Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 January	12 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant Army

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

Article about a non-notable topic - no indication it has been covered by multiple reliable sources; therefore fails WP:N. Lack of notability together with the wording of the title makes it unsuitable for retaining a redirect. C 679 17:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. C 679 17:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 17:18, 11 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 11. Snotbot t • c » 17:51, 11 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 11. Snotbot t • c » 22:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. Run-of-the-mill fan club about which nothing encyclopedic can be said. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not been subject of significant coverage, and fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:N and relies entirely on self-published or primary sources.—Baldy Bill (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Burke (American football)

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

Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Ordinary college career, and failed to play in any professional games, not making it any further than the practice squad. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NGRIDIRON. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Non-notable former college football player. Not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NCOLLATH (no major national awards) or WP:NGRIDIRON (never played in a regular season pro game), and there is insufficient coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage I see is routine, and about half the coverage anyways when searching for Burke Idaho is passing mentions of a police officer with the same name in the local small town newspaper. Secret ^account 05:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to pass WP:GNG or any other notability measure I can find. Would change my position if information surfaces.--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable college player who never played a professional game. Fails WP:GNG....William 11:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Had a pedestrian college career, and not having played in any pro league (at least the NFL, can't find a source stating any other league), fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Zappa O Mati 15:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable.--Staberinde (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While college players can qualify under WP:GNG even if they never play in the NFL, I am not finding sufficient non-trivial coverage of Burke to pass GNG. The best I find is a brief announcement in a Moscow, Idaho, newspaper reporting on his signing a pro contract: [1]. Cbl62 (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catalyst IT Services

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

enough indication of possible importance to pass speedy, but I do not consider that being listed in one city's 40 under 40 demonstrates anything more than "might be notable someday", and the other factors listed are not particularly significant. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not demonstrate that the company has achieved notability per WP:CORP. —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 11 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 11. Snotbot t • c » 19:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CORP, spectacularly non-notable. ukexpat (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless Notability can be established, should be deleted per WP:CORP TheMesquito (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, hardly even a claim to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above (and because I'm too lazy to !vote to save it). GregJackP Boomer! 02:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Certainly not notable and doesn't come close to passing GNG. – Richard BB 22:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rostislav Bogoslevsky

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

Fails WP:BIO and delete per WP:BLPCRIME - no conviction and just vague allegations of animal abuse. ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete may fail BLP1E, fails BIO, CRIME --No unique names 18:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails blp1e and CRIME as per above and the nominator - I would throw some salt over it as well - Youreallycan 02:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated above. Andrew³²⁷ 17:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely out of line with core content policies as well as BLP. causa sui (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn: see comments in discussion by someone who clearly doesn't have hisself and his memory straight. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing Death: The Improbable History of Death Metal & Grindcore

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

Bear with me. First of all, this is a non-notable book: there is no discussion I can find of the book itself in reliable sources. Second, I can't find a likely redirect. The book's author is Albert Mudrian, whose article (as you can see) is a redirect to the magazine he edits, Decibel (magazine). Now, there was an AfD on Mudrian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Mudrian, which was closed as "redirect to the magazine"--I don't know why Julian redirected it to this book he authored; something may have happened along the way. Either way, to redirect this title to the magazine, with Mudrian as a kind of intermediary, strikes me as redundant, so I'm proposing deletion. If you all think that the article views (there are some, to be fair) warrant a continued existence as a redirect, that's fine with me--if you wish to propose that, perhaps you are not unwilling to add a couple of lines to the Decibel article about this author and the two books he wrote/edited (the other being the non-notable Precious Metal (book), which I've just redirected to Decibel, a good target since it's based on features in that magazine). Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 11 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 11. Snotbot t • c » 17:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The previous AfD established that sufficient coverage exists - take out the sockpuppets and consensus was for keeping. There's a lot linked from Mudrian's website ([2]) such as reviews from Maximunrocknroll, Terrorizer and Kerrang, plus there are others such as SPIN, CMJ New Music Monthly. The sockpuppet-nominated AfD on Mudrian only had input from three people, none of whom found the coverage of him that does exist. Shame. I found two articles from reliable sources on his other book, by the way. --Michig (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on there, Michig--for some reason, when "AfD2" appeared, I was thinking of the AfD for the editor. Old age I suppose. Let me have another look. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, waddayaknow. Guess whose the last "keep" vote was in that AfD. It is catching up with me, and I'll close this right away. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 00:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wyke Castle

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

I know that one should assume good faith, but given that this property is currently for sale and has a website setup to promote the sale that is used as a reference in this article, it seems to me that this article might also be part of the efforts promote the property sale. Bob Re-born (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the article's creator, I am in no way interested in promoting the sale of the castle, and I don't see how the article comes across as simply something to promote any such a sale. Any reference to the property's sale is merely part of the factual history of the castle. The reference is mainly used for some of the castle's history. This is a Grade 2 listed building? Ajsmith141 (talk) 16:12, 11 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 11. Snotbot t • c » 16:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is difficult to see how a listed building, and a castle-like one at that, could not be notable. The article can undoubtedly be improved, and discussion of sale is likely to muddy the waters, but the topic appears obviously worth a place here. I'll copy-edit the worst bits out now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - that the article needs improvement is not a reason to delete it. Listed building status add weight to the case for notability. Mjroots (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable and referenced. If the only reason for deletion is the website promoting the sale of the property then I suggest we delete that. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.--Ykraps (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Another concern might be the paragraph describing the castle, which appears to be lifted wholesale from the English Heritage website. Give me a day or two and I will fix this.--Ykraps (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This was part of an expansion of coastal defences in preparation for a war that never was. Certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not all Grade II listed buildings are inherently notable (although Grade II* and Grade I buildings are), but I think this one definitely is. Appalling reason for nomination. You can't delete an article just because you think (wrongly, apparently) that it might be used for commercial reasons. You have to have evidence it's spam and this clearly wasn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a listed building, which is notable enough for my tastes. I've done plenty of articles of National Register of Historic Places properties in the United States, and even though some of them have been up for sale, that doesn't change their notability. Now, maybe if someone used real estate agent hype in the article to describe the house ("Super curb appeal! Lots of charm, in a nice neighborhood! Basement has plenty of potential!"), it might count as an ad, but I don't see that here. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of places with fewer than ten residents

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

Here we have a hopelessly incomplete list, one which can't possibly ever approach even a semblance of completion. Size concerns aside (Russia alone, for example, has thousands upon thousands of rural localities with a population of fewer than ten people; surely other countries in a similar situation exist), the threshold itself (ten people) is completely arbitrary, as witnessed by comments on the talk page. The few sources used in the list merely reference individual entries, but in no way assert the encyclopedic value of the list as a whole. Other concerns include WP:NOT (in particular, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information") and notability. Not even the definition of a "place" is given.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 11, 2013; 14:40 (UTC)

Delete As non-quantifiable. A list of "places" doesn't really mean anything, as a "place" could be a street or a landmark. "List of municipalities" would probably never be complete either, and I seriously doubt the encyclopedic value of such a list anyway. —Ed!^(talk) 15:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am expressing a concern that this article falls under WP:NOT. A place could mean a road or a settlement, but I don't find this list helpful and notable. Hto9950 (talk | contribs) 16:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having edited this page few times to add the odd referenced russian settlement, I have seen it grow from quite an interesting list to an unmanageable mess. The uninhabited section is ridiculous and now takes up half the article, despite having a link to List of ghost towns, which surely is duplication. In addition there are places noted as uninhabited that have never been inhabited. This is patently illogial as there is essentially an infinite number of places that could be described as "uninhabited" depending on how small an area you defined as a "place". For the remainder of the article, I have WP:NOT conerns as well (which are also noted by others on the article talk page) as stopping at ten is an inherently arbitrary decision. I can see how there might be encyclopedic value in an article along the lines of List of settlements with one resident where settlement (or whatever word was used) would indicate an officially recognised "place", not just a house or general area, and one that was still in official existence, not one that had been abolished yet still had inhabitants. I don't however see much possibility of constructing such an article from this one as most of the places noted here as having one person populations either are unreferenced in the place's own article or do not even mention population. A shame though because it is quite an interesting set of links. Fenix down (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, per WP:NOT, per lack of notability. Article is littered with unreferenced entries, some of which are more than likely based on original research or estimations rather than anything that is verifiable. Hwy43 (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. The subject appears to be also be non-notable, and contains a number of unsourced entries, thus original research. It is similar to List of ghost towns as well. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 17:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Such lists in Wikipedia fail because they assume a common worldwide context where none exists. We have had this before with 'cities' which can have an entirely different meaning in North America from the rest of the English speaking world, let alone the problem of translation from other languages. I suspect that the present article arose from US census criteria, but census units may be just a matter of convenience in each country. In much of Europe agricultural land settlement has often led to isolated farms nowadays occupied by a single family - they may be marked on the map by a place name which might be of considerable antiquity, but their size is of no encyclopedic significance in itself. Settlement patterns elsewhere may be different, as are administrative units. --AJHingston (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. The fact that they have fewer than ten residents isn't very defining either. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another silly list, for all sorts of reasons. Why 10 and not 11? Nobody lives in my backyard, and that's a place, so shouldn't that be included? Disney World has lots of visitors but no residents, so it should technically be listed, as should most shopping malls, office parks, factories, etc. WP:NOTDIR protects us from this kind of thing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: it is a hopeless mess, and it is not a well-defined list. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Considering the lengthy delete !vote by 71.236.220.239 as an extended nom. rationale); The nom. doesn't seem based in policy; not only doesn't it mention any, but I find no existing policy that would explicitly support the argument. However no policy is brought forth in the other two !votes... Considering that, and the particular circumstances of this AfD, I'm reluctant to close as an actual keep; this is not a standard "No consensus" that would result from highly-divided arguments, but I find no policy-based arguments to delete. I'm reluctant to close as keep for the same reasons, but will default to it; the keep !vote seems closer to the general notability policies currently in place. NPASR. Salvidrim! ✉ 20:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Mencher

