the subject of significant coverage by secondary sources. Coverage by numerous reliable sources has been of depth and importance providing attention to the company / organization that has far exceeded routine announcements. ~~*Keep~~ - WP:PROMO - Fails

This link added here was consistent with prior references in ticket resale, here. (Note if formatting was incorrect this can easily be fixed).

This link here was the deletion of a link not an addition and therefore cannot be considered a WP:PROMO.

Addressing the accusation of WP:SPA - After researching and learning what this means, I would consider myself as well-intentioned editor with a niche interest.

It did not occur to me that adding "guest commentary" from an online publication (TicketNews.com) dedicated to the ticket resale industry did not meet the requirements of being a reputable source, particularly when regarding topics such as the Criticism of Re-Selling [20]. In addition, the fact that there was a footnote asking for more references ("Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references."), I thought I was adding value. If this is thought to be spam or an act of a WP:SPA, I apologize and will work towards adding more value as an editor in the future.

Addressing the claims that links to blog.tickpick.com: here is spam

The added link titled "MSG Seating Chart" on the Madison Square Garden page is actually ranked #1 by google when you search MSG Seating Chart. The link that I added provides users with the only detailed seating chart of Madison Square Garden. This is searched for by thousands of people and once again, by providing this link I thought I was providing a reliable and more up to date "Seating Chart" than what was currently available Madison Square Garden.

Addressing WP:COI: In the USA alone there are 30,000 people with the surname Goldberg (one of the 1,100 most common surnames in the US): [21] Bgoldberg17 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry just in the interests of openness could you just absolutely clarify what you are saying here - I'm not sure I follow your comment - are you saying that you have no WP:COI and are not the Brett Goldberg of the tickpick blog? ---- _nonsense ferret 20:03, 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:26, 19 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:08, 26 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant independent coverage found, so I cannot find that this meets WP:CORP ---- _nonsense ferret 20:07, 2 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. Discussion largely centered around PROF C1 j⚛e decker ^talk 16:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Christofidou

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

I cannot find sufficient indicia of notability with regard to this lecturer, though the lecturer certainly does exist. It survived an AfD 8 years ago, though the rationales that were acceptable there seem somewhat different from our current standards. Epeefleche (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak, weak keep~~ Neutral. GS cites are 11, 5, 5, 1, 1, so not up to usual standards but cites are always low for philosophers. She wtote an editorial in the THES. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. After doing my own Googling, I've been unable to find any independent coverage. All I've been able to find on Christofidou is her own work, and it appears the author(s) of this article had the same problem. Lord Bromblemore 13:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep only. She is an academic in a leading institution who has published various articles, perhaps neough to push her just into notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only possible claim to notability I see is from WP:PROF#C1. 23 citations, total, over the course of a career, fall far short of that. I'd need to see some extraordinary evidence about scarcity of citations for prominent researchers in her field before an h-index of 3 would be considered notable. Ray^Talk 10:53, 25 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 26 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Being an academic who has published (even with an appointment at Oxford) is not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I accept the consensus to delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:36, 2 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. Strictly promotional WP:G11 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Caravelli

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

This article seemed to be a hoax because it claimed Caravelli had written an Anthony Bourdain book and was the host for Anthony Bourdain's shows (hosted by ..erm ..Anthony Bourdain actually). I've removed these claims and what remains seems highly promotional and inappropriate. Caravelli has taken part in a reality TV show and received local coverage for that alone. I don't think that makes him notable outside of the TV series. Sionk (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I did a search and all I can find are mentions that he's participating as a contestant in a reality show. Other than that, there is nothing that would show that he's notable enough to merit a mention outside of the article for The Taste. I've tagged it for a speedy since it's over the top promotional in tone and I wouldn't be surprised if this was copied directly from someone's article or from a personal bio. Considering the amount of copyvio the original editor has put onto Wikipedia, I'd recommend a blocking of this editor. After the page is deleted, this could serve as a redirect to the page for the show, but Caravelli has no notability outside of the show. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 2 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) 03:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Krzysztof Kulak

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

Subject fails WP:NMMA with no fights for any top tier MMA promotion. LlamaAl (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has mainly fought for KSV but it is not recognized as a top-tier promotion at WP:MMATIER and ultimately does not meet WP:NMMA. No significant coverage outside WP:ROUTINE for his events and does not meet WP:GNG as the alternate policy. Mkdw ^talk 22:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No top tier fights so he fails WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No top tier fights. GladiusHellfire (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I admit, the coverage is mainly in Polish, but that's not a valid reason not to have him here. WP:MMATIER is not an exhausive authority on the subject, but rather our own internal guideline under development... Meanwhile, Kułak is the middleweight champion of an established martial arts organization somewhere. Poeticbent talk 01:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no fights for a top tier organization so he doesn't meet the existing notability criteria for MMA fighters. Being the champion of an "organization somewhere" doesn't meet any notability criteria I'm aware of. Papaursa (talk) 02:34, 7 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) 03:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Serati

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

Subject does not meet WP:NMMA. Only one fight for a top tier MMA promotion. LlamaAl (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has one UFC fight but not the 3 required by WP:NMMA. No significant coverage outside WP:ROUTINE for his events and does not meet WP:GNG as the alternate policy. Mkdw ^talk 22:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has only 1 of the 3 top tier fights needed to meet WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 7 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) 03:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Romans Skiba

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

Fails WP:NMMA with no fights for any top tier organizations. LlamaAl (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nomination is solid against WP:NMMA. No top-tier fights 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 22:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 7 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) 03:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Vänttinen

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

Subject does not meet WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Released from Bellator MMA with one fight. Does not have the three top-tier fights required by WP:NMMA and WP:MMATIER. No significant coverage outside WP:ROUTINE for his events and does not meet WP:GNG as the alternate policy. Mkdw ^talk 22:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 1 top tier fight so he fails WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 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) 03:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Faircloth

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

Subject fails WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has 2 fights (UFC and WEC) in 2005 but still remains 1 top-tier organization fight shy needed to meet WP:NMMA. No significant coverage outside WP:ROUTINE for his events and does not meet WP:GNG as the alternate policy. Mkdw ^talk 22:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Green Man 20 (talk) 19:10, 7 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 The Ultimate Fighter 2 . Mark Arsten (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Murphy (fighter)

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

Subject does not meet WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter 2 Subject has 1 UFC fight but remains 2 fights shy from a top-tier organization required to meet WP:NMMA. No significant coverage other than WP:ROUTINE for his events and nothing to suggest he meets WP:GNG. I am recommending the redirect because he participated in a notable reality television series in which a redirect of the cast would be common per WP:ENT. Mkdw ^talk 22:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe he has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions (my bold). --LlamaAl (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeming misunderstanding. You're citing the guideline criteria for notability for a standalone article for an actor. (my bold/joke) I'm not suggesting he receive a standalone article under WP:ENT. In fact, the oppose. In cases where people, as an actor (and not as an WP:ATHLETE, are notable only for their appearance on a prime-time series, and does not meet the policy, a redirect to the show is fairly common. Mkdw ^talk 22:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - May pass WP:GNG as the CEO of Warrior Roots if more information/references could be dug up on that topic. Luchuslu (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter 2 No objections to an individual article if additional significant coverage turns up on his work.Mdtemp (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (withdrawn by nominator). (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Guida

