Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 January	20 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 keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 02:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veteran Feminists of America

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

Does not appear to be a notable organization according to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). All coverage appears trivial. Being suckered by Borat is not enough to merit an article. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: though I don't have time to do a full source search tonight... but a quick look through gnews archives shows an awful lot of mentions of this group, some of which appear to be beyond trivial. How deep have you looked through the news archives? There's some stuff from the 90's that looks like it'll probably be enough to pass the GNG. Hopefully, I'll have time to dig up some coverage before the afd ends. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked through a few pages. I saw some mentions, but I thought of them as trivial, not going into depth on the organization. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple independent sources mentioning and covering this subject, and it establishes their own notability. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG through coverage in reliable sources. Veteran Feminists for America is one of the most important extant second wave organizations in the US. Their activities are perhaps less likely to generate news coverage - mostly reunions and honoring feminist leaders with medals at galas (many of their write-ups tend to focus more on the women who are honored). Still, I'm seeing a breadth of coverage that demonstrates notability. [1][2][3][4] The book Feminists Who Changed America, 1963-1975 also addresses VFA in depth. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 03:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The East Orlando Sun source was written by the organization's VP, so not independent. The other sources provide one line mentions of the organization. I'm still not seeing it, despite the apparently developing consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References have been beefed up and hopefully more text will follow. CarolMooreDC 03:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage, therefore notability is conferred and established. — Cirt (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep Passes WP:ORG GNG. This was actually on my to-do list of articles to rewrite! SarahStierch (talk) 17:40, 23 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. KTC (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rilly

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hasn't played international football per NFT or any other source I am aware of; fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 23:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league or for his national team, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT which excludes players who have been called but not played for a national team. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am going to hold my vote till after the African cup of nations has finished. Govvy (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Its likely he wont play because he is a GK.Simione001 (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't played football at senior level, hasn't earned coverage from multiple non-trivial independent sources, so fails guidelines as nom. C 679 21:26, 26 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zahrad

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

Not notable for inclusion to WP. Some sources are dead-end and others lead to not very considerable sources; no major literary review for the poet available. E4024 (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is imperfect. But the person is notable. "Zareh Yaldizciyan", Yaldızcıyan + Zahrad etc. Takabeg (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is what I see when I touch the "books" button: "Lambert M. Surhone, Miriam T. Timpledon, Susan F. Marseken - 2010 - No preview
Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online. Zareh Yaldizciyan (1923-2007), better known by his pen name Zahrad (Armenian: ?), was a Western Armenian poet." Do others see something different? --E4024 (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. I see a biography of Zareh Yaldizciyan in a book entitled Ermeni portreleri (Armenian portraits), another in a 1973 magazine named Contemporary literature in translation, and a third by Agop Jack Hacikyan in the introduction of a 1969 book entitled A brief biography of Gigo. That is, of course, after filtering out all of the Czech gardening books. Nonetheless, I see no Wikipedia mirrors masquerading as books in the first ten pages of results. The Princeton Encyclopaedia of Poetry and Poetics, in its "Armenian poetry and poetics" entry, gives the spelling Zareh Yaldzjian. Then there's a 1978 source entitled New Writing from the Middle East using which one could actually link Agop Jack Hacikyan (and Ralph Setian) to Zareh Yaldizciyan in article prose …. Uncle G (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep. There is no question he is notable. I have added more information and sources and I am planning to have this submitted for DYK. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A simple Google Books search (Armenian + Zahrad) yields about 459 results (with most being Western publications), so he isn't all that obscure. I would argue, however, that a lack of coverage in English language sources is not reason enough to dismiss a foreign language poet or writer as "not notable." Jackal 03:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.In search engines most pages are duplicates of the others. Written sources are more reliable. If this person is throughly sourced in books, then there is no question of notability. But what does Western Armenian poet mean ? I understand this person was a citizen of Turkey. Since he was a member of the Armenian community, the lede should be Turkish poet of Armenian origin. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you may know, the Armenian language consists of two branches, Eastern Armenian and Western Armenian. A Western Armenian poet is one who writes in the Western Armenian branch. This is solely a linguistic connotation, nothing more and nothing less. The "Western Armenian" Wikilink in the article already directs you to the Western Armenian language page.

The literary language of a poet is not a part of the introductory sentence.(Please see the examples of three well known names ( Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Jean Racine and Percy Bysshe Shelley) In these articles the words English, French or German refer to nationality and not the literary language. This article will probably be kept but it certianly needs expanding. The literary language data can be moved from the lede to the newly created Literary (or poetic) style section. (By the way please use four tildes in your messages.) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:30, 24 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. Based on the sources found by Mark and the nominator's changing of mind. After 5 long weeks, I'm happy to declare a keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco 12000

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

No reliable references, article primarily consists of original research. Unable to find sources to satisfy GNG No unique names 00:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ~~Keep and improve - meets WP:N. Reliable sources exist, with varying degrees of coverage.~~ Here are some examples from a Google Books search: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1-5 are from "Cisco Press" and 7 is from the "Cisco IOS Reference Library." --No unique names 21:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6 is two short paragraphs stating that someone chose to use Cisco gear, including this product. Not particularly in-depth. --No unique names 01:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 18 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, —Theo polisme 22:44, 22 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 00:03, 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 00:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the information, Nouniquenames. I've stricken my !vote above per this information. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to NorthAmerica1000's findings, there is this industry newsletter, but it doesn't provide much information about the C12000 itself. In fact, fully a sixth of the newsletter article comes from a Cisco vice president. I'd hardly call that significant coverage. Quantumobserver (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: The debate wasn't added to the log last time it was relisted, or it was removed

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patchy1 22:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Somebody make a call, this is the 4th relisting. Wikipedia:RELIST#Relisting_discussions: "In general debates should not be relisted more than twice." Carrite (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't have relisted it normally, well in fact I didn't relist it, I listed it.... -- Patchy1 01:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So what did your search for sources turn up, Carrite? Or was "somebody" really "somebody else"? And that somebody else was expected to make a call based upon no help. My search for sources turned up Gredler & Goralski 2005, p. 30, which is Springer, not Cisco Press. I notice from the URLs in the four weeks past here that everyone is unimaginitively searching for only the article title, rather than for — just to pick one example of the several names that these things go by — "Cisco GSR" as given in the article content. Uncle G (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found a number of sources:
1. Register article on 12000 DoS vulnerability
2. Network World article
3. Network world article about 12000 use by Sprint and MCI
4. InternetWeek article, but it's behind the HighBeam paywall and I haven't read it
5. short article on the 12000 OS in ComputerWoche (German version of ComputerWeek)
6. CRN artcle on 12000 vulnerabilites
7. IDC technical reference on backplane for the 12000 This looks like an academic article from Stanford, but I can't verify that is peer-reviewed.

The Register, Network World, InternetWeek, and ComputerWeek are mainstream reliable publishers. CRN looks legit, but I don't know of them. Except for the HighBeam and the IDC sources, about which I an uncertain, these sources look to be independent of Cisco. It seems we have multiple independent sources, suggesting that the topic is notable and the article should be kept. Mark viking (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep from nominator based on sources recently unearthed. I will attempt to integrate them. --No unique names 02:46, 20 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Healy

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

No assertion of notability, and none independently found. (Note that there are other people with the same name who get hits on Google and Bing.) This subject is a blogger who is a member of a group blog. The group blog may be notable and has passed AfD in the past, but there is no significant third-party coverage in WP:RS of the subject as an individual. The page was created and largely maintained by another member of the same group blog and does not have an extensive edit history. Snouter (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Weak keep. Subject is more than a blogger, is a research academic. Some significant cites on GS, not sure which are his. Redlink nom has 8 edits. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Professor Healy is a notable academic: one of the top researchers on morality and economic exchange. The article could be improved, but it should not be deleted. After the shooting at Sandy Hook, Dr Healy was the source of widely cited analysis on gun violence world wide. mtpearce (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GS cites are 178, 165, 121, 115, 74, 52, 35 ... for a GS h-index of 12. The leading cites are all the same Healy. Ray^Talk 21:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The comment I was going to make on GS cites has already been made. In addition, the work with 178 cites is a book about social aspects of organ donation whose review in the New York Times is already linked to from the article. The subject also gets a number of GNews hits from reliable sources, although these can be somewhat tricky to sort out from those for other people of the same name. A number of these are as an expert on organ donation, but there are also a significant number on other topics, inside and outside sociology - in part presumably because of his public profile as one of the more regular bloggers at Crooked Timber, but apparently for his personal expertise (or occasionally his ability to turn a good phrase) and not as a spokesperson for Crooked Timber or his employers. Finally, the remark in the nomination about the page being "largely maintained" by one of his fellow Crooked Timber contributors is misleading. The person concerned certainly created the article, but the only subsequent edits by him seem to have been to contest speedy deletion two days after article creation back in 2006, adding categories the following day, and apparently reverting vandalism on about one occasion in 2007. Most of the current article is apparently by other editors. PWilkinson (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm convinced enough by the case for academic notability through heavy citations made above, but I think he also passes notability as an author for his book Last Best Gifts (reviewed in NYT and multiple other reliable sources) and even as a blogger (two stories in the Irish Times cover his blogging activities in some depth). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as author and academic as sourced above, and there really aren't other people with the same name showing up, so the initial proposal is quite flawed/misinformed. —Lumin (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have no additional information to add to the points made by others here, but fully support the points that Healy meets criteria for both academic and broader notability as an author and blogger. The AfD proposal here provides only flawed support for its claims and all appear to have been rebutted. Aaronshaw (talk) 17:56, 21 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. KTC (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Popular Girls in School