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

Completing nomination per WP:AGF for IP editor 71.236.220.239, who posted a request at WT:AFD. Looking at the article, I note that there are some reliable-looking sources already in place. Whether those sources show notability is something to discuss here, but it's worth noting. I also cannot find evidence that someone spamming links to their wiki article from LinkedIn is a violation of our policies, nor does it appear to be a cause for deletion - obviously, the reverse would be a different story. Some more detail about how this article is being used for promotion would be worthwhile, and I've asked the IP to provide that. On the merits, I make no recommendation. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an account, so I can't do it, but I think it fails the notability test and he is using the article to promote himself in the spam he sends from LinkedIn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.220.239 (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Noting that I work in the same industry as Mencher, and have met him in passing at a couple of conferences. He is definitely notable in his field, and as Ultraexactzz noted, there is nothing against policy for someone linking to a Wikipedia article from their LinkedIn profile. The article appears to have plenty of sources, and I see no valid reason to delete. --El on ka 17:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. I can find nothing to suggest notability Deangunn (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have added several more sources to the article, just a small selection of the many available. Hopefully this will help clarify notability. --El on ka 17:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Perhaps I'm not well calibrated---and I apologize if this is the case---but I didn't think writing a few articles (plus a couple of books, that are only one tick above junk publishing) about something qualified one for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you remove from the article all the links that are dependent of the subject, does it satisfy the criteria that "people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter"? I don't think so. It appears that this person has made a career out of being an expert on how to get jobs in the game industry---without ever actually working substantively in the game industry---and has contributed substantial biographical information about credentials, education, and employment that is not externally verifiable (largely, I presume, because very few people care...which is the point, isn't it?). I'm not an expert on Wikipedia practice and standards, but if this person deserves a Wikipedia article, then so do I...and I definitely don't deserve one! The point about LinkedIn is well taken---there's certainly nothing in and of itself wrong with someone linking to their own page---but it rubs me the wrong way: a person who is clearly deserving of a wikipedia article probably has better things to do with their time than use it for self promotional purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.220.239 (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting that 71.236.220.239 (talk · contribs) is the account that nominated this article for deletion in the first place. --El on ka 02:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Analytical linguistics

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

The term "analytical linguistics" has been applied to any number of different pursuits within the field of linguistics. Sova's work may or may not be seminal in this field: the current article gives no indications either way. In either case, Sova's work can be described in the article about her. Having an entire article with the title "Analytical Linguistics" dedicated solely to her theory gives the incorrect impression that hers is the only theory. Rewriting the article to include all senses of the term would be impractical given the wide range of different pursuits that have been termed "analytical linguistics". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no sources and really needs to be wikified. Would be best to start over. —Ed!^(talk) 15:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This theory lacks notability because it lacks a substantial number of independent peer reviewed journal articles and books related to it. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prsaucer1958 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. The article summarizes a book and a handful of articles by a single author, Ljubov Sova, but the theory developed in those pieces has not, as far as I can tell, had a major impact on linguistics or philology. I can't find any papers citing Dr. Sova's work. On the other hand, if there is anything relevant which can be supported and verified with reliable sources, it might be merged to L. Z. Sova. Cnilep (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Praboo T. Arivananthan

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

Not notable. Same article under title Praboo Ariva was speedily deleted (A7) three times on Jan. 8, 2013 and recreated repeatedly. Creator has been warned multiple times for removing CSD tags and now for creating inappropriate pages. GregJackP Boomer! 13:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 15:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7; non-notable topic with no assertion of importance, the only references that are available are self-published sources from websites like Facebook. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 17:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - clearly falls within A7. ukexpat (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Splügen (disambiguation)

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

No need to splürge for a dab page with two entries; a hatnote from the municipality is all that is needed. (Note: there are two pages that redirect here.) Clarityfiend (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G6 and {{db-disambig}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC
~~Speedy~~ delete. I've added the appropriate hatnote, and checked that there ar redirects from Splugen and Spluegen to Splügen, so the two incoming "Splu(e)gen (disambiguation)" redirects aren't needed. PamD 14:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought: {{db-disambig}} insists on it being an "Orphan" dab page, so perhaps we need to consider this a Snow Delete instead? PamD 14:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is an orphan though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, they are incoming (orphan) redirects rather than links. Fine. PamD 12:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A lot of the keep arguments provide sources that indicate the subject passes the letter of WP:GNG. A few opposes claim "non-notable" without rationale. The other explains the sources' perceived lack of reliability or independence; previous consensus backs the reliability of the sources, and it is kind of expected that sources covering a similar topic to the subject's field are the ones used; musicians are discussed primarily in music-interested publications, and so on. Salvidrim! ✉ 20:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Bain (game commentator)

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

Not notable/Systemic bias Selmatoed (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 15:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Within the gaming industry he is very notable, and does a wide range of commentating during game tournaments, a sport in some countries. Other Youtubers who are just as well known have Wikipedia pages. NotMiserable (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ed! Also, "Other Youtubers who are just as well known have Wikipedia pages." is a classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comment. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How are you deleting per Ed when all he said was "non-notable"? Neither of you have brought an argument for the non-notability of this article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Eurogamer did a lengthy writeup about him. GameFront thinks his actions are worth writing about. As a creative professional, VG247 finds it worthwhile to showcase his pieces on their website. Rock, Paper, Shotgun also finds his work notable. As an entertainer, he has a large fan base. I see sufficient evidence here to demonstrate his notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- VG247 is not a reliable source, nor does the subject qualify as a Creative professional under Wikipedia:Generally_notable_people. Selmatoed (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is strong community consensus that says otherwise; if you truly believe vg247 is not reliable, you can try to form a new consensus, but until then I will continue using it as a reliable source. Regarding the essay you linked to, is there any guideline or policy to support this conclusion besides the user essay? --Odie5533 (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has reliable sources that demonstrate notability as shown by Odie. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject in question is notable, as per Odie5533's reasoning. --Droodkin (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The subject is someone who makes YouTube videos of himself talking while other people play video games. This is not notable by any standard. Further, though video game-oriented outlets like "GameFront" or "Rock, Paper, Shotgun" might write about him, their standards for notability are not necessarily the same as those for an encyclopedia. NotMiserable's argument that "other Youtubers [sic] who are just as well[-]known have Wikipedia pages" falls under the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS category (as mentioned by Andrew Lenahan). Additionally, this is a clear-cut case of WP:INN. BoneevoCharard (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have developed your own standards for notability that are not in line with the GNG. This is not necessarily a proposition without merit, but it is one that is not founded in consensus. Additionally, please do not mark up my comments. If you feel the need to add your own comments, you could copy and paste my words and then mark those up, but please do not mark them up in place. It makes it look like those are my opinions, when nothing could be further from the truth. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His interpretation of the GNG seems accurate to me. Can you provide reliable sources (not rock, paper, shotgun or gaming blogs with guest posters with little to no editorial oversight) which have provided significant coverage for this individual? (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources) Selmatoed (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The links that have been posted are from sites that have been deemed as reliable sources by WP:VG. They have shown to have editorial oversight, and are not just general "gaming blogs". _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 06:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that he has a false impression of what the subject in question actually does and is basing his deletion recommendation on something which is not true. Note that he claims "The subject is someone who makes Youtube videos of himself talking while other people play video games.". This is absolutely not the case. The subjects content clearly consists of review, critique and analysis which involves the subject speaking and providing his opinion of the title which he is playing. Regular news and comment content would appear to be present on the subjects Youtube channel on a daily basis and as regards to eSports related commentary, that is clearly recognized on Wikipedia regardless of BoneevoCharard opinion on the subject, which should not be up for discussion in this instance. The fact remains that the blogs you have mentioned have their own Wikipedia articles yet are less notable than the subject in question. Other Youtubers, also less notable than the subject in question have their own articles, it makes no actual sense to remove this one especially when the strongest supporters for the removal seem to not even know what the subject does to begin with due to their own personal ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esten12 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Odie. --Jon Ace ^T ^C 20:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Do you really mean to tell me that the most notable gaming journalist in the entire world with almost a million subscribers on Youtube, who had incredible influence on the entire gaming community, a man who has raised thousands of dollars for charity, has his own e-sports team, is a popular Starcraft commentator, and who is approached by indie developers as well as major publishers for game reviews; does not deserve a Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.112.244.136 (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete "Most notable gaming journalist" is not a fact. "who had incredible influence on the entire gaming community" - what are you talking about exactly? What influence has he had on everyone who plays video games? All these statements are incredibly vague - and untrue at that. Anyone with a computer can be an "indie developer," so anyone approaching an individual to review their game does not make the individual notable. Anyone can have an e-sports team. Your arguments are either overlapping/hyperbolic ("is the most notable" "is a popular" "has had incredible influence on the entire gaming community" "a man who has" etc.. That leaves that he has raised thousands of dollars for charity. So have many, many, many others who also are not notable enough for encyclopedia inclusion. Not notable - delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.8.172 (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is extremely notable in the gaming community. Has an incredibly popular YouTube channel, is cited by game journalists, and game developers often clamor to get his attention. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 03:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was : Speedily deleted. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Larry stylinson