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

Subject fails WP:NMMA. He is brother of Clay Guida, but notabilitay is not inherited. LlamaAl (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm borderline on this one. He didn't make it very far in The Ultimate Fighter: Team Nogueira vs. Team Mir and The Ultimate Fighter: Team GSP vs. Team Koscheck but nonetheless was on a prime-time series for a top-tier organization. He has two top-tier fights (World Extreme Cagefighting and Bellator MMA) making him 1 fight shy of the 3 needed under WP:NMMA. He's technically signed to UFC and awaiting a fight in which he was scheduled for two but had setbacks. He appears to have some very limited coverage outside his events. I'd generally be in favour of keeping the article considering the subject's history with top-tier MMA even though his record does not meet MMA to a T. Mkdw ^talk 22:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I would say all of the comments posted above in combination with the fact that he technically does actually have 3 top tier fights I would say he is notable enough. Sepulwiki (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He only has two top tier fights (one of them a pro-exhibition bout). --LlamaAl (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — He seems to pass WP:NMMA. If you check his professional record on Sherdog, he has two bouts for WEC and one for Bellator. I also checked in Mixedmartialarts.com and Tapology.com and it's the same as Sherdog. Only his article and WEC 22 article claims that the bout is just an exhibition match, however seems like there is no source backing it. Poison Whiskey 02:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Closing. --LlamaAl (talk) 02:25, 3 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) 04:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Easterns Automotive Group

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

Nothing notable here, Not supported by indpendent sources, the only reference which isn't a dead link or useless is the used car dealership's own page, the archive of the previous afd discussion is questionable & cites only one reference which is still active, and this is trivial fluff, not even thinly veiled self promotion Boogerpatrol (talk) 02:17, 2 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 2. Snotbot t • c » 02:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Examiner's current website still has one of the dead links mentioned in the previous AfD as establishing notability, just at a different URL. RossPatterson (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ross I've added your reference to the article, thanks! Boogerpatrol (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant independent coverage that would support a claim to notability within WP:CORP. I am very surprised this was kept at the first nomination for deletion. ---- _nonsense ferret 20:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC) From the references provided it looks like pretty localised promotional mentions and one of the articles is mentioning the founder rather than the dealership. ---- _nonsense ferret 20:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Washington Examiner source establishes notability of the CEO specifically, not so much for the overall business. The Free Lance Star reference mentions the company in passing but the focus of the article is primarly the women who received the car. Not finding much else to help establish notability. No indication that this is much more than a run-of-the-mill car dealer. RadioFan (talk) 13:28, 7 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) 04:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trenches (band)

AfDs for this article:

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

does not appear to meet WP:BAND nor WP:GNG Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quick review of criteria:

1. Subject of non-trivial Published works - No 2. Single/Album National Chart – No 3. Certified Gold/Platinum/Higher award – No 4. Non-trivial coverage of an International/National concert tour – No 5. 2+ album releases on a Major label/Important Indie label – No 6. Ensemble with 2 or more notable musicians/member of 2 or more independent notable ensembles – No 7. Most prominent representative of a style/local scene of a city & is verifiable – No 8. Nominated for major music award (Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice, etc) – No 9. Won or placed in a major music competition – No 10. Performed notable media music work (TV theme, TV/Film performance/notable compilation album, etc). - No 11. Place in rotation nationally by major radio or music television network – No 12. Featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across national radio or TV network – No Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated they are independently notable. Also of note - all references are MySpace or Facebook. Яεñ99 (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article seems to rely entirely on announcements made by the band on Facebook. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC spectacularly. Sionk (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Яεñ99's thorough dissection. --Lockley (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a short review of their album at Allmusic, plus another at Jesus Freak Hideout but I couldn't find much more. — sparklism ^hey! 08:13, 7 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. Consensus was that there is ample coverage to meet notability requirements. (non-admin closure) Ray^Talk 17:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chavez School of Magic

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

I cannot find anything reliable on-line to attest to the notability of this school. All the sources used in the article are self-published Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources; clearly passes WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:SIGCOV immediately on performing WP:BEFORE. If you click the 'News' and 'Books' link in the Find Sources template you will find them. Mkdw ^talk 23:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 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) 04:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Galbraith

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

Unsourced WP:BLP; fails WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has only 1 top tier MMA fight so he fails WP:NMMA. In addition, the article's only source is a link to his fight record so there's no significant coverage. Papaursa (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 20:52, 7 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 North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear program of North Korea

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

This is a WP:TWODABS situation, which could just as easily be resolved with a redirect to one page and a hatnote pointing to the other. I would expect, in this age of nuclear saber-rattling, that the appropriate redirect target would be North Korea and weapons of mass destruction, and indeed a Google search for "North Korea" AND "nuclear program" -wikipedia returns almost entirely results on the weapons-related aspect. bd2412 T 01:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the North Korea and WMDs article, add a hatnote to the other article. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and hatnote per nom and benlisquare. I note also that North Korea's nuclear program is already a redirect to the WMDs article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect straightforward and uncontroversial --Lockley (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 6 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) 04:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Seguin

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

Subject fails WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has fought in Titan Fighting Championships but is not recognized as a top-tier promotion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability and ultimately does not meet WP:NMMA. Mkdw ^talk 21:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has only 1 of the 3 top tier fights required to meet WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 6 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) 04:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan McGivern

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

Subject fails WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has 1 Bellator MMA fight but remains 2 fights shy from a top-tier organization needed to meet WP:NMMA. Mkdw ^talk 22:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One top tier fight does not meet WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 6 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) 04:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Fernandes

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

Subject does not meet WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has 1 UFC fight in 2000 but remains 2 fights shy from a top tier organization needed to meet WP:NMMA. No significant coverage outside WP:ROUTINE for his events and does not meet WP:GNG as the alternate policy. Mkdw ^talk 22:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA.204.126.132.231 (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 6 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) 04:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Koji Oishi

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

Subject does not meet WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has 2 fights in UFC (2000 and 2005) but remains 1 fight shy from a top-tier organization required to meet WP:NMMA. No significant coverage outside WP:ROUTINE for his events and WP:GNG. Mkdw ^talk 23:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Has two of the three necessary top tier fights to meet WP:NMMA.204.126.132.231 (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep (withdrawn by nominator). (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Ford (fighter)

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

Subject fails WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May change to keep. He has 2 top-tier organization fights in 2012, both which he won. He's scheduled for more Bellator MMA fights in 2013. While WP:TOOSOON somewhat comes into play, it doesn't seem to make WP:COMMONSENSE to delete the whole article. WP:NMMA was created to trim down the MMA fighter articles who were not involved regularly at the top-tier level but in this case it seems that this fighter is and will be. Mkdw ^talk 23:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:COMMONSENSE and User:Mkdw arguments. Luchuslu (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As there are not delete !votes, I'm closing this. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 5 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) 04:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Davila