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

No notability established. Zero reliable sources. PRODed the article, but it was removed by the article's creator without addressing the issue. Nymf _{talk to me} 19:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article appears to be non-notable in reliable sources for significant coverage requirements, just a normal web television series. According to an internet search, there are no reliable sources that are existent anywhere, so the entry does not appear to be suitable for an encyclopedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TBrandley (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not finding any reliable sources that address the subject in depth. Does not meet WP:GNG. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 01:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is an ongoing and relatively new YouTube web series. It has not yet been covered in any major newspapers or online magazines, but the content is reliable and citations can be added just by the proof in the videos themselves. If this page gets deleted, then other web series like The Nekci Menij Show should have been deleted too. Instead of deleting it, why not help improve it? It even has it's own Wikia -- that can be used on background information. Hankie1016 (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that just because another series, which does for a reason usually because it is notable, does not mean this should have one – see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wikia is not a reliable source that can be used on Wikipedia, as it is user-generated. A number of reliable sources that go into the subject in depth are required for this to pass the notability scale. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 22:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No reliable sources. No likelihood of finding reliable sources. LK (talk)

'The Most Popular Girls In School' series is a phenomenon- the tumblr blogasphere is absolutely full of it. This is enough recognition, in my opinion, to keep this page up. It's not doing any harm anyway. If it's a valid thing, why shouldn't it be on this 'encyclopedia'? The content is useful and correct.86.170.179.13 (talk) 12:46, 26 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. KTC (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rhiannon Paille

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

Doesn't meet WP:People. Her books are self-published except for one published by Coscom Entertainment, her PhD bogus if it's from "MIMT courses - Reiki Rays Institute Midwest Institute of Metaphysical Theology offer distance education for the busy adult. Our diplomas, can be completed at any time convenient to your schedule" Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant independent coverage that I could find = Not notable ---- _nonsense ferret 20:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't find anything that is usable. Of the sources on the article, the first one is a link to Amazon. Selling well on Amazon isn't something that gives notability in and of itself, especially when you get into the specific areas of Amazon such as "best in Astrology on the Kindle" or things to that area. There's various reasons for this, but even if it was in the "overall best of Amazon" it still wouldn't count. The second one is a link to a blog entry for the publisher that picked one of her books up. This would make it a primary source and even if the book had been picked up by a huge publisher such as Penguin Books, a primary source still can't give notability. Besides, being published by a big house doesn't give notability automatically. That leaves two more sources. The next one is from Rue Morgue, which actually would be a RS in my book. However the final one via Scoop Sandiego wouldn't be usable for two reasons. The first is that the site isn't entirely what I'd consider to be a reliable source and the second is that even if it was, the article seems to have been written by Paille herself because her name is given where the author's would be. At very best this would be considered a primary source. Other than that the only coverage she's gotten has been in various blogs, none of which would be considered a reliable source.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:18, 20 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. KTC (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Madhu Krishan

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

Christian missionary, unclear notability. The creator insisted that his version be kept as is by Wikipedia and threatened to sue Wikipedia over the fact the current version, which barely does more than acknowledge the man's existence, is "defamatory" (defamatory here meaning it is devoid of any words stating how great the man is). The author is currently indef-blocked for legal threats, and is using his talk page to show his preferred version of this and another article. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:RS, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:BIO, WP:GOOGLE. Fails to provide or to have accepted reliable sources. The another version of self-praising article published in the creator's user page also needs to be deleted. Bharathiya (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I vote thus with some regret, but there seems too little notable content. If some one can point to articles on the originisations be claims to be involved with I might change my view. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be found. Diplomatic Mission Peace and Prosperity is another article that needs looking at. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diplomatic Mission Peace and Prosperity. Thanks for pointing it out. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:13, 25 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. Found enough references to corroborate existence and notability. --Nlu (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Fu (Three Kingdoms)

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

Asserted here (and also in the Japanese Wikipedia article, which is the only other one that I could read; there is no Chinese Wikipedia article on him) to be a real person. However, I am finding no absolutely no reference to him in the Zizhi Tongjian, and the Records of the Three Kingdoms biographies of Liu Bei, Sun Quan, and Yang Xi (楊戲) (which the Japanese Wikipedia article asserted that the references to him could be found). I am suspecting that this is a fictional person, and, as a fictional person, is not sufficiently notable as a substantial character in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:09, 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 no consensus. KTC (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Greenberg (soccer)

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

PROD contested due to "multiple sources" but we have one journalist in Israel apparently covering amateur "soccer" and one in the USA doing the same. No indication this individual meets WP:NFOOTBALL due to him not playing in a fully professional league. Large number of ghits due to other individuals with the same name does not mean he meets the general notability guideline either. Cloudz 679 21:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 21:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources listed are routine sports journalism, meaning they are insufficient to meet WP:GNG, and as pointed out in the nomination, Mr. Greenberg has not played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The sources in footnotes 1 & 2 do not look like "routine sports journalism" to me; they're much more about Greenberg's unusual background. In my view, he passes WP:GNG, barely. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes notability as Liga Leumit is a professional league. [12] The two editors above calling for a deletion are also removing this citation in the WP:Football list of professional leagues. -NYC2TLV (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (for now) - fails WP:GNG and doesn't (per current WP:FPL) meet WP:NFOOTBALL, however there is a discussion at WT:FPL about this league's professionalism. Giant Snowman 09:38, 24 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 00:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with Arxiloxos on this one, it looks like he barely passes WP:GNG, but I don't read Hebrew, so I don't know about the second one. But I don't think his four appearances should be given much weight regardlesss or whether Liga Leumit is a fully pro league or not, and we should discuss if he passes WP:GNG or not. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:44, 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, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:09, 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, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can see he played in the second level of Israeli football and I am not sure if tier league is fully pro anyway. The link which -NYC2TLV provided, I read the Israeli and it only tells us the breakdown of the new league setup. As far as I saw it said nothing about the second tier being fully-pro and now he is playing for a club in the third tier! If he gets promoted to the prem and plays some ye, have an article, but at the moment, I don't even see enough citation to pass WP:GNG. He is currently a long way away from even passing WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Somebody needs to make a call, this is the fourth relisting. Three should be an exceptional situation, more than that just shouldn't be happening... See Wikipedia:RELIST#Relisting_discussions. Carrite (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those claiming he barely passes GNG, that's your prerogative, but I feel if the article's only reason for being is "for meeting GNG", then this should be absolutely clear in its interpretation. It would seem, due to this debate not having already been settled, that there is not a clear case for meeting the GNG and I would therefore have to conclude that deleting the article is the only suitable course of action. C 679 13:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY, and borderline GNG case. I do not believe Liga Leumit is fully professional. Number 5 7 10:00, 24 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. KTC (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Applied Horticulture

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

Nominate for deletion Journal of a seemingly non-notable organisation. Has been tagged for notability for over 5 years. Boleyn (talk)

Delete Non-notable journal. No sources other than publishing sites found. Vacation9 22:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having reviewed DGG's thoughts on the deterioration of Scopus relative to other selective database I no longer think its inclusion there is enough for notability. I'll suggest an update to the WP:NJournals essay. Previous rationale for reference: ~~Weak keep~~ Appears to meet criteria #1 of (the essay) WP:NJournals (at least with reference to Example 1), this publication is indexed by Scopus, but is not well cited—of 155 tracked articles Scopus reports the most cited to be this (p75) with 5 citations. It's not indexed in Web of Science or other more selective journal databases, hence weak keep Jebus989 ^✰ 15:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:54, 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 delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes Maillot