This page has been blanked as a courtesy .

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Roxas

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

article that offers no useful information. Should be merged into the parent article, but it links to a disambiguation page, so I have no clue where to link to. The Banner talk 11:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the malls aren't notable, the list isn't either. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The city is Roxas, Capiz and the reason why is I found it mention this Robinsons Place Roxas in the article. Anyways it's not even worth being merged so delete. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A brief mention of the malls in Roxas in the Roxas, Capiz article should be enough. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per above and multiple other AFDS from this article contributor, not nec and borderline spam. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at all. Xeltran (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Iloilo City

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

No need for a separate article as most buildings do not yet exist, nor a really high (7 to 40 storeys). No articles or pictures available so article would become a dead end. Can me merged into the article of Iloilo City (where it doesn't link to) The Banner talk 11:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the author disagrees, as he threatend to block me for five days: This Your 2 Warning if You did it again You will be Blocked 5 Days Because you want to Delete List of tallest Buildings in Iloilo City.

The Banner talk 11:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not suitable for a list, topic not shown to have been covered in reliable sources. Also fails WP:CRYSTAL. C 679 11:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of 7 buildings, none especially tall, is not up to the level of importance to be in an encyclopedia, even if there were references. By this standard we could have a list for every block in New York or Chicago. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 15:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and warn page creator for disruption (including this removal of the AfD notice from the aritcle). AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list doesn't appear to be notable, nor the buildings. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as much as Iloilo is a major city in the Philippines, there really aren't any particularly tall buildings there, and none of the building there are notable anyway. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the only contributions this author has made is similar lists, without information how they are notable. I'm also noting he is now blocked for disruption. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - list are not notable. Height of the buildings are not especially tall at all.--Wakowako (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Consensus here appears to be strong. As such, I recommend that this AfD be deleted per WP:SNOW. It's a blizzard out here. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The temperature's dropping quickly. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of Adventure Time in Australia

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

Entirely unsourced original research article on a non-notable subject. TheLongTone (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Coverage of the subject is limited to blogs and forums. Any information with references can go in the main article on the show. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As with this others, poorly-written original research. Tarc (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 15:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with TheLongTone (talk · contribs). JJ98 (Talk) 18:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 20:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 20:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete suggest merging this with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Censorship of Regular Show in Canada. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are afds mergable? there are three or four other similarly lame articles by the same editor up for deletion apart from the one above.TheLongTone (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not often done, but these are so similar and so awful that I doubt anyone would mind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like needless effort really, all the discussions are going the same way:Censorship of The Amazing World of Gumball in Asia Pacific,(new & PRODed),Censorship of The Amazing World of Gumball in the United States,Censorship of The Amazing World of Gumball in Australia,Censorship of Regular Show in Latin America,Censorship of Regular Show in the United Kingdom,Censorship of Regular Show in Australia...apologies if I've duplicated or omitted, its a long and sorry tale.TheLongTone (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the content is notable and sourced, it should go in the Adventure Time article itself. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, OR and incorrectly argued article as edits are for local concerns or timing and self-made by the local channel, not censorship by authorities. Nate • (chatter) 23:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:SNOW. Same rationale as this similar article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Censorship of The Amazing World of Gumball in the United States and these deleted ones Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Censorship of Regular Show in Canada. Unsourced OR fancruft written by the same author. Funny ^Pika 21:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:DGG under criterion A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Encircle Foundation

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

Seems to fail WP:CORP. I can find no mention of this company, except in this book, which was written by a member of the management team. Alexrexpvt (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per A7, clear case. ukexpat (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Modeneis - SouJava Leader

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

Only hits I can find are non-independent coverage. So are the sources in the article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. He sounds like quite a cool guy, but there's no assertion of notability per WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. No significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources. Altered Walter (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 5 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] 09:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 15:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of The Amazing World of Gumball in the United States

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

Original research, entiirely non-notable subject TheLongTone (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete unsourced, POV, and trivial; if any of it is true and can be cited, it can be put into the main article. Mangoe (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Broken Engrish, something about trimming a few seconds off of a cartoon to squeeze in more commercials being "censorship". Just a weird opinion/rant, not encyclopedic material. Tarc (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS evidence of censorship; even the article says it's not censorship. Might be original research though it could be copied from somewhere. This info could perhaps go in The Amazing World of Gumball if it was sourced, but maybe it's too trivial even for there. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 15:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with TheLongTone (talk · contribs). Does not meet WP:RS. JJ98 (Talk) 20:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 20:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 20:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the information is notable and sourced, it should go in the article for The Amazing World of Gumball. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All cuts seemed to be made for time and content to air in earlier hours, not censorship. Original editor would do well to understand the basics of standards and practices and that removal of content is called 'editing', not 'censoring' (which is limited to language and gestures). All OR, doubtful any of this could be shared in the main article. Nate • (chatter) 02:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a trivia rather than encyclopedic content and, as Nate mentioned, the article title is misleading. Funny ^Pika 20:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Richard Nixon. Courcelles 00:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Nixon

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

Subject was a teenage boy whose sole claim to fame is that he was the brother of a significantly more famous fellow. Complete failure of WP:BIO and WP:INHERIT. My apologies for taking this here, when in fact this should be a simple redirect to the Richard Nixon article, but a certain user insists this can only be taken to AfD in order to validate the obvious redirect. Ironically, the 2006 AfD had every editor except the article creator advocating either deletion or redirecting. Ravenswing 08:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect as nomination, no content that cannot be included in Richard Nixon article.TheLongTone (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Richard Nixon (assuming this material isn't already included) Only notable as episode in brother's life. Mangoe (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Richard Nixon. —Ed!^(talk) 15:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Richard Nixon. He's not notable independently. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Richard Nixon. Courcelles 00:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Nixon

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject was a seven year-old boy whose sole claim to fame is that he was the brother of a significantly more famous fellow. Complete failure of WP:BIO and WP:INHERIT. My apologies for taking this here, when in fact this should be a simple redirect to the Richard Nixon article, but a certain user insists this can only be taken to AfD in order to validate the obvious redirect. Ironically enough, the 2006 AfD had all but one editor advocating either deleting or redirecting the article. Ravenswing 08:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Richard Nixon (assuming this material isn't already included) Only notable as episode in brother's life. Mangoe (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Richard Nixon. —Ed!^(talk) 15:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Richard Nixon. Like his brother, he's not notable independently. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Richard Nixon. Not notable enough on its own.--Staberinde (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, no independent notability.TheLongTone (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Richard Nixon, as per listed above TheMesquito (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G7). Yunshui 雲‍水 13:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zu, Afghanistan