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

Subject does not meet WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not have any top-tier organization fights and as a result does not meet WP:NMMA. No significant coverage outside WP:ROUTINE and WP:GNG. Mkdw ^talk 23:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 6 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) 04:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Barros

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

Subject fails WP:NMMA LlamaAl (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has 1 UFC fight but remains 2 fights shy from a top-tier organization required to meet WP:NMMA. No significant coverage outside WP:ROUTINE and WP:GNG. Mkdw ^talk 23:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep (withdrawn by nominator). (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Haseman

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

Subject fails WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Appears to have 26 fights with Fighting Network Rings between 1996 and 2002 and one fight with UFC. RINGS is listed as a top-tier organization and subsequently meets the minimum 3 top-tier fights required by WP:NMMA. Mkdw ^talk 23:42, 2 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 consensus here is clearly for the article to be retained. The nominator is neutral, and the sole delete !vote has been refuted with guideline-based rationales and source examples to qualify them in the discussion. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken John

AfDs for this article:

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

I deleted this article in August 2012 after a previous AfD discussion. However, after a discussion on my talk page, and a fresh look at all the sources, I think this deletion may not have been warranted, so I am listing it here for further debate. I am neutral as to the outcome. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has received significant coverage in reliable sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, still fails WP:POLITICIAN, but the subject has received passing mention (not being the primary subject of the source) in reliable and non-reliable sources. The subject is now "selfpublished", but I am not sure if the subject is notable enough as a writer to pass WP:AUTHOR. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON would best describe my opinion on the subject at this point.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable for participation in local politics, early involvement in Burning Man and Camp Tipsy. Covered in reliable sources. Chicken John's notoriety may be geographically local but he's definitely a notable person in the SF Bay Area. J.Mayer (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rinaldi is the primary subject of numerous WP:RS articles, such as SF Chronicle Mother Jones Huffington Post Reason Magazine. Though I agree his mayoral run is not notable, his self-published book was reviewed in SF Chronicle, distinguishing it from most self-published books. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rinaldi continues to be covered by local media for his participation in local culture and politics. His activities and events he hosts are covered by local and national media. John Turner (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This Wikipage is fully sourced with references from notable publications. That is the requirement for notability. We don't subjectively decide who is worthy or not for inclusion. We only look to notable references, and to see if notable references are provided to back up all text. This wikipage objectively satisfies that requirement. This is a no-brainer. TBliss (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been heavily edited from its former version to eliminate all WP:SPS for neutrality's sake (much to my chagrin, as I considered them contextually valuable). Even though it's half its original length, there are still several reliable independent sources which strongly suggest notability. Focusing on WP:AUTHOR or WP:POLITICIAN (or maybe WP:MUSIC for that matter) seems to be missing a bigger point: Chicken John is known for many things — and this is what the sources show. OrinR (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems sufficiently well-sourced to establish notability. Gamaliel (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BIO through coverage in a wide variety of reliable sources. The New York Times piece gives him several paragraphs and his involvement in Cacophony, The Murder Junkies, as well as his mayoral campaign, when combined, establish notability. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 19:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps even a snow, given the consensus above. Enough RS coverage to meet GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:55, 6 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) 12:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Menville

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

The content and notability of this article is being disputed. Article has recently been in a reversion Wheel war. 201.229.38.2 (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

~~Keep~~: Not sure if he passes WP:CREATIVE for the acting and music~~, but is explicitly presumed to be notable as an MLB pitcher, per WP:MLB/N~~. (And I assume you mean edit warring, not wheel warring? No worries, though.) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Dumb of me to not verify the grounds of my "keep" !vote. Switching to undecided for now. Is not listed on the Orioles roster, so I'll agree with Inks.LWC that that part seems to be a hoax (and not even the worst hoax I've seen this week), but there's barely enough notable stuff on his IMDb page to keep me from flat out switching to delete. I'll probably !vote again once the arguments for actual notability have been made. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominating IP should not resort to putting an article up for AfD because he is involved in an edit war; however, there is no evidence that the subject of the article is an MLB pitcher, and I can find nothing on Google saying he is. Inks.LWC (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was my fault; I wanted to unaccept that revision (as the article is currently under pending changes protection) but seem to have pressed the wrong button. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 18:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless baseball information can be verified. Much of the other stuff is borderline. 209.88.130.87 (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC) — 209.88.130.87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment- I'm not going to make this an official keep vote (althought that's certainly what I think should be done) because I can't find any sourcing offhand. But I find it exceedingly hard to imagine that a man with such an extensive list of voice credits would be non-notable. Although where that part about being a baseball pitcher came from I have absolutely no idea. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Subject's baseball career is a hoax. 201.229.14.178 (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC) — 201.229.14.178 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The BASEBALL stuff was vandalism. His VOICE ACTING career, however, is real. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the delete votes left from dynamical IPs most likely belong to the same person, which was already blocked for edit warring in the article (from yet a different IP).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per recent AFDs against other voice actors. 64.134.184.208 (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)— 64.134.184.208 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.59.51.4 (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2013— 206.59.51.4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
delete. Ask the man on the street who this person is and they'd say they don't know. Notability means is he person is well known then he or she can have his or her own article. 207.218.44.2 (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ask the man on the street who Hans Multhopp is, and they'll say they don't know. That doesn't make him non-notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO (2 Young Artist Awards nominations in 1988 = WP:NTEMP) and for his incredible body of work from at least 1979 to present meeting WP:ENT... a verifiable body of work as a voice artist and his having significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. We do not care about what might or might not have happened to other articles on voice artists with lesser careers, nor do we care if some "man on the street" may not know his name. We're here to inform those who may not "know". Various SPAs and miscellaneous one-time-IPs !voting in this discussion, and edit warring aside, we cannot discount the notability guidelines this man meets. What the article does need, and is properly tagged for, are sources to confirm the work, but addressable issues are rarely cause for deletion. I strongly urge that the article be semi-protected to prevent continued warring. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - While I've already !voted, I would like to say that this sums up my thinking precisely. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom 24.184.197.225 (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)— 24.184.197.225 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete unless content can be verified. United States Man (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have added 5 newspaper sources, including one from USA Today. While the article still needs a lot of sourcing, I think it is now sufficient to at least be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inks.LWC (talk • contribs) 23:16, 1 February 2013