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

Nominate for deletion Tagged for notability for over 5 years; couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk)

Delete No notability - found no reviews or mentions other than primary sources. Vacation9 22:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF and WP:GNG. The sources in the article now — being a guest on a radio show and a brief mention in a newspaper article — aren't good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

at first I thought maybe notable, but I just can't find any independent coverage - it's a delete for me. Not notable. ---- _nonsense ferret 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:Prof afaik, unless someone corrects me on that. Snappy (talk) 03:32, 20 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. KTC (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metta Institute

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

Article about an organization for which only business listings, blogs and other non-reliable, non-substantive sources are available. Fails WP:ORG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 100% not notable in any manner shape or form. promotional. ---- _nonsense ferret 17:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Google Scholar found two results here (the first is through a paper published by a member of Metta Institute and the second, the page is not available for viewing). Google Books also found this (minor mention) and this (minor mention through a book which Frank Ostaseski contributed to). Next, I began searching with the "core faculty" members and found this when searching with Charles Garfield. A search with Ange Stephens found this (recommendation from Stephens and a comment from Ostasesksi) which doesn't provide any previews but from what I see, it is not significant. I prefer to stay away from AfD debates that involve academics but if there aren't any third-party sources (which I haven't found), this article will simply read like an advertisement. I will establish my vote when other users have commented. SwisterTwister talk 20:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, founder is a major figure in the hospice care movement in the US. institute is reaonably notable, with the article as it exists being overly promotional and poorly written. User nonsenseferret| is incorrect, they do have some notability, the question is how notable are they? I have added references, which help. I know we dont have a NYT feature article on them, or a BBC report, or a bestseller. Within this institutes purview, they are highly notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

notability of the founder is irrelevant, since as is made clear in WP:ORG, notability is not inherited. In addition, I quote "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". Within a particular "purview" is not the test we are meant to apply. ---- _nonsense ferret 20:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find absolutely no coverage of this Institute from Independent Reliable Sources, and none is provided at the article or in this discussion. Founders, faculty and alumni are not a source of notability; notability requires coverage/recognition of the Institute itself. --MelanieN (talk) 01:31, 22 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 redirect to The_Imperials#Classics_return_as_The_Imperials. None of the Keep votes indicate any reason why this is valid as a stand-alone article (not to mention most are from SPAs who appear not to understand our notability policies and indeed at least one has voted twice). Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rick L Evans

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

Individual is not ~~interdependently~~ independently notable Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "Individual is not interdependently notable". He is the current lead singer/manager of the Classic imperials. All you have to do is look at their website http://www.theclassicimperials.com to see who Rick is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffJansen (talk • contribs) 12:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC) — JeffJansen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's what I mean. He's notable because he's a member of the group, but doesn't carry any individual notability. Which means, material about him could be included in the band article, but there's not enough to have an article of his own. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try this: Nationally known singer/speaker

Credits: 15 years as a consultant and counselor to nationally known churches and International organizations. Associations include Billy Graham, Promise Keepers, The Harvest Crusades with Greg Laurie, The Californians, The Crownsmen, The Dennis Agajanian Band, The Imperials, and more than 10 years as a featured member of The Franklin Graham Crusade team. Recorded with Manna Music, Maranatha Records, Word Entertainment, and others.

All this was done without the Imperials.

Lead Singer for The Imperials www.theimperials.com President of Living In Faith www.livinginfaith.com President of Impact www.411impact.com

What other notoriety are you looking for? Just because you are not aware of the impact does not mean there is not an impact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffJansen (talk • contribs) 15:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He needs to receive attention (reliable third-party sources) aside from working with The Imperials to be considered notable. In some cases, a group's lead singer will have an article if he has received substantial coverage. It's unlikely he would have received significant attention for being a pastor. If he has been a "consultant and counselor to nationally known churches and International organizations", there needs to be third-party evidence of this. Lastly, recording with several record labels doesn't automatically make you notable as you would also need third-party evidence. I suggest visiting Wikipedia:Notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No significant coverage as defined by WP:GNG found in news or book sources, therefore failing that subject cannot pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BAND. The subject appears to have written three books, however he does not appear to pass WP:AUTHOR.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The_Imperials#Classics_return_as_The_Imperials - It seems he is a fairly new member of The Imperials so he probably hasn't made a significant impact but Google News found two press releases (first and second result from the top) with the original press release here, and one news article here (seems to briefly talk about him, relevant content is not shown in preview). A different search provided this which also talks a little about him. A search including the Pathways Community Church also didn't provide anything relevant but this isn't surprising. Searches with both his company Living In Faith and Franklin Graham Festival provided nothing relevant but a search with The Crownsmen (another music group he was a member of) found this brief mention. Another search with Billy Graham provided some results but they are vague and they may be irrelevant to this Rick Evans. Aside from that, I haven't found much to improve this article. With no significant career or reliable third-party sources, the article would read like an advertisement. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Karnbach (talk • contribs) 16:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is valid and should remain in place

One source of third party verification are the recordings recorded and the history of those recordings. Additionally the combined notoriety of this individual and the documentable history is outlined not only in the websites online, but also through other sources, only some of which are mentioned in this discussion. Add to that that there are many articles, on Wikipedia, that have been written with less proof than this individual. Restate- Valid third party verification is clearly in place and exists on the web sites and the articles already listed and already written about this individual. I do agree that this article can be improved and needs to continue to ebb and flow for resolution to the issues raised. That said… This article should remain in place One correction to the above discussion. As G.M. of the Imperials, not only is Rick Evans the Lead Singer of the group but has been involved in the group for decades. That is not reflected in the history of The Imperials, but it is a true part of the history. I mention this because it is necessary to explain that Rick Evans is not just a New Member of the group, but is the only Member of the group listed on its Board of Directors. He is not just a new member but rather the driving element for any continuation of the group. Many of the accomplishment(s) of this individual were part of history in his time with Billy Graham and Franklin Graham. On his own he also recorded 7 records and has been on television to many times to count. But his significance is the collective of it all, although any individual accomplish certainly measures up to the criteria outlined in WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BAND Additional Clarification. The only Rick Evans to work with Dr. Graham was this Rick Evans. So the comment that "it may be irrelevant" is corrected to show, at least, a beginning to the research in this area. It is certainly a third party verification and meets the criteria for the page and the continuance of this article. some results — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Karnbach (talk • contribs) 12:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rick L, Evans, as spokesmen for The Imperials, has listed information in this radio interview that is notable and is “third Party” verification about his notoriety before The Imperials.

Quote -- “These days, the group is comprised of a rock solid line-up of founding member Armond Morales (bass), 29-year veteran Dave Will (baritone/lead), popular alumni Paul Smith (tenor/lead) and new member Rick Evans (tenor/lead), who has traveled extensively with Billy Graham, Harvest Crusades, Promise Keepers and more”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHEYqEXNeTk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POdtJkjWaX4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Karnbach (talk • contribs) 17:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck your second "Keep" because you can also vote once. SwisterTwister talk 19:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I did not mean to double vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Karnbach (talk • contribs) 20:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And since the second Keep had a reason and the first one didn't, I struck the first and restored the second. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: OK, after carefully looking at both sides, I have to say that although it certainly needs improvement, it is not any worse than some articles which have been around since 2006/07; these are just 2 that I've found: Billy Smiley, Paul Smith (Christian music performer) (in fact, those are probably even worse). --Musdan77 (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of the article is not the issue. Both Smiley and Smith are notable, the former for having written a lot of music and producing the work of others, the latter for releasing several solo albums on major Christian labels. The subject here does not have that type of notability. Being in Billy Graham's band isn't notable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that article "quality" is the reason. Obviously that wouldn't be the reason for me to say "keep". But, what you have just said is going by what you know from your past, not by the sources given in the 3 articles mentioned. Either all 3 need to be deleted or they all need improvement. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely correct. Notability either does or doesn't exist for a subject. If a subject is notable, we try to create an article for that subject. If the subject isn't notable but has an article on Wikipedia, we remove that article. If the subject is notable and has an article that doesn't reflect that, we improve that article. It's not those who have the best fans and writers who get articles on Wikipedia, it's supposed to be those who meet the notability criteria. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article where Rick is mentioned as part of Dr. Billy Graham’s Team. During this year he also appeared on Network Television and was a featured part of the program. How much more notoriety do you look for than singing to 50,000+ people in large stadiums and performing on Network Television many times. How far back do you need to see the value of the notoriety. Just because you are not aware of the notoriety does not make it unnotable. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=nOAKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vlADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6742,3016108&dq=rick+evans+billy+graham&hl=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Karnbach (talk • contribs) 22:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not notoriety that we're looking for but notability. There are general notability guidelines and guidelines for musicians. This mention as an accompanist for Agajanian does not meet any of the critera. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rick L. Evans is quite well known in the christian community of North America. He has been a member of the Billy Graham worship team, The Harvest Crusades with Greg Laurie, The Dennis Agajanian Band, The Imperials, a featured member of The Franklin Graham Crusade team. He has recorded with serveral record companies including but not limited to: Manna Music, Maranatha Records, Word Entertainment. He has appeared in many youtube Videos as Lee Karnbach was able to find as well as these articles http://www.christiansonic.net/category/southerncountry/page/2 and http://familyfirst.com/the-classic-imperials-lead-singer-rick-evans-tells-family-first-about-his-holiday-traditions.html. I have personnaly run sound for Rick on numorous occasions and twice for The Classic Imperials. To say that he has no independant notable contributions is like saying that Nepoleon had no notable contirbutions to the French Army, He was the leader of the Army and Fisrt Emporer of France. He could not have been famous with out the team he was a part of. Just because you are part of a team, does not mean you individually have not contributed to the sucess of the team. Jcawthorne (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC) — Jcawthorne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