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

No sources. ""NGA GeoName Database". National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. Archived from the original on 2008-06-08. Retrieved 2008-06-11." - does not work. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given that the page has been expanded to a set index article, it would now seem to be fine, and therefore WP:NOTDICTIONARY does not apply anymore. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 18:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinav

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and there is already an entry at Wiktionary. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 05:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia is platform where we give information of various things. so its nothing wrong in updating information even if its meaning of name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgi2010 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and (after 7 related nominations) salt - per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Stalwart111 05:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I have largely rewritten it as a standard given name page, so the editors who commented above may like to reconsider — Hebrides (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's much better. Suggest we keep that now, semi-protect it and keep an eye on the other attempts. Works fine as a given name/disambig. Nice work! Stalwart111 10:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 PROUT in a Nutshell. MBisanz ^talk 04:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discourses on PROUT

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

A "book" of 34 pages,; the article is apparently designed to provide yet one more article for putting in the see alsos and the navbox listing everything connect with the author, however little they may be worth an article. I would have deleted it as G11 entirely promotional except that I've already become involved in some AfD discussions on the other works of this author. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; seems to fail the GNG, even depending on primary sources there's very little to say; the article is just part of a broader pattern of promotional editing. bobrayner (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
article creator's comment: the book is a small book published for the first time on October 17, 1959. The reason of the article lies in the effort to describe one of the first works of the vast literary production of the author's. I will try to insert more secondary sources on it to show its adherence to the WP notability criteria. Bob and DGG: This was precisely the work I was trying to do. If something on the article seems to you "promotional" of course I'm here to change it, 'couse this was absolutely unintentional. My intent is to describe something on a neutral point of view. Please refrain from making statements that might appear offensive saying that I write an article doing promotional work. Tell me rather, in a constructive and rational basis, where the article appear to you promotional and thus I can change it. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or, since they're cheap, redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Significant secondary source coverage is required for a stand-alone article and I don't see it. Location (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete a book still in print after over 50 years would suggest notability, at least. That said, the article as written doesn't assert notability at all, or even try. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
article creator's comment: I recognize some of the concerns. As I said before I inserted this little book on WP for is historical value. This book later became part of the series PROUT in a Nutshell. If you agree I propose to merge on that article with a brief description.--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: I agree with the article creator's suggestion above, it is deserving of coverage as a small but significant textbook but not its own Wikipedia article. Keep the title as a redirect page.—Baldy Bill (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree about merging this article with a nutshell series compilation. The book stands on its own merits, not just because it is still in print after more than 50 years but because it is one of the first publications relating to PROUT. The book went out of circulation for some time - and returned in a slightly condensed fashion - due to its revolutionary content. In other words, this book set out (and still to a large extent sets out) the PROUT paradigm for revolution and the establishment of a "cosmic society". --Abhidevananda (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Sarkar obviously needs a list of works (which I imagine he already has) but something that has no footprint in GBooks whatsoever except in other PROUT texts is plainly not notable. Mangoe (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of Regular Show in Canada

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

Article consists of unsourced Fancruft which seems entirely original research. PRODs where added by an IP & then contested by another IP with no rationale given (apart from 1 occasion where they removed with comment "stop vandalising"). ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason: ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – you may also want to see a similar discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Censorship of Regular Show in the United Kingdom. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination - this is clearly unencyclopedic trivia Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, unsourced OR. Regular Show is popular, but I doubt there are any sources covering just its censorship. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Agree with DUCKISJAMMMY (talk · contribs), as well per Nick-D (talk · contribs) and TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs). JJ98 (Talk) 08:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Complete original research, all examples not unusual dialogue and scene edits at all to meet local regulatory concerns and mores (and most of them just change to less-harsh words, very understandable). As I said in the related UK nom, the usual 'some episodes are edited or removed from airing for content in other markets' line added to the main article should satisfy most readers of the RS article. Nate • (chatter) 09:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)**[reply]
Delete, non-notable and original research. Note that a category page has been created for all the related articles.TheLongTone (talk) 09:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. 100% based on original research. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 15:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - After some searches, sources seem to be entirely unavailable to even verify information in these articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:SNOW. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the very nadir of trivial fancruft. This is so trivial I'm not even sure a fansite would take it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all If the information is notable and sourced, it should be in the article Regular Show. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all100% WP:OR and not notable, even if it was 100% referenced. As suggested above, it is time for some SNOW clearance. Arjayay (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 16:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Zindel

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

Article gives the appearance of having sources establishing notability per WP:SIGCOV, but none appear to have any substantial coverage of the subject. The rest are personal profiles, conference attendee rosters, scheduled appearances, and trivial mentions. Was WP:PRODded for deletion but the author (who has a confirmed COI) removed the prod without any explanation or improvement. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet guidelines for WP:Notability. The references to NY Times articles are passing mentions, not profiles of this article's subject. PK T(alk) 18:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability case is very borderline (WP:BASIC), and removal of Template:AfD from a page during a discussion (see Bonnie Zindel: Difference between revisions) does not give confidence in the case for retention.—Baldy Bill (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noticed a page with this title was also deleted on 4 June 2009 on notability grounds.—Baldy Bill (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The deleted article was on the same person, but much less detailed (basically only what is now the "Personal" section of the article). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for clarification David. Baldy Bill (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 16:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PixelShips

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

There is no reason that this meets WP:Notability. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete web content with no notability presented. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 15:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's just another amateur/homebrew freeware game that got some distribution on sites like CNET, but failed to attract the sort of coverage required to satisfy WP:GNG. --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per C7. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 03:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shark In Your Mouth!

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

Despite the good layout and prose the band has not accomplished some very significant milestones that would assert their notability:

Not release an album
Not signed to a record label
Not won an award to created a hit song
Have not been the subject of significant coverage

As such they do not meet WP:BAND and WP:BEFORE reveals little outside of Youtube and websites with lyrics. Mkdw ^talk 03:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 09:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nandanavanam 120km

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

Fails to meet notability per WP:FILMNOT. I can only find references comparable to the IMDB. WP:FILMNOT states, "A film's entry in the The Internet Movie Database can provide valuable information, or any other similar databases, including links to reviews, articles, and media references. A page in the database does not by itself establish the film's notability, however." CrimsonBlue (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CrimsonBlue (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CrimsonBlue (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned in Gooogle News, Telugu One. Since the film is in Telugu, that language's references should be counted too (I can't read the language) --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep A released film that has coverage in both English[3] and Telugu language sources. Article and project will benefit form this being improved per available sources, but not by deletion because it has not yet been done. WP:NRVE, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:UGLY, WP:DEADLINE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article has received significant coverage in the media. To name a few:

[4],[5],[6], [7], [8]. As MichaelQSchmidt says, just because the article is poorly written, it shouldn't be deleted. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 09:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Altin

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

This WP:BLP cites not one reliable source. A Google search finds no immediately available appropriate sources. Sandstein 14:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject is mentioned in a handful of Guardian theatre reviews, but none of these appear to be major roles; he does also get mentioned in The Independent review of "The Empire" where he had a larger role. AllyD (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but these are one-sentence passing mentions, not enough by far to base a biographic article on. Sandstein 02:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree: such press mentions help address the basic BLP issue but fall short of demonstrating WP:NACTOR notability. AllyD (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rather prolific UK television actor. I did a search for his name and Wikipedia came up first. And then I found this deletion discussion. His being cast in Game of Thrones has resulted in its own significant fan base as well. Make an effort to get better sources. There's quite probably industry material out there that's not online. --Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 00:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Probably" isn't good enough. If you want to keep the article, you must look for and cite such sources, see WP:BURDEN. Without reliable sources, we must not keep a biography of a living person. Sandstein 03:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand what I've typed. I'm not arguing your rationale for the need for reliable sources. I'm not arguing with you at all. I don't even "want" to keep this article. I'm stating a fact that he passes the threshold of being notable and his biography deserves to be on Wikipedia. That means it's worth someone who is an active editor making the effort to look for reliable sources that almost certainly exist. That is also to say that I have no stake in keeping this article, so I don't care what the end result is. I'm not a very active editor any longer in the first place. And I am not going to go through the effort to find it myself. But anyone who discovers this page will know precisely what to do rather than going through the Brobdingnagian task of trying to understand Wikipedia policies or find themselves arguing with you when they don't have to. --Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 04:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep basic notability per the guideline WP:NACTOR, 48 roles over 14 year career, inculding same roll multiple times over 2 seasons on long term TV series The Bill, then there's pictured. Gnan garra 05:28, 31 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, KTC (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing but passing mentions. No indepth coverage of this individual.Curb Chain (talk) 02:37, 4 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if not a winner, a Screen Actors Guild Awards nomination pushes nicely at WP:ANYBIO. In determining WP:ENT, we do not look only at the very least, but instead at the length of the career, the total work done, and most specially those roles found significant to plot and story of notable projects. So in his prolific career,[9] we can recognize the totality and consider the more significant of those quite many named characters... such as Billy in multiple episodes of Being Human, as Jay Henderson in multiple episodes of The Bill as as Andy 'Mez' McKenzie in multiple episodes of Casualty, as Gary in multiple episodes of Misfits, as Darren in multiple episodes of Him & Her, and as Pypar in multiple episodes of Game of Thrones. The sng WP:ENT does not mandate that the actor be individualy himself the recipient of significant coverage (else that sng would not need to exist in the first place), but instead sets up criteria through which notability might still be asserted and recognized when the GNG is weak... as long as we have verifiability of the actor's work. If we then have dozens of "brief" mentions that confirm various aspects of the article, then fine... we use them. While SIGCOV is wonderful, it is not the sole means by which we can determine if someone is notable enough to be included herein. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily notable enough by virtue of the range of verifiable work in TV and West End. Reviews in The Stage and The Independent. Game of Thrones clinches it, but even without that I would keep. Mcewan (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Trains