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if 170+ TV, movie and video game credits ( as per IMDB ) don't make a person notable, then I don't know what does. Ezhuks (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Changing my reaction from just a comment to a keep. The sourcing added has convinced me. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I have no experience with this area, but from reading similar articles in the Basketball and Politics portals, this article is nothing but WP:PUFF, WP:TRIVIALMENTION, WP:BLP1E, and WP:PROMO. Utterly fails WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE. --184.6.222.14 (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your editing as IP 184.6.222.14 only since January 20, 2013 and your granting "no experience with this area" is perhaps the inadvertent cause for your confusing the issue at hand. There is no need to discount this man under WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ATH, as we do not have any assertion of notability for his being a politician or an athlete. And please, his having a voice artist career spanning over 30 years and nearly 200 projects is hardly a BLP1E.[22] What you need to understand is that in the lack of SIGCOV, the SNG WP:ENT allows us other considerations when it tells us we may gauge notability by the verifiability of a person having "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." This is explained in more detail in the essay WP:GNGACTOR. And please understand that WP:FILMOGRAPHY tells us it is appropriate to list an entertainer's more notable projects for the sake of expanding a reader's understanding of the topic... without such information then being called WP:PUFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 03:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems as though by reading some comments that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is being used as a reason to get this article deleted. It seems as though what is being said is "similar articles were deleted, so this one should be too." With so many actors and voice credits to his name, I also find it difficult to see how he isn't notable. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are hundreds of secondary sources for his voice work. Granted, more news articles would be nice, but he is better sourced on internet cast lists than many voice actors, stage actors and film actors with articles here. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 08:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dixon (USCG)

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

A United States Coast Guard sailor. Received a Coast Guard Medal, which is below a Silver Star in precedence. A Coast Guard cutter will be named after him, but this does not confer nobility. There are no independent, reliable references about him in the article. Coast Guard refs are not independent as they come from Dixon's employer. Defense Media Network reference is about the ship. Prod was contested on grounds that Coast Guard refs are independent in that they were not written by Dixon or Dixon's supervisors, medal is notable and having a ship named after you is notable. Discussion to place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Independent ref question on if Coast Guard refs are independent. Bgwhite (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if we regard having a ship named after him as sufficient for notability, or if we regard the medal as sufficient for notability, then having only official references to prove it is fine. The naming of the ship and the award of the medal (s) are simple, straight-forward things that can be established from records. For special notability guidelines, some are regarded as limiting the GNG guideline, some (such aw WP:PROF) are alternatives to them. Since we make the guidelines, we can decide how to use them. I do not know what the consensus status is of the guidelines in question here, but personally, I would prefer to use any rational special guideline rather than the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:SOLDIER, the medal does not make him notable. Per standard WikiProject Military history practice, the ship named after Dixon is notable, but it does not make Dixon notable. Usual practice is to redirect the person to the ship's article. This was also repeated by various people in the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Independent ref question thread. Bgwhite (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (a little) and redirect him and all others listed at Sentinel class cutter#Namesakes to that spot, with the exception of Richard Etheridge. Jobs well done, but not to the point of meriting their own articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You realize the class will contain 58 vessels? Even a little paragraph about each namesake would mean that namesake mini-bios would overwhelm the content on the actual class. The namesake section would be extremely hard to navigate -- unnecessarily so.
  You don't say why you opted for "merge", but you seem to be second guessing Dixon's peers -- the senior USCG personnel who thought that Dixon and the others did deserve the very significant distinction of having their heroism recognized by being made the namesake of $50 million vessel.
  The awarding of medals, honors, and other signs of recognition of heroism can be tainted by politics -- see Pat Tillman's Silver Star. But the more years of distance that separate the act from the award, the more pure, and the less likely the decision is to be tainted by politics. Geo Swan (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect as discussed on the MILHIST talk page to the article about the vessel which the subject will be the namesake of (USCGC Richard Dixon (WPC 1113)). The question here is notability. The subject has received coverage, but mainly from sites connected to the service which he was in, so those would be considered primary sources. The question arises that the subject has received significant coverage from those primary sources, but mainly passing mention from other sources. Moreover, the subject has received a notable award, so why does the subject not pass WP:ANYBIO? The reason for that is within the context of military notability, there are many awards (for instance the National Defense Service Medal is itself notable) however there has been a consensus within the editing community that focuses on military history that only single awards of the highest medal for valor (such as the Victoria Cross or the Medal of Honor) or multiple awards of a second level medal for valor (such as the Air Force Cross or the Distinguished Conduct Star) would be considered notable within the military context; this is spelled out in WP:SOLDIER. As the subject of this article has only been verified to have received the Coast Guard Medal twice, it is not sufficient for the subject to have an independent biography article. That being said the ship which will be named for him, will be considered notable per WP:MILUNIT, and thus the content about the subject should be included in that future article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WRT merging -- Two separate respondents have suggested this article be merged -- but they suggested two different merge targets Sentinel class cutters#namesakes and the nonexistent USCGC Richard Dixon (WPC 1113). It always concerns me when multiple merge targets are suggested. It seems a strong argument that merging is not a good idea.

I have included brief references to Dixon in:

Tillamook Bay -- the ___location where Dixon lead the two rescues;
US Coast Guard Station-Tillamook Bay -- the base where Dixon was posted;
44-foot motor lifeboat -- the kind of vessel Dixon piloted during the rescues;
Coast Guard Medal -- the medals Dixon won.

I suggest a reference to Dixon is relevant in all these articles. Those references should be brief, in order not to trigger WP:COATRACK concerns.

I don't think it would be a good idea to try to shoehorn what we can reference about Dixon into any of those articles. Some aspects of what we can document about him are going to be off-topic for any merge topic.

Further the history of merging perfectly adequate, policy-compliant short articles into a subsection of some other article, and then making a redirection to a subsection heading, is a sad one. A simple renaming of the subsection heading breaks these link. One can't put a wikilink to a subsection heading on one's watchlist. There is no "what links here" feature for subsections. Finally, sooner or later someone unaware of the merge decision, excises most or all of the merged material, correctly thinking most or all of that material is off-topic. Geo Swan (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WRT medals and notability -- The suggestion in the WP:SOLDIER essay, that only a nation's topic ranked military medal makes the receipient automatically notable, all by itself is widely accepted. For nations that have a civilian medal, or equal rank, we seem to have accepted that being awarded one of those makes the receipient notable, all by itself -- as per List of George Cross receipients.

But, as per WP:BLP1E, being considered notable for a single event is not that common. Most individuals we consider notable have notability that is due to the sum of multiple factors that establish some notability. There is no rule that being awarded a medal of less importance than a nation's highest confers zero notability. Rather, I suggest, lesser medals confer lesser notability, but still some that should be a factor that can add up to sufficient notability to merit a stand-alone article.

Dixon is also notable for having his heroism recognized by having a vessel -- a vessel that cost $50,000,000 to build -- named after him. Geo Swan (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although the ship will be notable per WP:MILUNIT, as Bushranger has said, notability is not inherited. Therefore, the ship will be notable, but the subject (IMHO) is not, and thus why I suggested a redirect to the ship's article page. If anything the page can be made a redirect, and be used as the foundation for the ship's article.