OK. I'll bite.

What was his role as a member of the Billy Graham worship team? Was it written about in a reliable source?
Was his involvement in The Harvest Crusades with Greg Laurie covered as a feature article in a notable publication?
Surely, as a member of The Dennis Agajanian Band allowed him to received press. Would you mind providing that? That's his role, not the band's.
Similarly, please provide the write-ups about his involvement in The Imperials and the Franklin Graham Crusade team either here or at the article so we know that he's notable.
Allmusic entries for the Manna, Maranatha! and Word albums would be required to prove that he's notable there. It could also be a listing or review of any of his albums in CCM Magazine or another similar publication. Although liner notes indicating that he performed on an album would likely not be sufficient.

And so on. The question isn't whether he's a musician, but whether he's a notable musician. I could list a dozen musicians who have similar achievements, but none of them are notable either.

Napoleon was notable independent of the French Army as he was also Emperor of France. Also, several books have been written about him and he changed the course of European history. No one is saying that Evans isn't notable just because he's been in the background. We're saying he isn't notable because he doesn't meet the criteria for notability on Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can provide this information. It certainly takes some research because of the way the Christian Community works, but it is there and can be done. The question is whether or not you will allow this artist to stand on his own until we can provide what “your” looking for. I am certain he meets the criteria for Wikipedia.

Here are the answers to your questions

1. What was his role as a member of the Billy Graham worship team? Was it written about in a reliable source? – Rick Evans sang with Dennis Agajanian and was feature every night as a soloist singing “Victory In Jesus” He had an unusual ability to hold a note for more than 20 counts. It was a crowd favorite and was part of the regular news cycle of what was referred to as “The Battle of The Bands”

2. Was his involvement in The Harvest Crusades with Greg Laurie covered as a feature article in a notable publication? It would not have been part of the intention of the “Harvest” ministry to push any person forward. – The team would have been as a collective, but certainly wearing a buck skin coat and singing Blue Grass High tenor, Rick Evans was one of the stand outs. That is why it is hard to get third party verification because we are looking for information that would have been written that draws out the individual instead of the team (which would be against the code).

3. Surely, as a member of The Dennis Agajanian Band allowed him to received press. Would you mind providing that? That's his role, not the band's. – Of course. There is plenty of information about his involvement as part of Dennis Agajanian Band and as a soloist. – Rick was a featured soloist for Dennis and sang regularly, gave television interviews, and was written about.

4. Similarly, please provide the write-ups about his involvement in The Imperials and the Franklin Graham Crusade team either here or at the article so we know that he's notable. – This is the easiest to do because there is more than enough out there to satisfy this requirement. I would say that there is enough for there to be an article written about just those two parts.

5. All music entries for the Manna, Maranatha! and Word albums would be required to prove that he's notable there. It could also be a listing or review of any of his albums in CCM Magazine or another similar publication. Although liner notes indicating that he performed on an album would likely not be sufficient. – Again this is easy to do with time. All the information you’re looking for is there, it just takes time to cite and gather. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Karnbach (talk • contribs) 23:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. We don't need all of those things. They were itemized based on Jcawthorne's comments. Keep the notability guidelines in mind and providing just a few, not all, would suffice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Imperials where he is already mentioned. I could find absolutely no independent coverage about Mr. Evans at Google News Archive, and none is provided at the article or at this discussion, so he is not independently notable. Folks, it isn't enough for you to simply assert that "he did this" and "he was a member of that"; it needs to be verified by independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In Mind The time frame Rick Evans Was with most of these organizations was before youtube and posting of ones entire life on the internet was popular. The articles and Televsion interviews would need to be found if possible at local stations across America. Does one have to validate himself before the internet to exist?Jcawthorne (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why simply providing reliable sources is enough. If it's a publication that is not available online, you may be asked for a quote or something similar. Google books quite frequently has listings of old publications. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, Youtube and "posting of one's entire life on the internet" are not Reliable Sources. That's not what we are looking for here. We are looking for INDEPENDENT RELIABLE sources such as newspapers. Older records may still be available, if he really was getting significant coverage. For example, this notice mentions him in passing as an "accompanist" with the Billy Graham Crusade in 1995. OK, that confirms that he was involved in the Graham crusade, but it doesn't come close to SIGNIFICANT coverage. And "accompanist" is not a notable position with the Crusade; Graham must have had hundreds of people involved in his Crusades at that level at one time or another. If Evans had a really significant or important position, there would be a record somewhere. --MelanieN (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with MelanieN. We have posted these several times, but please read WP:N and WP:BAND. That's what we're talking about when we say notability. Nothing more. Nothing less. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And just to clarify, that was John Wesley White that Evans was performing on-stage with, not Graham. Also, it's just one performance and that doesn't make an association. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is with John Wesley White, but Mr. White did the first two days of the event, at that time, and then Franklin would do the last night. It was all part of the same association and event. Working to find the verification of that so that it is easily seen by anyone who would read the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Karnbach (talk • contribs) 12:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For Review The Dove Awards Articel "The Dove Awards Article Tale of Two reunions" Would this be concidered reliable source to this panel? He is still a member of the Imperials, However I feel that maybe some history is needed here. Rick is responsible for the return of "The Classic Imperials", He traveled to Hawaii to re-ingnite Armond Morales about the return to the christian scene of "The Classic Imperials" thus individually he is responsible for the return of one of the most influential groups in christian music. This is explained on the Rick L Evans Page you would like to delete, Stating that he is not individual or independently notable. His conversation with Armond Morales in Hawaii caused the article from the dove awards in a sense linked above.Jcawthorne (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By stating "Redirect", what you've done is voted for this article to be be redirected somewhere. Since the current request for a redirect is that it go to the band article, are you changing your vote now or were you just trying to sound legal and catch our attention?

The article is a reliable source, however, it simply reinforces that he's a member of The Imperials. I don't know that it confers intendant notability on Evans. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my intetion to sound legalistic just wanted to point out something to the group. I have changed the comment to For Review, Is that the correct or should I use something else in it's place. Excuse me for my lack of edicate in this forum, I am trying to learn and conform to it. This is the first article I have commmented on. I do not want the article to be redirected my appoligies to you sir I did not mean to offend.Jcawthorne (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing much better than I did in my first AfD discussion. Just wanted to make sure you weren't changing your vote, because that's what some might assume. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to work through the individual part of this. I have checked out many articles on Wikipedia and have found that it makes it more confusing. For instance.Duane Allen of the The Oak Ridge Boys. A perfect and compatible comparison. Duane has never done anything out of context to the Oaks and yet he has a page. There are no articles (anywhere) that set him aside from the Oak Ridge Boys and yet his page is acceptable. Rick Evans has, in addition to The Imperials, a provable background with many others who are at least as notable. I do understand the process of trying to quantify the article, but I do not understand why Rick L Evans is singled out for deletion under the same grounds that are ignored or even celebrated for others with less notoriety in their field. PLEASE don’t take this as a criticism. I will find the references you’re looking for, it is just hard to do with an individual that has maintained a “Team” based career. Showing his significance with a team of worldwide notoriety is easy. Showing him as an individual without a team might be as difficult as showing Duane Allen as an individual without the Oak Ridge Boys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Karnbach (talk • contribs) 12:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His presence in the Texas Gospel Music Hall of Fame or the fact that he's been with the band since 1966 could both be reasons for its inclusion. I tagged it differently and will let someone else nominate it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is valid and should remain in place. I am offering personal knowledge that Rick L Evans sang and recorded with the Crownsmen on Manna Records, that he leads the Imperials, and has an organization Living In Faith.