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rob Trains

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

Not notable, no reliable sources HectorAE (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Few ghits all seem to be Wikipedia mirrors or ArtSlant. Ewulp (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:49, 5 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding any reliable sources. The two quotations in the article are presumably gallery texts in conjunction with exhibitions: they were in the 1980s so it is unsurprising that they cannot be verified online, but both present the subject as up-and-coming and one would therefore really expect to see something firm that is more recent if he is to have any chance of meeting WP:ARTIST. AllyD (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome- Bazzi mehman nawazi ki

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

Unreferenced speculation per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. No assertion of notability per WP:GNG. Nothing about it online in English from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested without comment by article's creator. Altered Walter (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources. It's also written like a promo. —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 29 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 01:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This source, already listed in the article, seems a pretty good indication that the show will appear on Indian television soon. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:16, 4 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Official Website - Considering Come Dine With Me is a popular UK show, this Indian variant should have a page as well. Also I would like to move the article for title misspelling and then will attempt to improve the quality and sources after the move. Welcome - Baazi Mehmaan-Nawaazi ki The new title I am proposing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjhtcarfan (talk • contribs) 16:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion withdrawn: there's now sufficient coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Altered Walter (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Communist Party of Great Britain. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tankie

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

The term exists, and the article was recently improved significantly but it clearly has too many issues of original research. It belongs in wikitionary at best. In addition, the term is also used to describe members of certain british military unit - furthering the issue of it being a definition rather than an encyclopedic term. Cerejota (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wiktionary. Nonnotable slang. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and perhaps Wiktionary if they'll have it. The term is also slang for members of the tank regiment. It's not notable and the references in the article are hopeless. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Transwikify~~ -- This is little beyond a glorified dictionary definition. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect & Merge into the article Communist Party of Great Britain. Given that there are reliable sources that verify the term; and it is an alternate name of a faction of individuals within the Communist Party of Great Britain, I therefore support merger of verified content into an appropriate section of the Communist Party of Great Britain article, and a redirect left in the article's space.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:58, 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 00:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The crisis in the CPGB over the 1956 intervention in Hungary, and subsequent events, is only sketchily referred to in the main article and is notable enough for an article in its own right. But this is not the way to do it. A redirect to Communist Party of Great Britain would, though, be wrong. As pointed out, the primary meaning of Tankie is in reference to a tank crew - eg in a current BBC programme. That was the whole point of the usage in the CPGB (for those too young to remember, the use of Warsaw Pact tanks against counter-revolutionary elements characterised the interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia in particular). --AJHingston (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear that the term has multiple usages, one that is primary the Tank Crew mention, and the other that is a term for members of the CPGB. Perhaps the best solution then would be to redirect the term to Tank#Crew and leave a hatnote there regarding the verified usage of the term for members of the CPGB.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Communist Party of Great Britain in reduced form; this is about one aspect of that group's history. Sandstein 08:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will also go with that merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 14:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion A7 with additional comment "Essay, original research, no verifiable sources". (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Measurement data intelligence (MDI)

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

This article was not notable when it was speedied on Dec 20, 2012 (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Measurement Data Intelligence (MDI)), nor when it was speedied on Jan 9, 2013 (with edit summary of "(A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): essay, OR, no sources, no more notable than when it was deleted under title Measurement Data Intelligence (MDI) in Dec 2012.)").

No refs. No GHits. No GNews/Books/Scholar.

Creator has a username that indicates it may represent a business or organization.

Recommend salting both titles to prevent endless recreations. GregJackP Boomer! 00:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SMS addiction (neé Textaholism)

Article is nothing more than a dictionary definition of a neologism. Perhaps it should be transwikied to wiktionary? Bensci54 (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, the first sentence is nothing but a dictionary definition of a neologism. that's an astute observation. now if you continue reading you'll notice that there is actually an article here that follows including several points that have no place in a dictionary. that's why we have encyclopedias. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikewax (talk • contribs) 02:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I'm sure this could be turned into a decent article, but as of now the citations are terrible and the content and grammar are even worse. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
that's a shame --Mikewax (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article sourced to Urban Dictionary, YouTube, MTV, and Yahoo Answers isn't exactly a paragon of reliable content. This bad sourcing is no doubt caused by the use of the wrong name for the subject. Its actual name, from which one will find proper literature on the subject, is SMS addiction. Uncle G (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- thats a good point but when i put up the same article with the title SMS adiction it was immediately deleted. --Mikewax (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's because you didn't use the page rename tool, as you should have done. Uncle G (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no RS. Arbitrary distinctions of what determines this "condition". OR. -Drdisque (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:44, 5 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 00:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poor article! I could find no concrete evidence that this condition exists. Colinwhitehouse (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veta La Palma

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

Promotional article about a non-notable organisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The Time article already in the article as an external link is substantial coverage from a reliable source, as (so far as I can judge) is this article from El Mundo. And there are plenty of other GNews hits, though it probably needs someone with better Spanish than I have to sort out which of them are reliable. The article is definitely rather over-promotional at the moment, and badly needs in-line citations but, when the subject is notable, these are editing issues, not reasons for deletion. PWilkinson (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 29 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 01:10, 4 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 00:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nontrivial coverage in Time Magazine, El Mundo, and Al-Jazeera alone is enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, which states that "[e]vidence of attention by international or national [...] media is a strong indication of notability". Seems also to have been discussed (albeit briefly, and usually as the site of an investigation) in several books, e. g., 1, 2, and numerous scholarly articles, e. g., 1, 2, 3. Alexrexpvt (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. For starters, see [10], [11], [12]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accelerated orthodontic treatment

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

The entire article is a mess and is written in an unencyclopedic way. Not notable with no reliable sources. Satellizer ^{talk contribs} 01:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've cleaned it up. There were 2 sources. It needs still needs expansion though.--Auric Talk 14:01, 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 00:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - scholar.google.com and Google books show that the topic meets wp:N. As for the wp:NOT issues (mess and is written in an unencyclopedic way), I cleaned up the article a little more. -- Jreferee (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of Regular Show in the United Kingdom

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

Prodded once but template was removed with no reason given. It was prodded again but I removed it as you can't PROD an article twice. Taking to AfD for the same reasons as the initial one though, "This is completely unreferenced original research and does not pass WP:GNG". Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC) In fact, everything in and including this category should probably be deleted seperately too. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not unusual edits at all, UK shows have regular self-edits (and even missing episodes) of American shows to meet basic content regulations, and to be clear, these are edits made locally by the network itself to meet UK standards, not made by a government agency. Not only OR, but definite fancruft, and this can easily be covered by the usual 'some episodes are edited or removed from airing for content in other markets' line in the main article. If the prods are removed on other shows in the Regular Show Censorship category, feel free to put them up here too, along with Censorship of The Amazing World of Gumball in Australia; not a source to be found among any of them (though judging from the creator having profanities in his signature this is going to be a tough nom). Nate • (chatter) 03:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC) (rationale changed to emphasize editing is self-regulation, not 'censorship' by any government agency)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mrschimpf (talk · contribs). Lacks inline citations. JJ98 (Talk) 05:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – you may also want to see a similar discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Censorship of Regular Show in Canada. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article on a non-notable subject based on original reasearch. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Censorship of The Amazing World of Gumball in the United States.TheLongTone (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is approaching the "patent nonsense" level of a G1 speedy delete. Reading through this and other contributions by this user, we're getting into some WP:COMPETENCE territory, a rambling essay about a tv show that subs out naughty words for broadcast isn't really a notable situation. Tarc (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. 100% based on original research. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - After some searches, sources seem to be entirely unavailable to even verify information in this article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reason as the rest of them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the information is notable and sourced, it should be in the article Regular Show. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 100% WP:OR and not notable, even if it was 100% referenced. As suggested above, it is time for some SNOW clearance. Arjayay (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly it's arisen from here, but still non-notable cruft.--A bit iffy (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is NN WP:OR. In UK we have standards as to the language that can be used before a 9 pm watershed. The article appears to be objecting to editorical changes to make the programme suitable to UK audience and UK standards. That is not censorship, it is editing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ontoforce