Additionally, although I agree with the idea that lesser medals awarded multiple times commensurate with their level of importance (for instance say per X has been awarded the Silver Star Medal (a third-rate medal awarded for valorous actions) would afford notability, there was no consensus to support this in WP:SOLDIER. And even if that was the case the Coast Guard Medal is not a medal awarded for valorous actions in the face of enemy action, and is equivalent to the Soldier's Medal, and thus is a eighth rate medal.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- because I believe having one's daring recognized by being awarded a medal confers notability, and that having a $50,000,000 vessel named in honor of one's heroism also confers notability, and that the two, combined, should be considered sufficient to merit a standalone article. As I suggested above, I believe shoehorning details about Richard Dixon into a subsection of any other article is a disservice to readers. Geo Swan (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited from having a ship named after you; the cost of the vessel is irrelevant. (A sheik could easily build a $100,000,000 gold-plated yacht named My Prize Camel, but it doesn't make the camel notable). The Coast Guard Medal is not at the level of medals that confers notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have lots of articles about civilian vessels, named after non-notable civilians, for a non-notable reason. Some vessels are named after the non-notable family members of the company`s founders, for the non-notable reason that it is a family tradition. Some vessels are named after recently retired or recently deceased members of the organization, who did nothing more notable than faithfully fulfilling their non-notable job duties for decades. In those cases where the namesake had no underlying notability, and the naming was for a non-notable reason, I agree that the notability of the vessel is not inherited.
    But when the namesake has inherent notability, and the naming is a further recognition the namesake performed notably, I suggest the naming itself is another notable act, and should add to the sum of notability of the namesake. Richard Dixon, the person, held a daring job, with inherent notability and naming a vessel after him is another symbolic recognition that his daring job performance really stood out.
    For what it is worth, I only came across one USCG vessel, the USCGC Midgett, named after an individual, where we did not have a separate article about the individual, an oversight I corrected by recently starting an article about John Allen Midgett, Jr.
    With regard to your comments about a hypothetical mid-east leader`s pets, and what kind of recognition would or wouldn`t make them notable -- when was the last time you reviewed United States presidential pets? Take a look at those pets who have standalone articles. They had jokes made about them on talk shows; First ladies published books of children`s letters addressed to them; Pet commentators attributed new popularity to their breed to the President`s adoption of them. Basically, various kinds of high profile recognition added up to pass our bar for notability. If some White House pet had a vessel, that cost a fortune, named after it I would argue that high profile recognition was just like the high profile recognition that helped push earlier White House pets into notability.
    The cost is a rough guide. The USCG has a ″Treasury class″ -- where the vessels are named after Secretaries of the US Treasury -- the USCG used to be under the authority of the US Treasury. These are among the largest vessels in the USCG fleet. The USCG has named vessels after heroes prior to the creation of the Sentinel class -- all named after heroes. With only one or two exceptions, are generally of smaller classes of vessels. Geo Swan (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to ″notability is not inherited″ -- Two respondents have repeated that ″notability is not inherited″ -- a subsection of the WP:Arguments to avoid essay. I suggest this general principle is being called upon in a backward fashion. Yesterday was Martin Luther King Day in the USA. We have List of streets named after Martin Luther King, Jr. in recognition that while the namesake, MLK, is notable, not every street, school, bridge, or park, named after him will be notable. If someone started an article on a parkette, or fountain, that was named after MLK, and then that article was nominated for deletion, we would disregard any keep arguments that said the article on the parkette had to be kept because it was named after MLK.
What I see here is the opposite. The MLK article is not at risk of being deleted. But if it were nominated for deletion, the fact that some US cities and towns figured he was notable enough to name schools, streets, bridges after him would be a strong factor adding to his notability, just the same as magazine articles written about him, or books written about him add to his notability. The fact that thousands of streets, parks, bridges and schools are named after him would be an overwhelming argument that he was notable, even if there were no other argumens.
If Richard Dixon were really famous, a ship, school, bridge, or park named after him wouldn′t inherit his notability. But, I suggest, that when someone has a notable quality, like their courage, honored by having a ship named after them, it is a factor that adds to their notability and should be considered when determining whether the namesake is notable. Geo Swan (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to using the standards from WP:SOLDIER in a civilian context -- While I understand that it is reasonable for those coming here from the military wikiproject to be tempted to approach the question of whether Richard Dixon meets the wikipedia′s notability requirement from a purely military perspective, I think I should warn you that you guys seem to be approaching this from a far too narrow view.

For instance, the comment above has a piped wikilink to Awards and decorations of the United States military#Order of precedence -- calling the Coast Guard Medal an eighth rate medal. Why should those of us who are not participants in the military wikiproject agree that their internal agreements for medals for courage in battle should apply to civilian medals for courage in non-military contexts -- like risky daring rescues?

As I have already noted, the UK has the George Cross, a medal awarded for courage in non-military contexts, that is considered equal in rank to the Victoria Cross -- ie at the very top rank. If you review that list of George Cross recipients you will see that they too were deemed to be notable solely for being awarded that medal -- because it is of equivalent rank to the Victoria Cross. Using reasoning that I don′t follow, a participant from the military wikiproject seems to be suggesting we should classify Dixon′s Coast Guard Medal as at the 8th rank, simply because he did not display his courage in battle.

Why should the rest of us agree to have the notability of the Coast Guard Medal be arbitrarily ranked near the bottom of significance because it was not awarded in battle?

On July 3rd 1980 and July 4th 1980 Dixon was contending with enormous 30 foot waves that were pounding on breakwaters that were so close that a moment′s inattention, hesitation, or lapse in ability could have killed Dixon, his crew, and the people he was rescuing. These were tasks that called for skill and calculated daring, of a high order, and it disturbs me to have that discounted because it was not courage displayed in battle. Geo Swan (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the limit is based on WP:ANYBIO. In it it says that any individual awarded a "well known and significant award or honor" is assumed to be notable. As I have said before the National Defense Service Medal is itself a well known and (it is the opinion of some) significant medal. Yet it is the consensus of those in the field of military history, that it isn't sufficient enough on its own to establish notability. That being said same goes for the Coast Guard Medal. In the field of military service, the medal isn't as significant as others. Even within the United States Coast Guard, there are more significant medals that could be awarded a Coast Guardsman.

Geo Swan may not agree with the consensus formed, and that's OK, we are all free to our own opinions. And as I have said, there are some consensus that I do not agree with either. But the consensus is made up of a plurality (or majority) of active editors in the discussion which created the essay/guideline/policy. Therefore may I refer to WP:JUSTA.

Even if we dismiss SOLDIER, I do not see significant coverage as described in WP:GNG applying to the subject of this biography article. There are primary references that fulfill the WP:INDEPTH requirement, but generally primary references are not used to establish notability.

Additionally 44mlb does not appear to be a reliable source, and the Defense Media Network, is the only non-primary RS given. If the subject is sufficiently notable, the subject would be given significant coverage in published books and/or news media as well; which I do not find to be the case.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I believe you are misinterpreting WP:ANYBIO. And I am sorry, but I don't agree that there is a consensus that articles prepared for Coast Guard publications are not "independent", or, as you have claimed, that they are primary sources.