1. Mr. Evans did in fact sing as lead singer for the Crownsmen, and recorded on Manna Records. I am Gary Kauffman, guitar, who is referenced in the article. I recorded with him on I'm Gonna Rise at MCA Whitney Studios in Glendale, CA in November of 1977; I also recorded with him on You Gave The Song at the same studio in early 1979. On I'm Gonna Rise is a song that was written by him, God Isn't Dead. Hal Spencer, president of Manna Music, was our producer, and was in the studio with us when we recorded. I toured with the Crownsmen from November 1977 to May of 1979, and Mr. Evans was in fact the lead singer. One of our performances was at a reception of the Gospel Music Association in spring of 1979 in Santa Monica, CA. This point is offered as validation that Mr. Evans performed with the Crownsmen and recorded on Manna Records, as support that he is a person of significance for the Gospel Music industry. 2. I have personal knowledge that Mr. Evans leads, and is a member of the Imperials. On February 5, 2011, I personally attended a concert of the Imperials in Colleyville, TX. While there, I received a copy of the Still Standing CD that was personally autographed by the members of the Imperials. This point is offered as validation that Mr. Evans leads and is a member of the Imperials, in support that he is a person of significance for the Gospel Music industry. 3. I am aware of Mr. Evans' role with Living In Faith as a result of friendship with him. I admit I do not have as much personal knowledge of this point as with points 1 and 2 in that I have never toured any of the organization's facilities. However, the message of Gospel Music includes a spirit of ministry and charity as offered by Living In Faith. From that argument, I again support the assertion that Mr. Evans is a person of significance for the Gospel Music industry.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdkauff (talk • contribs) 22:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC) — Gdkauff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aagadu

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

I previously put a WP:PROD on this article with the rationale "Planned film which has not yet commenced filming and is only tentatively titled: does not meet notability conditions for incomplete films." The Prod was removed by the article creator after adding another source. However original concerns remain so I am bringing this to AfD on the original Prod rationale as a future film which fails to meet the WP:NFF guidelines. AllyD (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because it was published in reliable Telugu cinema sources like 123telugu, raagalahari that it was titled as Aagadu. Raghusri (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of Principal photography having taken place therefore fails WP:NFF ---- _nonsense ferret 18:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under WP:NFF and being WP:TOOSOON, without prejudice for a return or undeltion once principle filming has been confirmed to have begun. "Production of the film will most probably start from the second half of this year" Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The film is not officially announced by the producers or the director. It's way too soon to create an article. Thanks, krZna (talk) 23:29, 25 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. Michig (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John B. Caddell

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

Other than being wrecked by Hurricane Sandy, no evidence of notability for this vessel. Unlike the Bounty, the other ship Sandy sunk, this oil tanker has no significant history behind it. Searching the ship's name online only comes up with Sandy-related news articles, which basically means that if this ship did not get wrecked by the storm, no one would know or care about it and we would not have an article on it since it would just your every day oil tanker. This basically violates Wikipedia's policy of no inherited notability since the tanker has inherited its notability from Sandy The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think any ship which ended up on a street in Staten Island would be notable, whether this was caused by a notable hurricane or by some other cause (let your imagination run riot .... some crazy drunk at the helm?), so the notability is not inherited from the storm albeit caused by it. PamD 14:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: For cases like that, there would be legal ramifications and new policies to prevent further incidents (e.g. the drunk would be terminated, lawsuits against the ship's company would be a certainty, and there would be stricter drinking rules). Here, we we have a ship that got blown away from its storage area and landed on a deserted street. Not much else is going to happen here. 209.2.61.8 (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to me that a footnote on the Hurricane Sandy page would be more appropriate, there is nothing notable about this boat - it is merely something that was damaged by the hurricane ---- _nonsense ferret 18:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a former commissioned vessel of the United States Navy, and, per long-standing practice, any commissioned vessel of a national militay service is notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the point in a few places below, bit of overkill, but - does this guideline cover vessel or warship, my understanding from looking at WP:MILUNIT was that it is the latter. ---- _nonsense ferret 19:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And see my response below my P.S. — MILUNIT should be used for analogous purposes only, as it mentions only two categories of ships: civilian, and warships/auxiliary warships. This appears to fit in neither category, but is more analogous to the latter. Cdtew (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Hurricane Sandy: Agree with nom that inherited notability is not sufficient reason to keep per WP:NOTINHERIT. The one notable part of the article, the "Hurricane Sandy grounding" paragraph, is relatively short and well-sourced, so it could be merged to Hurricane Sandy along with a redirect to guide anyone using the ship's name as a search term. --Mike Agricola (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no inherited notability here. As a commissioned vessel of a national military force, its notability stands on its own. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, per nonsenseferret. GregJackP Boomer! 04:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; a tanker cast upon a city street was much covered in local media at a time when much else was happening. Yes, like German submarine U-559 it only appears in Wikipedia because of its unusual death. Reason enough, says me. Hurricane Sandy is already too big. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is a major difference between the U-559 and this tanker. The U-559's sinking resulted in major changes in war policy and was the subject of numerous books, films, and awards. It is very unlikely the John B. Caddell will result in any long term effects in the shipping industry because it was empty when it was wrecked, did not cause any fatalities, and once removed and scrapped, no one will likely mention it again.
Comment at the time it was wrecked, it wasn't an oil tanker, it was a water tanker. And unlike most tankers, this one also served in the US Navy in WWII. Being a naval ship from WWII, people interested in this ship would include ship-interested, WWII-interested, Navy-interested people. So not just your average ship where only ship-interested people might care. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Just because the ship was in WWII does not necessarily make it notable. It had to have done something significant during the war (e.g. sink another ship, save soldiers' lives, etc.) for it to warrant an article. 209.2.61.8 (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply If that's the rule you want to use, then get busy, because the vast majority of military vessel articles on Wikipedia deserve an AfD nomination under that criteria. Cdtew (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The ship was a commissioned vessel of the United States Navy (YO-140) and is, therefore, established to be notable. The fact the ship grounded during Sandy only adds to is notability, but is not the sole source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiousity, where is this established - is there a written guideline somewhere? I couldn't find any notability guidelines relating to boats from the WP:GNG ---- _nonsense ferret 23:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been established through standard editing procedure; it hasn't been explicitly written down, I believe, as getting new guidelines set, even when supported by long-standing practice, is a pain and a half, and making it an essay leads to scorn. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vessel or Warship? ---- _nonsense ferret 19:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my response below my P.S. Cdtew (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ship both notable for being a commissioned ship and meeting WP:GNG. Newm30 (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears notable enough, especially given that it was a commissioned vessel. Article could certainly be expanded, but has enough sources (even if not all tertiary) that I'm comfortable with it staying. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per long established practice that commissioned naval vessels are almost certainly capable of sustaining a stand-alone article. Loss through Hurricane Sandy adds to that notability. WP:GNG is easily met here. Mjroots (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vessels or Warships - might make a difference here ---- _nonsense ferret 19:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my response below my P.S. Cdtew (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on a review of other naval support vessel articles; it does indeed seem like so long as a ship article meets WP:VERIFY, then the fact it was a commissioned naval vessel automatically passes WP:GNG. If this were not the case, you'd have to nominate 90% of Category:Oilers of the United States Navy for deletion, although the category includes many well-written articles. Cdtew (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also, while wiki doesn't h ave a Guideline specifically related to this, WP:MILHIST has a guideline, WP:MILUNIT that holds that "Warships, including submarines, commissioned in recognised naval forces" are presumed notable, and that "Civilian vessels serving as auxiliary warships are notable in the same way as commissioned warships. ". Cdtew (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I can see with this, is that it doesn't seem to have been a warship, so really falls outside that guideline. Or am I reading it wrong? ---- _nonsense ferret 19:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You're reading the guideline right, but what I said wasn't clear. What I mean is that Wikipedia doesn't have a guideline for this, but the MILHIST guideline can be used as a guide. Note that the guideline says a civilian "vessel's notability is derived from participation in a notable naval action or association with an otherwise notable military figure". In this case, this isn't a civilian vessel, but is a military vessel which most closely resembles an auxiliary warship. The difference between the John B. Caddell and the SS Ohio, for instance, is that the SS Ohio was at all times a civilian military vessel, although it was requisitioned for use by the military. The Ohio would not, had it not participated in a major military action, have been notable enough to meet GNG or MLUNIT. The Caddell, on the other hand, was a commissioned vessel of the United States Navy, which makes it a member of a much more exclusive club. There were hundreds, if not thousands more vessels that were requisitioned by the United States for temporary service during the war, but (as far as my knowledge goes -- someone correct me if I'm wrong), only a very limited number of vessels were commissioned for what was ostensibly permanent use. Cdtew (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Put another way: John B. Caddell received a hull number (YO-140), therefore it is a commissioned vessel of the Navy. Hull or pennant number assignment usually = commissioning and, therefore, notability as a commissioned vessel. That it was an auxiliary as opposed to a man-of-war doesn't affect that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would totally understand that any warship whether commissioned or requisitioned would be automatically notable - the extension of this rule about automatic notability to every type of vessel, including fuel barges, of every navy, is a bit less obviously correct to me. Clearly the consensus here is that it should be, so is not productive for me as a non-expert to continue questioning it. ---- _nonsense ferret 00:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that "warship" in this context is almost WP:JARGON - "warship" = "commissioned vessel" in common useage within the military/military history community, including auxiliaries etc. (Fuel barges, for the record since you mentioned them, usually aren't commissioned.

) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to update Warship to reflect this ;) ---- _nonsense ferret 01:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is fine, but MILUNIT states that GNG needs to be met via V x RS, which in this case it is. Mjroots (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per arguments above; commissioned naval vessel. —Diiscool (talk) 15:41, 26 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: Withdrawn by nominator. I don't know how I could've made as simple a mistake as misreading the Google results, but I did. My bad. Though this article still needs some TLC, in my opinion, but that's not grounds for deletion. I'm closing this Speedy keep criterion 1; if anyone who's already contributed to this discussion feels there's reason to continue nonetheless, they should feel free to revert me, provided they leave a note explaining this withdrawal. (non-admin closure) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Vescio

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

Does not demonstrate any notability that would satisfy WP:CREATIVE or any other applicable set of criteria. <1,000 GHits, which in my book almost always merits deletion when it comes to biographies. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMDb lists 50+ film credits. I don't believe anyone who's appeared in 50 films isn't notable. Yahoo Movies has quite a lenghty interview, for example. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

am quite puzzled by your logic, appearing in a large number of films isn't a reason to keep unless those films are notable surely? ---- _nonsense ferret 19:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment its a marginal one for me - I think the correct policy to use is WP:NACTOR and I would say he doesn't seem to meet condition 2 or 3 in having neither a huge fan base, nor making a unique contribution. The question is then, does he meet 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. - I don't personally recognise any of the films so question whether they are notable, but then I do appreciate that they may be notable within the horror genre. I probably am wavering towards NN, but don't feel strongly enough to vote. ---- _nonsense ferret 15:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. Zia Khan 17:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion the article meets all of the conditions. It is not Offensive or damaging to the person it is about. He is clearly worthy of note being that he has appeared in such a large number of films and there do not seem to be any other reasons for it's removal either — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachellains (talk • contribs) 19:28, 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 no consensus. After 2 relists, significant work, and yet only minor discussion, there's no current consensus to delete (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raider Fighter (Babylon 5)

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

No (3rd party) independent reliable sources for this article. Curb Chain (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ this and several similar articles into a new article List of Babylon 5 spacecraft. While Starfuries and White Stars almost certainly have sources, these and most of the rest of the similar ships do not. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any notability for such a list or the other 2 ships you are stating.Curb Chain (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you haven't read the secondary sources I have--more sources exist than are documented in most of the B5 articles, because they date from the "ancient times" before such sourcing was commonplace for fictional element articles. At any rate, there is a general expectation that notable fictional franchises are entitled to list articles of fictional elements that span more than one primary work--e.g., List of Firefly characters. In science fiction franchises, space vehicles typically have such lists as well. Babylon 5 articles have not generally been upgraded to such current best practices. Jclemens (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional franchises are not exempted from our notability guidelines. Lists of fictional elements have to meet WP:LISTN (the group of elements must be significantly covered in independent sources), and there is no topic, whether it is characters or vehicles, that is automatically notable, or "entitled" to be covered on WP, as you put it. The notability of B5 vehicles remains to be proven, and as Curb Chain, I have serious doubts it exists.Folken de Fanel (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. All lists may have an article per WP:N only if the list has been discussed in multiple secondary independent third party source.Curb Chain (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? If I can prove you wrong, will you withdraw the nomination? Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After reviewing a few of the available primary sources (my library) and doing a Google Books search, I have added content and references such that there are now 4 independent reliable sources, vs. the one which was present (and to which I do not have access myself) when the article was nominated. GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GNG has not been met. None of those sources discuss the topic in depth and independently.Curb Chain (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have all of them? The A-Z book isn't available via Google Books. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Curb Chain, none of the sources provide any significant coverage that goes beyond a "definition of the topic" per WP:WHYN (ie plot summary). GNG is not met. Given how most of them only replace primary sources without any content change, coverage doesn't go beyond reprinted dialogue from the show. One passage added by Jclemens is not even about Raider fighters but a character than has nothing to do with them. If Jclemens intends to convince anyone that these sources contain any significant coverage, we'll wait and see instead of blindly trusting his (as of now) misleading descriptions of sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Your inability to access sources is not my problem. You're entirely free to purchase copies of secondary sources that discuss off-the-air science fiction TV off of Amazon Marketplace, just like I do. I've posted ISBNs for everything. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And your inability to extract GNG-compliant content out of them is not mine. WP:SOURCEACCESS is not the issue here, thanks to GBooks we have easy acces to the 3 sources you added, which allowed me to verify that they don't provide significant, in-depth content on the subject, and thus that GNG is not met, contrary to your claims. I'll wait until we're presented with actual significant coverage to change my recommandation.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about you start by amending your above "none of the sources" statement, to match your revised statement, since we're apparently agreed that the A-Z source cannot be seen via Google Books. Wouldn't want to have a material inaccuracy in your statement, would you? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can view it in Gbooks. I must be God :) Cheers.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage in independent reliable secondary source. Too specific trivia that doesn't fit anywhere. There is no need to mention every little fictional device that ever existed on WP.Folken de Fanel (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per good faith efforts of adding sources by Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the sources meet the WP:GNG criteria, but the fact of adding them would somehow make the article notable ? Please be serious. Your comment doesn't provide any policy-based reason as to why the article should be kept, so I encourage you to amend it, otherwise it can (and quite frankly should) be ignored by the closing admin.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. And @Jclemens: That A-Z source discusses Babylon 5 indepth, but nothing has yet in this debate, on the talk page or on the article has been ~~show~~shown or provided to prove that Raider Fighters in Babylon 5 are notable.Curb Chain (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... Except for the fact that they're covered non-trivially in multiple independent reliable sources, you mean? Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, and these sources have not been provided as of yet nor on the article.Curb Chain (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? They're added to the article already. I added two more RS'es, from books from my library, bringing the total to six, four of which I own, one of which was in the article from the outset, and one of which I found via Google Books. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources discuss Babylon 5 and but not the ship indepth.Curb Chain (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to be amazed at how you have immediate access to sources that took me weeks to acquire. I disagree with your characterization, I might add. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is clear on the fact that one-sentence coverage and descriptions are not significant. Half of your sources are not even about the topic. Your disagreement is clearly misguided.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge to a combination article as suggested earlier--as the reasonable compromise solution. It may technically meet the GNG, but it is more appropriate to the purposes of WP to have a separate article -- and then we have provision for other similar ships. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable. Babylon 5 spacecraft has not bebeen discussed in any independent 3rd party 2ndary sources.Curb Chain (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable? That's an interesting way to put it. And you're asserting that there's no way as a whole that Babylon 5 spacecraft would merit a discussion article? Consider things like this, which while hosted at a Wordpress site is a trivial to find example of comparison of fictional spacecraft across different fictional universes, and even a couple of real world ones. Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considered and the link is not a reliable source.Curb Chain (talk) 00:39, 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, Sandstein 10:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm copying the content of this page to wikialpha, because it seems like a page that fans could find useful, even if it may not meet the standards of the wikipedia deletion brigade. Mathewignash (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash ^[talk] 12:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without evidence that this is important outside the fandom it is inherently nn. Shii (tock) 13:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Six reliable sources "outside the fandom" isn't enough for you? Or are you defining "fandom" to include commercially published works on the fictional universe? Jclemens (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that there no out-of-universe content whatsoever in this article is a good sign that no one oustide the fandom cares to comment about it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Merge to some article about spaceships in Babylon 5. These are obviously minor spaceships from the TV show, which can surely be put with all the others that have appeared for a nice article. The Steve 22:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such a list would fail WP:N.Curb Chain (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that you know that without having seen such an article or looked for sources. Do you really think that *no* reliable sources exist on the spaceships used in an extremely popular and well-known TV series? Truly, I envy you your prescient and instantaneous research skills... The Steve