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

This startup company doesn't appear notable per WP:CORP. Only claim of notability in article is "second place in Vacature magazine’s top 10 of young Flemish technology companies", which I don't think is enough. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a startup. They deserve a place on Wikipedia imho because I believe in their ideas. Do you have tips to make sure this page won't be deleted? Zofie_be (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2013

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable per WP:CORP and WP:GNG - third-party coverage is shallow at best. -- Scray (talk) 01:00, 7 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 00:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NOBLE is not a criterion for inclusion. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 00:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2013 in sports. Courcelles 00:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International sports calendar 2013

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

Creation after the decision to merge te article International sports calendar 2012 into 2012 in sports. The user creating this new article is perfectly aware of that decision, as he participated in the previous discussion (as I did also). - Nabla (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CCC + the formatting here is different and tackles the issue in the last one that it was messy. It is now more easily organised. Despise OSE, see the various political leders "by tenure"/"by..." Likewise, this is chronological reference, while the other is "by sport". This is also more organised than that as it lists more data like the winnersLihaas (talk) 02:53, 8 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 00:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment notified 4 users involved in editing the 2012 pageq.Lihaas (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2013 in sports. We aren't a calendar for upcoming events, parent page works fine for this topic. Secret ^account 04:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2013 in sports per above comment. Frankly, I don't see what the point of this page is, and, seeing as "2013 in sports" should cover all of this, it's very redundant, though I am happy to see that curling as a sport was covered. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its more comprehensive that that. How about proposal merging that INTO this? Title is better and format.Lihaas (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make more sense to merge a smaller article into a larger one? Besides, you can make edits on the 2013 in sports article to add comprehensiveness, including adding what you've done here. Format is a nonessential issue in that sense. I feel that the "2013 in sports" is simple and adequate. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the title here is better and more consistent (a la the election calendar). The scope of the other article is much too broad to include non-professional sports as well. You know how big that page can get for domestic and sub-domestic titles? That is liable to be incomplete forever.Lihaas (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2013 in sports. That seems to be a more suitable title (the "International sports calendar" makes it sound like a formal arrangement, when actually it's just a collection of various sports' calendars. Number 5 7 11:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin technical closure)Ymblanter (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iveta Mukuchyan

I withdraw my nomination

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

Doesn't sound notable at all. She didn't win either reality show she was on and sources are very weak. Mabalu (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that she didn't win those contests didn't really effect her later career. She is today much more famous than the winners. I've added few more sources (which I think are reliable) to "prove" her notability.--Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 18:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined towards keep. There seems to be plenty of coverage from Armenian sources, and she certainly seems to be very well known there. I am assuming that these were two major televised talent contests that she reached the final of. --Michig (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The new sources added look potentially good, I'll wait to see what other people have to say first but am neutral currently. Mabalu (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 29 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 00:33, 3 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 00:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources provided apparently indicate subject is notable in Armenia. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources proof that the person is notable in Armenia, thus passing WP:GNG for an encyclopedia article. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 02:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn nomination I'm happy to withdraw the nomination now as the article is now sourced. Mabalu (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Dixon (economic writer)

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

Unnotable person, article is still an orphan three years after creation. Article is an autobiography, created by and and sourced to the subject. Every word in the article was written by User:Dixon Advisory and it looks like an ad for his company. Barsoomian (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he has a recent article in The Australian referred to here [13] (paywalled), and his financial advice appears to be the topic of 3 articles in the Australian Financial Review over 3 years(AFR search). Whilst not a reliable source his about page on his website should allow the identification of RS for many elements of his CV. A Trove search for books lists 44 publications, a number of which are published by notable publishers (e.g. Dixon, Daryl (2012), Securing your superannuation future : how to start and run a self-managed super fund, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 978-0-7303-7778-8). -- Paul foord (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the article has now been edited to make it more encyclopedic, more work required. Found lots of publications at Trove. I note the late addition of the WP:COI to the nomination. --Paul foord (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did just add WP:COI explicitly here, but the COI template has been, appropriately, on the article since 2010. Barsoomian (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think the article addresses the concerns raised. I think there are more than enough RS proving notability. Just found 3 columns in the Sydney Morning Herald in their supplement on the 1998 Mini-Budget by Daryl Dixon, Labor's strategy opens way for flat tax system, Tax reform on the cheap and Mortgage-holder the losers, (13 April 1989), Sydney Morning Herald, p. 2s -- Paul foord (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that every cited reference is written by Dixon. There is nothing independent about him. No reviews, for example. Barsoomian (talk)

I think he fits here Notability Creative_professionals 'The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications.' Paul foord (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote three articles in a newspaper in 1989 (not '98). That's "significant"? Mark me unconvinced, but it's up to the closer. Barsoomian (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see this link and this link Paul foord (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have recently made some additional edits to the Daryl Dixon (economic writer) page. I agree with Paul foord in that there is still a fair bit to update given the quantum of references and sources to Daryl Dixon. For starters I found 65 articles written by Daryl Dixon in the AFR Smart Investor magazine http://www.afrsmartinvestor.com, how would you suggest referencing these? Also he writes for the Canberra Times weekly however there are only 30 articles available on the net. Pete441 (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is purely autobiographical and promotional. andy (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it.Strong Keep The state of the article is irrelevant. I think he passes based on what has been brought into the open. Plus he wrote a couple of articles for this magazine . His biography at this University website gives us good details of his notability in his field as well. THis is just the Icing on the cake. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:05, 11 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 00:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the precious few secondary sources don't imply notability, and the WP:BURDEN lies heavily on the supporters, especially as this is obviously self-promotional. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 00:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI believe your burden is met. Here is another ref for you. This guy is clearly notable in Australia. Here is a businessweek overview of him as well to assert his being a significant contributor to his field. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understood that notability was a separate issue from self promotion. The arguments for deletion appear to address the promotion aspect. That can be edited out - which is what my edits sought to do - it would appear further work is required to address that. Paul foord (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The overwhelming majority of the references are not independent because they were written in whole or part by the article's subject. The key claim for him, that "He is well known and respected in Australia as an authority on superannuation" is a totally unsupported assertion. I see nothing that shows particular notability - in what way is he any different from the majority of clever writers? IMHO this article fails both WP:RS and WP:BIO and I have heard no convincing arguments to the contrary. Remove the unreliable sources and the pointless and unreferenced detail in the biography session and there's nothing left apart from an unconvincing stub. andy (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You make it sound as if he is self-published rather than featuring in prominent Australian news media. The Australian, the Australian Financial Review and the Australian Broadcasting Commission are independent of him and free to choose whatever experts they choose. Daryl Dixon appears prominently in the Australian print media and as a commentator, and to a lesser extent on the broadcast media (see a quick ABC website search, here, at http://www.abc.net.au/nightlife/stories/s1648051.htm tthe ABC refers to Dixon as their superannuation expert. Paul foord (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point about the distinction between self publication, and having your articles published in many news outlets. I also ask the person who doubted the assertions of notability presented by the university I linked to. Why would they lie? I think they would know who is notable in the field and who is not. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With Javascript enabled, open this source and click on "Read full background". This is everything we want as significant reliable coverage by a secondary source. I searched Google on [Daryl Dixon superannuation] and see that on the first page of hits a snippet shows that abc.net.au recognizes the topic as a "Superannuation expert". The second page of hits has this source, in which the Victorian government serves as an independent source giving attention to the topic. This trove page assigns the topic a persistent ID and lists 267 resources. Topic satisfies WP:GNG and WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the Google Scholar search helps - his work has received a number of citations. Not huge - the h-index only works out to be 5 - but this isn't an academic field. St Anselm (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person is very well known in Australia, appearing often in newspaper and also on Tv. eg http://www.abc.net.au/nightlife/stories/3617239.htm http://www.smh.com.au/business/asset-check-with-daryl-dixon-20121124-2a0l0.html. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I think the sources scrape him over the notability bar, but not by much. A large proportion of the references provided are by Dixon himself, and while that's not against the rules as such, there shouldn't be any trouble locating heaps of coverage on someone who was clearly notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Notability established. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Byrne