You seem to be interpreting ANYBIO as if it said some honors and awards conferred notability, while the rest conferred zero notability. I suggest that ANYBIO is trying to say is that some honors or awards confer sufficient notability that recipients are notable, even if they have no other factor to make them notable -- as per List of George Cross receipients. Lesser honors and awards confer lesser notability. But almost all of our articles about individuals rely on multiple factors to establish their notability. I don't think there is any question that the notability conferred by lesser honor and awards should factor into determining the notability of any recipient who has multiple factors that could add up to notability.

With regard to the assertion that I am not recognizing consensus -- I can't agree to that. Prior to Bgwhite initiating this {{afd}} we disagreed as to whether the Coast Guard references were "independent", and I asked for opinions at WP:RSN. It appears that Bgwhite was not prepared to recognize opinions expressed there, and initiated a 2nd discussion at the military wikiproject forum. Sorry, even at his or her preferred forum I don't think the opinions expressed there are what you assert they are. Didn't some military enthusiasts think the articles written for the Coast Guard publication were reliable source, doubting only that they were sufficient to establish notability -- all by themselves? But I continue to believe that the definitive opinion as to whether the articles written for the Coast Guard publications were reliable was at the reliable sources noticeboard.

You wrote above that "There are primary references that fulfill the WP:INDEPTH requirement, but generally primary references are not used to establish notability.". I believe you are the first to assert that the articles written for the Coast Guard publications were WP:PRIMARY sources, and I would be interested in how you would explain how the 2010 articles written from the Coast Guard compass, over 20 years after Dixon's heroic acts, could be described as a primary source. Clarification please, if you came to agree that the Coast Guard articles were not primary sources, would you agree that this article should be kept?

I have never asserted that the Coast Guard articles that establish Dixon was the only individual to be awarded two Coast Guard medals conferred enough notability, all by themselves, to make Dixon notable. Rather, it is my position that, added to the IMO considerable notability conferred by having a $50 million vessel named after him, does add up to notability.

I addressed your assertion that having a $50 million dollar vessel named after him was an instance of "notability is not inherited". I believe I rebutted your assertion, because you interpreted WP:NOTINHERITED backwards. The vessel does not inherit any of Dixon's notability. But the naming of the vessel does add to Dixon's notability, as it is a reflection that Dixon's peers admired his courage. I'd appreciate it if you tried to address this point.

I'd appreciate it if you tried to address the points I raised in my comment WRT merging, above. Geo Swan (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Coast Guard Compass is written by the United States Coast Guard, and was the subject's employer. This is not a secondary source. It is a reliable source, but I don't see it as helping to establish notability, as it is not an independent reliable source. Moreover, if there is content about the ship, the ship is the subject not the namesake of the ship. The ship may have been named any number of reasons, for instance the Camel arguement is a great hypothetical example above. Just because something is named for X doesn't make X notable.

As for the awards in relation to WP:ANYBIO, I have stated what past consensus has been in regards to the notability confered by certain military awards, of which the Coast Guard Medal is one of them; and as the consensus has not changed, although laudable, it is not sufficient on its own to confer notability.

For all these reasons a redirect to the ship's article is the best option, and will retain the majority of the content of the article that is the subject of this AfD. It is far preferential than outright deletion, and makes a great compromise of retaining verifiable content while not having an article about a non-notable subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As we appear to be at an impass I am seeking additional opinions per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Geo Swan? You might want to read WP:TLDR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The consensus at MILHIS is not a WP guideline unless the community accepts it, either explicitly, or implicitly by making consistent decisions on its basis. I accord MILHIS much more respect than most Wikiprojects in this, because of the greater degree of general competence and specialized knowledge shown there, but it is possible that the broader community might accept a more or less restrictive view of something, and in that case the consensus of the broader community prevails. AfDs are the usual way to test this, though if there remains a problem, I suppose an rfc could be run. Personally, I am open to the acceptance of a broader range of medals as indicating notability than the project accepts, including a military's highest level decoration for non-combat bravery. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this were to happen, than any servicemember who is awarded to Soldier's Medal (or equivelent medals) would be considered notable.