... Especially since I've found plenty of reliable sources for this one. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 23 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. Michig (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Humaniqueness

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

As far as my searches go, this neologism has been used almost exclusively by Hauser, with some use by Ortolano. Other uses are almost entirely either in reference to Hauser (less often Ortolano), or in sources such as blogs, or both, with very few exceptions. There does not seem to be any evidence that the term is in general enough use to justify having an article about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term is relatively new but it has already created other variances such as the adjective "humanique" which is becoming more and more widespread. I find the term to have enough relevance for portraying a novel idea about the human condition. And the term is supported both by a prominent scientist and a literary figure which justify an article about it. ElisaChen 6:20, 19 January 2013 (CST). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humaniqueness (talk • contribs)

Humaniqueness, can you explain why you signed that comment "ElisaChen"? Unless you can provide a convincing explanation, people are likely to think that you were trying to give the impression that there is more support for your article than there really is. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Useless neologism that really doesn't say much of anything. Wouldn't even belong at Wiktionary (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to disagree with the strong deletion recommendation. The word is a wonderful neologism that says it all about the unique gifts that we, as a species, have to create things like "wikipedia". There is not a word in any language that translates this concept so beautifully. Besides, it is the title of a book and of a Harvard professor scientific hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humaniqueness (talk • contribs) 13:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I came close to speedy deleting this, but there is a vague claim of notability. Neologism, no real notability, promotional. I wondered if the creator of this article should be blocked for infringing the username policy, any views? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this article is only making an important contribution to Wikipedia. Important hypothesis such as the one states in the article should not be dismissed as "promotional" and does indeed belong to encyclopedias of any nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humaniqueness (talk • contribs) 14:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Errm "The creator of this article"? You created the article. Did you think that we wouldn't realise that? In conjunction to your use above of a different signature, this could encourage people to think that you are, again, trying to give the impression that there is independent support for the article, whereas in fact you are the only one who has supported it here. (Also, the word "promotional" refers not to the "hypothesis", but to the article about it.) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marc Hauser as a plausible search term and neologism with evidence of at least basic usage. I would have preferred a redirect to Glauco Ortolano but that target does not exist in the English Wikipedia. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James, a person may refer to him of herself in the third person at times. And of course, I created the article. My signature name "humaniqueness" is in every post, isn't it? And yes, I do see great value in this page otherwise I would not have created it in the first place. In my view, "humaniqueness" is perhaps the most important single philosophical concept created in the 21st Century. We finally have a word for that "spark" of genius that we have all been endowed with, which makes our species just so unique. Until recently, there was not a term for it, and I'm just so sorry that you have all failed to see the importance of this page. No resentments though. Geniuses are often overlooked and misinterpreted, and I see no exception here. End of story! Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humaniqueness (talk • contribs) 01:13, 20 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. KTC (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Iloilo

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

Not wikilinked. Offers sparse, non-notable information. Essentially leads to nothing. Unsourced. WP:NOTDIR. See similar list created by the original editor (subsequently deleted) here. Xeltran (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Xeltran (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. No reliable sources, no coverage, no wikilinks, worthless page. A brief summary of malls in Iloilo in the main Iloilo article should be enough. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:14, 20 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 Nomination withdrawn. I added references to the page, so there is no longer grounds for deletion. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hitotsubashi Group

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

The sources I found, such as this one seem to suggest that the entity known as Hitotsubashi Group is something else. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is this an AfD that is based on the assertion that the article is incorrect? I don't believe that falls under WP:DEL-REASON. Shouldn't that be settled through a discussion on the article talk page? I should note that the link you gave did not work. I also have found other sources that confirm that the article is about the right group: [13], [14], [15], etc. Unless there is an argument about notability, perhaps this AfD should be withdrawn. Michitaro (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more searching and was able to find out what you were talking about. There are articles such as this that say a group of economists at Hitotsubashi University between the fifties and the seventies was informally called the "Hitotsubashi Group." While clearly the publishing group is the main referent for the term (and thus the article is correct as is)--even in Japanese--there do seem to be other, minor uses. There might be a need at some time to disambiguate, but that is not reason to delete a perfectly correct article. Michitaro (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I edited the article and added three references for now. I admit this was a poor nomination on my part. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:43, 20 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 00:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South Azerbaijan National Liberation Movement

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

Previously deleted article. Third party editor with very similar name to the article creator declined the CSD request, so to be on the safe side, I brought it back to AfD. I'm not claiming any socking, but if it looks like a duck... GregJackP Boomer! 16:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does it needs another AfD ?! It do has the criteria for Speedy Deletion ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No--examining the previously deleted article, the present one is a complete rewrite, removing a good deal of the wildly excessive material in the previous article. the other. This is not an opinion on whether the present article should be kept; I am just saying it needs a new discussion. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , The text is not the same , but same editor , same self published blog references and same familial photographs : Its so obvious who is the artist in one-man show ...--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:13, 9 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 00:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If only because I can't find a way to whack it with "Recreation of Deleted material". DGG is correct, this may be the same subject and same author, but it is not the same article... Sadly. I'd love to whack it, but I can't morally commit to a delete. -T.I.M^(Contact) 03:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[[#ref_{{{1}}}|^]] : I am not an Admin, but I distinctly remember crossing this article in the AfD queue quite a while ago. My evidence is circumstantial. T.I.M^(Contact) 03:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the organization appears to exist, however given what I can find in News, Books, and Web sources, the subject does not appear to be notable per WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Perhaps it is too soon and perhaps upon deletion the primary editor may wish to Userfy the article until there are sufficient references available to support notability.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the organization exists and there are sources: E. Cornell. Azerbaijan Since Independence: New Directions for Students and Practitioners pp.322-323, p.327, BBC NEWS: Iranian police disperse rally, Radio Free Europe: IRAN DEMANDS EXTRADITION etc. --Melikov Memmed (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The organization is not notable enough to have an article. Kurdo777 (talk) 08:04, 24 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. Michig (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FacultyRow

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

Declined A7, but no evidence of notability. One of the cited references even refers to the site as "one of the smaller sites" in its category. —Darkwind (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – appears to fail WP:Notability (web)#Criteria. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 09:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only independent source is the article from The Chronicle of Higher Education which begins "Among the smaller sites that are seeking out faculty members, FacultyRow.com provides..." placing it as a minor player in its market. Nothing found via Highbeam; web searches are only returning primary/PR links and announcements that individual have been named to FacultyRow's SuperProfessors list. Insufficient for WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as A7 tagger, no notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources provided by the author are enough to establish the lack of notability, whether under WP:WEB or WP:ORG. And I could find nothing that could establish basic notability either. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:02, 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 redirect to Keller Independent School District. WP:NOTBURO The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil Hill Middle School

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

This article about a middle school should be redirected per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It states that elementary or middle schools generally do not have articles because they are non-notable in reliable sources for significant coverage requirements. In this case, that appears to be true; in addition, there are a number of trivial facts based on original research. Another user already attempted to redirect this to the school district article based on my observations, but a major contributor reverted the change and requested page protection, so I do feel the need to discuss this. Best, TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 05:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the school district article Per everything TBrandley said. I would also like to point out that once it was explained to him, the other editor did merge it already to the SD article. All that remains is to blank this article and redirect. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Non-notable article per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Zia Khan 17:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Zia Khan 11:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Keller Independent School District, obviously. There is no reason to waste editor time at AfD when there is a well established precedent to follow. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 22 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. Notability concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 05:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naaptol.com

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

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

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

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

I'm not entirely sure, but I don't believe this is notable. It doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. There are no significant media mentions except for a single India times article. Given that this is apparently the third creation of this article after it was previously speedied twice for being promotional, I believe this article is being created for promotional purposes. Skrelk (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with above comment and we should Keep this article on Wikipedia. Naaptol.com is one of the top online retail website in India so it should be noted on any encyclopedia.