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

Patricia Byrne promoting Patricia Byrne and her books. Fails WP:GNG. The Banner _talk 12:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self-advertisement about non-notable non-fiction writer, as obscure as most of us inkstained wretches. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant self-promotion of a non-notable author. Snappy (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I'm seeing some hits in Google Books where some of her writings are used as resources for books. I don't know how much that counts for, though. I did do a cleanup of the article, removing a lot of stuff that wasn't really sourced with stuff about her or her works as well as moving the two reviews I was able to find for one of her books currently up for AfD to this article.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:01, 5 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 00:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apparently a self bio which originally was spamming ISBN numbers for books written by the subject. When are we going to wake up and eliminate these commercial bar code numbers from Wikipedia? There is no legitimate, necessary reason for ISBN numbers at WP... Carrite (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bollygood

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

Does not seem to meet WP:ORG. Very few available sources and the BBC source is about a fundraiser and record attempt than the charity Mkdw ^talk 09:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail general notability guidelines for organizations. SarahStierch (talk) 01:32, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One-off Guinness World Record breaking attempt with no lasting social significance. Congrats for the good effort for a good cause, but this is a GNG failure, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Three relistings. no consensnus. Time to close this, feel free to bring it back after a spell Courcelles 00:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue

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

Based on this organization's stated goals and missions, it should be notable, but I can find no coverage in independent sources to draw on. The organization has placed itself on lots of other websites -- memberships in other international organizations, listings in various directories, etc., but no independent significant coverage of their activities. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Google News archives found several results and the links including this one and this one suggest they are most active in Africa, Asia and Latin America. I'm not an expert with this subject but it seems they may be notable. SwisterTwister talk 23:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If people are using Google to judge notability then I wish they would use the searches most likely to find reliable sources, i.e. start with Scholar, then go to Books, News archive and only as a desperate last resort use a general web search. By following such a common-sense strategy I found two cast-iron reliable sources within a minute: doi:10.1111/j.1571-9979.2004.00025.x and ISBN 9780313375774 pp. 114–116 et al., but they are only the tip of the iceberg of readily available reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I used to live and work in Geneva and the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue is a place I frequently visited for discussions, and workshops related to humanitarian practice. So it's definitely real and relevant. Regarding reliable sources, you can find their publications quoted on Swisspeace.ch and here. When you Google the name of these publications you'll see that they are being quoted and used by many humanitarian organizations. Timoluege (talk) 18:31, 8 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, 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 00:55, 3 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 00:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AppGreen Marketplace

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

Non-notable software and a bit spamish and adding to WP:CSB. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe worth noting that after this AfD began, the original contributor added a note to Talk:AppGreen Marketplace with claims to notability, but without verification (use of words like "awesome" does not constitute WP:RS). Maybe also worth noting that an article bearing the product's simpler name "AppGreen" had been created and speedy-deleted shortly before this one, although with a different creator account. AllyD (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding evidence of notability. (If someone did verify the award claim on the article Talk page, then I may reconsider.) AllyD (talk) 13:46, 26 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, KTC (talk) 00:15, 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 00:47, 3 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 00:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. The article only cites the App's own website and I wasn't able to find any other sources online. The little green pig (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Refs provided have vague editorial policies and authorship information, and appear to accept payment in exchange for reviews, and are thus not RS; created by an SPA as likely spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Soft delete Courcelles 00:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GEAR Video

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

Hi. This article is about a discontinued software product that does not meet WP:GNG requirements. I tried to look for it on the web but the search results were extremely discouraging. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:11, 20 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:09, 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 00:52, 3 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 00:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really my field of expertise, but notability has not been demonstrated in the article by independent reliable sources. At this point, delete.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some Kind of Miracle (song)

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

This article about an album track fails WP:GNG as it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. An analysis of the 10 sources proves this:

Source 1 is a dead link and thus fails WP:V, and cannot be counted towards establishing notability.
Source 2 is a primary source and thus fails to establish notability.
Source 3 contains one sentence about the track and is therefore not significant coverage.
Sources 4 and 5 ~~are inaccessible and are therefore unable to establish notability.~~ contain no significant coverage.
Sources 7 and 8 cite Discogs, an unreliable source, and contain absolutely no coverage of the track.
Sources 6, 9 and 10 are much like source 3; routine, trivial mentions that do not contain significant coverage to prove notability. Till 13:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have to be freely available online, so sources 1, 4 and 5 can't be dismissed in this way. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right. I retrieved source 5 from Wayback Machine, and it contains this line "'Some Kind Of Miracle' is a 21st century Bangles". That's at most a trivial mention. As for source 4, the source is still inaccessbile, so I can't really judge on that yet. Still sorting out source 1. If it ends up to be a trivial mention, I'm afraid that this article will have to be deleted or merged as lacking notability. Till 00:24, 23 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:08, 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 00:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already, per nom. It's clear after two relists that no one has come to the rescue, nor found any sources to save this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – What appears to be notable about this song is that a large number of reviewers, when writing about the album Sounds of the Underground, singled out this song for commentary, so I wouldn't view that as "routine" coverage. Certainly it's not the most notable track on the album, and if just a couple of reviewers wrote something brief about this track, it would not warrant a separate article. But there's enough here to squeak by our guidelines for inclusion. I've added several more reviews just now. Each of them is brief coverage, but brief does not always equate to "trivial" coverage, especially when there are so many music critics commenting briefly about the song. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The track was reviewed as part of the album, and each review contains no more than one sentence. That's not significant coverage. Unless sources that directly address the song in detail, rather than short, trivial mentions as part of an album review are brought forward, this topic should not have a standalone article. Till 02:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, I'm not all that sure. Again, I'm not automatically going to dismiss short coverage as "trivial" simply because it is short, especially when there are quite a range of sources. The implication I suppose in what you are saying is that I added "trivia" to the article, but I don't think I did. I expanded the "Critical reception" section with each source, which is a fairly standard thing for articles about songs. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's usual practice to notify the main contributor/author of the article when initiating an AfD. I'm not sure if there was a reason it was not done in this case. I went ahead and notified the article creator. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:44, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more or less per Paul Erik. Nom's overzealous parsing of the notability standards effectively synthesizes principles that do not enjoy consensus support. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NPASR Courcelles 00:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Space City (newspaper)

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

Little Notability on its own as an underground newspaper that ran for 3 years.

Should be deleted and redirected to Thorne Webb Dreyer which already has a large subsection for Space City. Does add notability to Thorne Webb Dreyer as one of his many projects. PeterWesco (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 21 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 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 00:53, 3 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, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in the references there are several items which are specifically dedicated to the newspaper.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cleanup to include only songs which have been specifically written to talk about the city ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about cities