And why, if the Soldier's Medal is going to be considered "a well-known and significant award or honor" (as the wording goes in WP:ANYBIO) why not include medals with a higher level of precedence such as the Homeland Security Distinguished Service Medal or Legion of Merit?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Put a blurb about him in the ships article. GregJackP Boomer! 04:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His heroic actions earned him a medal of significance, and he had a military boat named after him for his heroism, not for any arbitrary reason. Dream Focus 08:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Coast Guard Medal is not a "civilian" award as alleged by GeoSwan. The U.S.C.G. is an active duty military service, the same as the Army, Navy, or Air Force. The award, as clearly shown by the WP article, is a military award, that is just barely above the Purple Heart. Way too many people get this, and the other services' equivalent award, for it to be viable for notability by itself. I argue all that time that WP:SOLDIER is just an essay and I still believe that--but this award is way too common to confer notability, regardless of assertions to the contrary. GregJackP Boomer! 13:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to NOTINHERITED -- I asked for third party input on the general question of the Use and misuse of NOTINHERITED at WP:Village pump. A respondent wrote, in part, "On the other hand, when what is being named has regional or national importance - such as a battleship for the military, federal government buildings, and the like, there's probably a very good reason that the name was used for such an important item..." In fact senior USCG peers played a significant role in the recommendation that Dixon have his courage recognized by being made a namesake for the cutter. I think that is similar to the kind of notability conferred to academics who earn the recognition of their premier status by their peers. Geo Swan (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Battleship =/= Coast Guard cutter. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Richard Dixon (United States Coast Guard Cutter) (or USCGC Richard Dixon or whatever name is thought best) and flip the order of the two sections (with minor editing so they scan correctly). We don't need two articles here. Article for the ship makes more sense. The fact that the ship doesn't yet exist is a barrier, but not insurmountable. It's planned and that's good enough. As it get built it can be updated, and if never built then the whole schmear deleted. Herostratus (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- USCGC Richard Dixon (WPC 1113) would be the standardised naming format for the ship. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:32, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Namesake of the ship plus the original acts of heroism is sufficient to confer notability for our purposes, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (into ship article). - the award is a military award in a military service (USCG) and it is not a high award. Insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet SOLDIER. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since counter-arguments to the SOLDIER argument have been offered, and Buckshot06 didn't address them, I would remind them that {{afd}} aren't votes, and that the closing administrator is authorized to simply ignore WP:METOO voters. Geo Swan (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I resent this snarky note. The only reference to SOLDIER was supported by RightCowLeftCoast, who reminded us that the medal Dixon was awarded was an eighth-ranked medal. SOLDIER does indeed apply here, and I would request the closing admin to take my policy-based views into account. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional information -- some participants here have stated or implied that having a $50 million dollar vessel named after an individual confers no notability on the namesake. I've suggested the opposite -- that having a committee of peers chose to honor an individual's courage by naming a $50 million vessel is a recognition of how highly regarded informed individuals find that individual. See the quote in the reference below, which I suggest makes clear that naming a cutter after Dixon is an important manifestation of peer recognition. Geo Swan (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "U.S. Coast Guard announces name for first Sentinel-class cutter". United States Coast Guard. 2010-03-22. Retrieved 2013-02-01. Previously designated to be named the Coast Guard Cutter Sentinel, the cutter Bernard C. Webber will be the first of the service's new 153-foot patrol cutters. Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Thad Allen approved the change of the cutter's name to allow this class of vessels to be named after outstanding enlisted members who demonstrated exceptional heroism in the line of duty. This will be the first class of cutters to be named exclusively for enlisted members of the Coast Guard and its predecessor services.
Comment. I would point out that the article is thin on reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Ref 1 is a USCG blog, and presumably reliable, but is connected to the subject, and more akin to a press release than a secondary source. Ref 2 has the same issues. Ref 3 is a copy of Ref 4, which is a primary source. Further, Ref 3 is a fan website, and not necessarily a reliable source. Ref 5 is a press release from the USCG, and doesn't even mention Dixon. Ref 6 is a reliable secondary source, but only mentions Dixon in passing. None of this establishes notability. You've got exactly one secondary source that is reliable, that does not discuss the subject of the article. The boat isn't even afloat (or for that matter, under construction that I can tell). If this even approaches notability, it is WP:TOOSOON. GregJackP Boomer! 23:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let's be realistic here, en.wp's perceptions of who is "notable" are at best second-or-third-hand, inherited from what other bodies (governments, media, the Oscars, medieval scribes choosing the winners of history) thought was notable. Perhaps the USCG may be a better judge of notability of coastguards than a group of people with coffees-stained keyboards (i.e. you and me). If the USCG internal process for USCG:NOTABLE leads them to throw a boat at Bernard C. Webber, Richard Etheridge, William Flores, Robert Yered, Margaret Norvell, Paul Clark, Charles David, Charles Sexton, Kathleen Moore, Joseph Napier, William Trump, Isaac Mayo, Richard Dixon, Heriberto Hernandez then they can establish (expensively) notability just as surely as Simon Cowell. These boats are going to be popping around on the waves for the next 30 years and every time one of them hits the press in an incident, people will Google the person behind the boat, it's going to happen for 11 of 14 boat-namees already, just go with it for the other 3. We aren't protecting the chastity of the vestal virgins here, it's just a bio article. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The USCG is a primary source for USCG personnel. It can establish facts, but can not establish notability. Redirect to the boats. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The subject has a boat named for him. Great! Good for them! However, that now makes the subject notable? The Pet Camel arguement above is a great one, and reminds us all of WP:NOTINHERITED. Say there is a highly notable boat, named after a particular gold fish, and it is made up of gold worth the value of the vessel that is to be commissioned named after SCPO Dixon, so is that gold fish now notable because the vessel named after it is worth X millions of dollars?

Moreover, is everything now worth over X, or who has something worth over X named after them, considered notable based on the value arguement?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Roughly following Geo Swan. The award and the vessel naming are both significant (although not individually notable) awards, the combination of the two both seems to approach notability and lack much in the way of concerns about verifiability. I'm also sympathetic to the idea that there's not a singular good place to merge this content too, and would prefer retaining the content in it's current ___location as a result. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:11, 10 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: 'There are editorial decisions that need to be made about this article. They can be made on the articles talk page.' J04n(talk page) 12:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cumberland Presbyterian Center

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

Non-notable building. Only sources I could find were from the church and denom. JFH (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Historic neo-Gothic building, headquarters of a mid-sized Presbyterian demonination and focus of a noteworthy campaign to keep the facade of the building. Also outside sources have been added to the article. JASpencer (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - JASpencer has summarized the reasoning well. --Orlady (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest a merge with Cumberland Presbyterian Church. As far as I can make out, this is a denominational headquarters lcoated in the church building. If so, the two have no separate notability. HOwever, I bewgin to be convinced by the preceding votes. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 19 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment confusing - there is an article about a church (as in denomination rather than a building), and an article about the churches headquarters which is called the "Cumberland Presbyterian Center (CPC)". The CPC was in an historic building at 1978 Union Avenue but now isn't any more. I think this may be an article about "1978 Union Avenue" rather than the CPC which makes me wonder whether it is misnamed and contains too much content about the rebuilding of a new center which would be better merged with the article about the church. ~~I will ponder.~~ ---- _nonsense ferret 05:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC) After some thought, I still prefer separating the history of the building from the details of the workings of the church headquarters. The former is probably notable enough for own article (would be interesting to clarify what the building is known as now it is a fast food place - CPC name probably moved with the church?), the other merge into the church. ---- _nonsense ferret 23:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The historic building still exists (AFAICT) and still seems to be known by the name "Cumberland Presbyterian Center", so that is the logical name for an article about the historic building. The fact that the denomination has a new headquarters that is known by the same name is a complicating factor, but it seems sensible to cover both buildings in this same article. Per WP:COMMON, we should not be making up new names for articles (such as the suggested "1978 Union Avenue"). If at some time in the future, the historic building starts be known by some other name, then the article name could be changed, but for now the current article name is appropriate. --Orlady (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong, but from what I've read only the facade exists now, and publicity the address has now received locally seems to note it as the 'Midtown Memphis Chick-fil-A' - or the 'Union Street Chick-fil-A'. Such references I've found to the CPC at Union Street seem to be out-of-date web links which predate the move to the new ___location. ---- _nonsense ferret 19:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not advocating keeping or deleting; just a comment on nonsenseferret's comment. When writing about federally-designated historic buildings in the USA, it's quite common to discuss the organisation that built the building, some of its pre-building activities, its activities in the building, any entities that used the building after the original occupants left, and a little bit about the original organisation after they left, if they remained in existence. This building doesn't and didn't have federal recognition, but I don't see why we couldn't provide the same type of coverage of this building if we find it worthy of an article. Nyttend (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that treatment would be reasonable if we can establish that the building on union street is still known for its connection to the CPC, and frequently referred to as such, otherwise I feel, and I accept I may be the only one, the article will confuse more than it clarifies. ---- _nonsense ferret 19:52, 26 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So, is the article about the building, or the organization? I'm confused. The operational aspects of the organization in the article as it stands should probably be Merged into the over-arching Cumberland Presbyterian Church article (as they are wholly unsourced). Then perhaps keeping a stub about the building itself, if it can pass Notability. And, what's up with the six red-linked references to meeting notes? (There's really only two refs in the article that are any good—both pertaining to the building—not the organization.) GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 09:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abdur Razzaq (barrister)