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

Far too loose a criterion for inclusion. People sing about towns all the time. Also, a song can have a city in the title but not really be about it (for instance, "Dallas" by Alan Jackson is actually about a woman named Dallas, and only mentions the town in passing). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup but don't delete - Songs with articles about cities, specifically Cities by Talking Heads are missing and only hits are really named. Maybe the article should only contain songs that are about the city instead of just ones that mention them. Also all songs about cities should be included, not just hits. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing defining nor encyclopedic about about a list of songs which mentions animals, booze or cities. Wichita Lineman is NOT about Wichita (think about it!!!) and Hong Kong Garden is about a chinese restaurant (says so in this list), yet that's two of the entries here. WP:AFG denies me the chance to say what I really think about this kind of list. But on the plus side at least it's not a category. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS. As a list, this is no more notable than Lists of songs with personal names. I can't see how WP:NLIST can be used to support a keep as it uses the words "discussed as a group." I can't find where songs about cities has been discussed... published perhaps, but that is not discussion but a very clever publisher pitching to the shallower end of the reading public. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic satisfies WP:LISTN being covered in sources such as That Old-time Rock & Roll and The Green Book of Songs by Subject. There are numerous famous examples such as Chicago (That Toddlin' Town) and we even have a list just for that single city: List of songs about Chicago and other cities too, such as List of songs about Paris. We obviously need a master list to bring together all this notable material. Warden (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:43, 28 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, JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Delete. As the nom points out, the fact that a song mentions a city doesn't mean that the song is about the city. The way we know a song is about a city is to find reliable sources that say it is -- not by Wikipedia editors analyzing the lyrics themselves. This article lists almost 400 songs (not even counting the songs on separate lists for individual cities). Yet no more than five of them have sources cited in order to ascertain that the song really is about that city. I think this is an interesting topic, but I can't recommend a "keep" unless it looks like this article is going to be limited to songs identified by reliable sources as being about particular cities. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The whole thing belongs someplace else, not WP. An encyclopedia is supposed to be about facts, not musings on connections between one thing and another. Which is fun and perhaps productive but not "encyclopedic." (Is that word even used outside of WP?) You might as well have a list of "Sad songs" or "Rebellious songs" or whatever you want. Borock (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making this a "delete" recommendation because the improvements to this article during the AfD have not addressed my concern that most of the songs are not cited to reliable sources which state that the song is indeed about the city. For example, "The Heart of Rock & Roll" is listed as being a song about Cleveland, when in fact the song mentions 14 different cities, of which Cleveland is the 13th. Maybe there should be an article titled Songs about cities which could be based on this article's lead section, but this list is too uncited to keep. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are not reliable sources saying the songs are about the cities. "By the Time I Get to Phoenix" is certainly not. Borock (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source which explicitly discusses the association of songs with cities and gives "By the Time I Get to Phoenix" as an example. It took me all of 30 seconds to find this example and so you are certainly wrong in suggesting that reliable sources do not exist. You just haven't looked, have you? Warden (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have looked and I haven't seen any approaching encyclopedic. The Songwriter's Ideas Book, which you linked, says "a city, a state, a foreign place" in your song title is a good idea, and you synthesise this to mean that Lists of songs about cities is OK? This is your validation of notable? This is the discussion WP:NLIST requires? You are joking, aren't you? What exactly does A Foggy Day (In London Town) and London Calling have in common other than they contain the same place name? What about List of ideas for good song titles. Oops. I've spilt the beans. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinion of particular cases is irrelevant. If professional authors and publishers have made this connection then we're good. See WP:UNENCYC. Warden (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not personal opinion and to claim so when I have stated which policies and guidelines support is disparagement and offensive. I have quoted WP Policy and Guidelines, including precedent. The songwriters book would also say use a name in your title, but Lists of songs with personal names has already been deleted as non-notable and equates precisely with this list. WP:LISTN does NOT say published, it says "discussed as group or set." These are the reasons you say "keep." Nobody has managed to answer my short but pertinent question, " At what point does mentioning a place name in a song become validation for an encyclopedic list?" - maybe I can think it through and change my view and support changes in policy, guidelines and precedent. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of songs with personal names is a stale example because it's six years old. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about bicycles for a more recent example which resulted in Keep. Warden (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bicycles list was kept because the introduction of bicycles had a social importance reflected in the songs of the period. Not relevant for this discussion. List of songs about Rainbows (more current than bikes, even) and List of songs with personal names: A are much more appropriate. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Richhoncho. We are also having enough trouble with WP maintenance without these listcrufty lists. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic satisfies WP:LISTN. The only problem I see is with referencing. Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:55, 7 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 00:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some places have so many songs about them they have their own articles. I count 28 listed here, such as List of songs about Melbourne, and List of songs about Jerusalem. Just search for the words "list of songs about" and you can find them all. I'm sure all these places have some coverage about some of the songs about them. Anyway, Warden found some books that cover the topic. The number of blue links to the notable songs and the other list articles makes it a valid list article also. Dream Focus 20:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Links? Very few blue links to songs in the Melbourne list (quite a few to places in Melbourne and no guarantees that we are not referring to some other Melbourne, physical or otherwise), which makes it an editorial catatrophe. At what point does mentioning a place name in a song become validation for an encyclopedic list? It's trivia, pure and simple, and no editor has even come close to proving otherwise. Can you do better? --Richhoncho (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is surprising. Anyway, we're talking about this list now. There are blue links to actual songs, notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, in this list, plus a link to 28 other similar list in it. Aids in navigation, so meets the requirements for a list article. See WP:LIST. Dream Focus 20:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I ask again, "At what point does mentioning a place name in a song become validation for an encyclopedic list? Not quite playing the game if you mention the Melbourne list as a validation for this article and then say "anyway, we're are talking about this list now." --Richhoncho (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant links to other Wikipedia articles, makes the list useful. There are thousands of list articles like this one, always have been, and always will be. And the same arguments usually happen in these things. A bunch of people say "I don't like it", Warden finds some book references showing its a notable topic, and it ends in keep. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure for a stunning example of that happening. Dream Focus 23:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, neither you nor Warden have been able to go beyond WP:LIST which says there has to be a discussion and when that fails you say "navigation," so for a third time, I ask you, "At what point does mentioning a place name in a song become validation for an encyclopedic list?" No more ducking and diving, other stuff exists and I cannot see the relevance of beards - shaved or otherwise.--Richhoncho (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is some question or dispute about a particular entry then we refer to reliable sources to resolve the issue. Warden (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, AfD Lists of songs with personal names above, I think it is far more relevant than, say, List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair. Take care. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORUMSHOP, or less politely, WP:CANVASSING has been going on. User:Colonel Warden, posted a keep message here on 14:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC), he then posted a notice at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list on 19:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC) and at 20:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC) (i.e. within 20 minutes, User:Dream Focus had posted a keep notice too. If this was a one-off I could let it pass, but it is not, as can been seen by Editor Interaction Analyzer.[reply]

I note that the code of coduct at the Rescue List states, The project is not about casting !votes, nor about vote-stacking. (my bold). This is patently not so, as neither contributor has made any improvement to the article whatsover, but have merely voted and encouraged others who think similarly to come and cast a !vote.

Please note I have seen this on a couple of other AfDs, and including other overt members of the task force. I have no problem with people wanting to improve and save articles, there is a benefit to WP to do that, but to let it knowingly be used for other purposes and save articles without improvement defeats the whole objective of the rescue squadron.

Now I am aware of this going on I shall be watching.--Richhoncho (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its just like any other Wikiproject, anyone allowed to add it to the AFD list. Its also on the Wikiproject lists for list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions and list of Lists-related deletion discussions. It is not unusual for people who frequent these list to be seen participating in the same AFDs. Please discuss this elsewhere and don't start a massively long debate here, we having plenty of those already elsewhere you can read through. Dream Focus 15:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the analyser had said only music or list-related articles then you would have a point, it doesn't so not much more to said - whoever closes this should take note. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the pattern of interaction between user:TenPoundHammer and user:Richhoncho. They show up together at numerous deletion discussion such as the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about California, which was nevertheless Keep. They hold discussions about their opposition to such topics and so their activity seems to be a joint effort. See also WP:POT. Warden (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the list and on the first two items Tenpound and I had opposing views. We show up together on music-related discussions only, whereas you and Dream Focus show up together at anything listed at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list which is why I accuse you and Dream Focus of WP:FORUMSHOP. Although Tenpound and I generally share the same opinion about random lists based around a single word/words and have exchanged comments regarding their futility, we have kept to the spirit of WP and never conspired in an AfD. Now go and read and adhere to the guidelines you have signed up for at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list. Thankyou. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As numerous music professionals admit, including even the nominator, cities are a popular topic for songs. Per the recently improved lede, good Nick Coleman has even suggested that cities are pop's 2nd most favored topic after Love.

As the Colonel suggests, there are abundant sources covering songs about cities as a group. Dozens of such sources are cited in the excellent Decline, Renewal and the City in Popular Music Culture by Sara Cohen. I concede the point that its challenging to make this list fully comprehensive and exact, but due to the topic's massive notability, it would be unencyclopedic not to have an entry. The rescue squad have improved the lede so it flags to the reader that the list may not be entirely complete.

Those who have contributed to the article, or to defending it in this discussion, are to be congratulated. A most useful resource for academics, music pros and the general public. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Coleman is quoted as saying that "pop is better on cities than on anything else, apart from love". He didn't say it was the second-most common topic -- surely there are more pop songs about sex or dancing than about cities. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but strength/narrow inclusion requirements. "Songs about cities" mean that the song was specifically written to talk about the city itself, and to have sources to justify that was the case. Just being named in the song, or having the city name as the title, isn't sufficient (eg Weird Al's "Albuquerque" is not about the city at all). This might significantly cut down on the list, but that's the only way needed to keep this list, otherwise it is just about songs that happen to mention a city which is trivial. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Anyone claiming that "this doesn't pass WP:LISTN should be aware that LISTN explicitly says "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists" (such as "songs about cities"). This means that having sources covering the group is enough to establish notability, but not having them doesn't establish a lack thereof. In that case, a local consensus is required to decide whether there's notability or not. Diego (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup to include just the songs that really have a city as main topic of their lyrics, as pointed above by many users. Cavarrone (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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