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

Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Does not fail WP:GNG, as can be seen on the article talk page: [23]. Darkness Shines had originally nominated this for speedy deletion. Not sure on what grounds. He's done this before, and has been blithely overruled by the community. I recommend to him to think through these nominations before making them. Aminul802 (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources give indepth coverage as required by GNG. Him making statements to the press will not an article make. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per refs here here here here and here PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources give any indepth coverage at all, first sources ha a few lines of him talking about being watched, second is an op-ed by him and gives no information on him. Third a statement to the press. Forth is a statement from the investigator of the ICT saying he may be charged with war crimes. One of your links is a duplicate. You cannot write an article using those sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so start with the war criminal thing, and go from there. I tend to air on the side of caution with dismissing something I can at least find 1 half decent reference for about a non-english/western topic. You also say they are not in depth. Maybe so, but they are not necessarily trivial either which is a key difference. Hopefully someone from that side of the world will grace us with their presence and shed some much needed light and perspective onto the matter. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know one Bangladeshi editor, shall I ask him to take a look? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi editors may be considered to have a COI in deciding this, especially since this person is involved with the controversial defense counsel of the International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh). If you can offer a non-Bengali, that might be a better idea. If the Bengali author can give a fair-minded exposition of the matter, that could help, though.Aminul802 (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is like saying I should not comment on American's AFD's because I am one. Not everyone is a nationalist. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean it quite like that, but knowing DS's inclinations on this matter, I made that comment. This is because I thought I might know the Bangladeshi in question, and it turns out that I do [24]. It's User:Freemesm. His own views on the tribunal strike me as distinctly partisan, as can be found on the ICTB's talk page here: [25] and elsewhere on the same page and its archives. He is highly critical of any material that is unfavorable toward the tribunal. His POV can be discerned here: [26]. I do not trust this users judgement, as our most recent interactions have been less than pleasant: [27]. You can view the history of this article to see that his POV appears to have blinded him to even edits of mine that cannot be seen to have any POV content whatsoever. I speaking of his editing my spelling correction here: [28]. So, I agree, it's silly to generalize about Bangladeshis. I was worried about the specific Bangladeshis Darkness Shines may know. Aminul802 (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, why Mr. Aminul is so angry to me. Every piece of his claim could be answered. But, that is not relevant here. I just want to say, just follow User:Aminul802's contribution and ICTB talk page. You will see, how this person upholding alleged war criminals. I'm just trying to make these article according to WP:NPOV. Whatever, come to the main point. I don't think that a living person's article, only with 2 sentences and a reference can stay in wikipedia. Bangladeshi media cover him as a defense lawyer of alleged war criminals of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami leaders. Currently I don't have sufficient material to enrich this article. If any one have, please come forward. Thank you.--Freemesm (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - per WP:ONEEVENT "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. ..The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person.". Also read WP:NOTNEWS.
Per WP:BLP1E - "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." I am personally iffy about the subject myself and tending towards a delete. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 08:28, 14 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 03:47, 17 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, Mediran (t • c) 11:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say delete, but I just asked a question on the talk page, so it wouldn't be fair to jump to that right now. None of the sources that I looked at there really proved notability and are just fringe mentions. Dreambeaver(talk) 23:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG. No substantial coverage apparent, except for mentions of his involvement in notable events, which should be covered in the context of these events. Sandstein 20:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here is one more, and it clearly goes beyond the WP:ONEEVENT.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with previous arguments for keeping this article. Josh1024 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nomination is simply too poor to accept in light of the sources being provided here. His titles and these sources lay a sufficient claim for notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:43, 4 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-time Futurama characters

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

Only one source (a DVD commentary). Character descriptions could easily be merged into their respective episode articles. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 00:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley 00:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley 00:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley 00:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley 00:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of these characters meet the WP:GNG. When many recurring fictional characters who play important roles in their respective franchises fail to receive "significant coverage in reliable sources", it seems rather unlikely that these one-time characters who appear in relatively minor roles do. ~satellizer~~talk~ 07:23, 27 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} 00:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sweet Zombie Jesus! This is just fancruft at its worst. No refs, no notability outside of the show. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Futurama characters, per WP:ATD. I agree that merging the description to the individual episodes is also appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As precedent, note that List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters shows only those who appeared in at least two episodes and thus cannot be fully covered in an episode article. —Tamfang (talk) 16:29, 9 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) 04:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EasyFairs

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

I can find no substantial independent coverage which would meet the requirements of notability. The tone of the article is promotional -- _nonsense ferret 00:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:33, 19 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:11, 26 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} 00:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources & COI The Banner talk 00:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couple odds and ends: First, whoever wrote the article didn't pay particular attention to the fact the company calls itself "easyFairs" and the title of the article refers to "EasyFairs". Get it straight! Next, we're wading through a qwagmire of WP:COI here, as the article speaks of the establisher Eric Everand and notates corporate "achievements" in a very non-neutral POV, and describes themselves against others without supporting verification or facts - ie; "showing greater resilience to economic downturn than other events organizers." - how is that defined, and how is it measured? Looks strongly like a promotion piece. Jean-François Quentin, the CEO, has his own promotion page on Wiki as well up for AfD. Яεñ99 (talk) 04:38, 2 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) 04:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Fueling Network

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

I declined an A7 request for this one, but I don't see any evidence of notability. There's a few mentions in various trade journals (found in Google Books), but zero Google News hits. —Darkwind (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:52, 19 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 26 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} 00:08, 2 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trends-Tendances

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

Magazine that fails WP:GNG. I could not find independent sources about this magazine. The Banner talk 14:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check the Dutch or French versions of the page and you will find them. Best regards --EdWalker58 (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the French article and it does not contain any useful sources. Two of the 'references' are just links to sites described as being 'competitors' of the magazine. The other references are all either links to the magazine itself (and other sites run by the same company) or dead links. I can't help with the Dutch one as I don't speak Dutch. —Noiratsi (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trends-Tendances — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.133.30.19 (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact just some statistics, no real information. Most interesting fact they offer is the circulation, roughly between 50,000 and 55,000 magazines per issue. Rather small. The Banner talk 18:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:13, 20 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 26 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} 00:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ché OVNI

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

This article is not notable from what I find through research. If you can prove otherwise, please do! The please help by expanding this article, in seven days if nothing is proven, it will be deleted. Thanks! Aeroplanepics0112 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep and allow this suitable stub to be improved over time and through regular editing. My own research finds that even if unknown in the United States and, even if available sources are not(all) being used, this Argentinian film appears to meet WP:NF. Though released in 1968, it apparently has Spanish-language (and some Italian-language) mentions in more recent news articles[29] and books,[30] hinting that it made enough of an impact 45 years ago to be memorable even today. Point here being that we do not expect that a 45-year-old Argentinian film would have current coverage and I am unable to find online archives of Argentinian newspapers from 1968. Will need input from Argentinian and Spanish-reading Wikipedians. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC) (UPPED from "Weak") Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}[reply]
Keep as it is almost undoubted that sources exist offline. Argentinian newspapers from the 60s are not going to be online, so the fact that there is little online does not mean that the subject is not notable. It can still be further developed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already meets WP:NF. Can somebody figure out what is being said here, it mentions something in Spanish about a publicity stunt.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:35, 7 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.