Moreover the reference they have cited in this article is absolutely reliable and credible one reference is from Moneycontrol.com which is noted on Wikipedia itself with the name CNBC-TV18 and is one of the largest news house in India. The second reference is from The Economic Times which is again a very reputed source. The third source Iamwire is not much known or reputed source but the information i have got from Alexa.com about Iamwire.com [16] is good , it has ranking of 7,629 in India and Reputation of 121. Lastly, we should not judge any moderator from his/her previous failures. Mukulsaurabh (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Skrelk, I appreciate your comment posted on the article but this article is not posted for promotional purpose at all. This content totally gives information about naaptol which many people may be searching for, as naaptol.com comes under top 12 best online shopping websites in india [17]. As far as single media is concerned that is India times article, i believe Moneycontrol.com also comes under top trusted websites in india which also has listing on Wikipedia. However i have also included some more media source in the article which are independent of the site itself and meet WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. I also appreciate comment posted by Mukulsaurabh on judging a person on his previous failures. I think you should Keep this article because Wikipedia is only a source from where users can get right and genuine information on almost everything and article posted on naaptol.com should be a part of it. --Webmaster.gitesh (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether I am eligible to become part of this discussion and post comment on this article but also wondering that why there is no information on Wikipedia about Naaptol similar to Jabong.com, Flipkart.com and others as all of these are india’s top online shopping portals and Wikipedia must provide information about these portals. I have read this information thoroughly with comment posted by Skrelk. According to me Wikipedia should Keep this article which I think is not promotional.--182.73.48.26 (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not think there is anything here that shows notability . DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe similar to pages jabong.com and flipkart.com wikipedia should keep this page of information. I don't think there is any point to remove this page from wikipedia. According to me it is notable and should be there in wikipedia database for users who want to read about naaptol.com. I found this information quite interesting.--Dr.bhawnesh (talk) 07:34, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Delete - fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The sock-puppetry here is blindingly obvious and disgraceful. All keep voters have same broken English, same editing style and same contributions range - this AFD, their own user pages and the article in question. WP:QUACK! I won't even bother lodging an SPI - that would be an insult to CU and the closing admin here. Stalwart111 05:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The three almost-identical, LinkedIn-style user pages say it all, really. LOL. Stalwart111 06:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did lodge an SPI, but it was closed as looking more like COI Skrelk (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the three might together also have a WP:COI. Happy to help lodge another SPI but I don't think it's needed - it's so obvious that the closer can't possibly take their !votes into account (vote-stack fail!) and it's limited to this article (all are WP:SPAs) so once it goes, they should also. If not, happy to help with another SPI if you wish. But we should, then, also ask for the title to be salted. Stalwart111 07:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough coverage in reliable sources. I know that we should avoid systemic bias, but it appears that even Indian media doesn't have any info. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Titodutta. Still, more are appreciated. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In all these articles the subject is either the primary topic or a major topic of discussion. Please open these articles, use browser's find option to find the word "naaptol".

--Tito Dutta (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A better start, though three of those are from the same source (Business Standard, actually two are the same article). I'm 50/50 about the IndiaRetailing one and the HBL one that profiles a whole bunch of companies. But that goes a good way towards WP:CORPDEPTH. Now to deal with the COI/sock-puppetry. Stalwart111 01:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stalwart, I am quite sure you'll get more sources using these search options:

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

Actually I was reading the day's AFD nominations and felt very much surprised when I saw the comments "Napptol" is not notable. And I was/am trying to answer that part only. I have no comment on sock-puppetry, COI etc. --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC) one more from ET. Tito Dutta (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand that - entirely fair enough. I did look for sources but couldn't find much. The other issues aren't reasons for deletion anyway - just poor form. The ones you found, as I said, get us much closer to CORPDEPTH. It's always ironic when COI editors think the best way of saving their article is to vote-stack, and then they do it so badly! In reality, the work you did has a much better chance of saving it than all that nonsense. Great work! I've changed my !vote above - we still need to deal with the other stuff and the article needs work. Any chance you know enough about the subject to clean up the article? Stalwart111 04:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the first draft here Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Naaptol.com (sorry I have too many subpages under my userpage already and my sandbox is busy). BTW, I am confused, in an Economic Times article wrote Naaptol is/was India's largest e-commerce shopping website (though it was only one line, see ref and details in "Recognitions" section in talk page). But, if it is really the largest e-commerce website of the world's 7th largest country, then it should help to pass the barrier of WP:GNG at least. Is not it? --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion, a very good start. As long as the "biggest in India" claim is sourced and the phrasing avoids WP:BIGNUMBER-style arbitrary comparisons, then yeah (again, in my opinion) it should be fine. Agree, it goes some way toward WP:N. I wouldn't want to base a notability case on that alone, but along with the sources you've found it's looking good. Stalwart111 08:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep from the sources presented in here - if it's enough to convince Stalwart, it's enough to convince me. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Tito Dutta's sources help towards WP:CORPDEPTH, though the "biggest in India" claim doesn't appear to be well sourced, seeming to be multiple repeats of one remark. Many of the online mentions are in lists of similar companies in India - just quickly picking a couple: Hindustan Times, Sept 2011: "eBay, Amazon, Homeshop18, Infibeam, Naaptol and Rediff Shopping are the top six shopping cart sites", and GoFoolish (not sure this is a reliable source), Nov 2012: "Mumbai ... Mostly copycat startups : Example naaptol, inkfruit, myntra etc". Now, I note that we have articles on all those other companies mentioned,(*) so Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is relevant and taken with the other evidence suggests that we probably should have an article on naaptol for consistency.

(*) We have had articles on HomeShop18 since Nov 10, Infibeam since Jun 11, Inkfruit since Mar 09 (currently up for its second AfD having survived one in Jun 10), Myntra.com since Nov 11, and Rediff.com since Jun 04. —SMALL JIM 14:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep.Paasable, but not good.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:22, 25 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 while there are many arguments put forth for both sides of the discussion neither proponents offer significantly strong arguments, the reference to missing white woman syndrome has been ascribed to this event but without any substancial facts even if it was/is that isnt a reason for deletion(see:WP:DISCUSSAFD). Policy reasons put forth WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NotNewspaper are one in the same they refer to 4 points each are; 1, Journalism first hand reporting(nope), 2. News Reports enduring notability of people and events, enduring isnt defined in encyclopeadic as that is subjective measure that cant be defined. Point 3 Who's who coverage about an individual involved may not be notable should be limited to the article about the event, 4th point not a diary(nope). Considering the points 1, 4 definately arent the basis of this article. enduring is undefined, notability lets discount ABC coverage(presumed COI) the coverage is significant, reported on two continents and its independent of the subject. Pt4 cover the event not the person if the person isnt otherwise notable this artilce does that. To counter the notnews arguments the policy WP:N/CA sums this article up Articles about criminal acts, particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources. Further keep arguements were of the media coverage, other events supported by media coverage of those events therefore on balance the discussions weight is one of keeping the article. Gnan garra 08:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: While closing as keep I'm mindful on the issue of how "enduring" is defined and what that means to this article which is unresolved by both this discussion and policy. Gnan garra 08:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because of this article, "Murder victim Meagher may be wiped from Wikipedia" from The Sydney Morning Herald, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}} or {{subst:canvassed|username}}

Death of Jill Meagher

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS, we don't generally include articles on noteworthy but temporal events... not unless they have lasting influence or they impact society over the long term. This is still fairly recent, so web searches tend to show primarily news updates on the unfolding situation, rather than significant sources that can demonstrate long-term importance. Powers ^T 19:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~. Coverage more substantial than a typical murder (which I would hesitantly ascribe to missing white woman syndrome), but no real in-depth analysis or wider impact. Protest turnout of 30,000 people (which the article doesn't mention) makes me reluctant to delete. Edit: Leaning towards keep considering the existence of articles like this. IgnorantArmies – 06:15, Saturday January 5, 2013 (UTC)
~~Not sure~~Delete Is there an equivalent of missing white woman syndrome for members of the media? One reason this case got more attention than usual was that she worked for the ABC. Inevitably they gave it lots of coverage, and my impression was that it increased coverage in other media outlets too, more than your average Joe (or Joanna) would have received. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified my position after further thought. Jill Meagher had no public profile before her unfortunate demise. If this was a rape/murder, it could have been a rape and murder of anybody. There is no lasting encyclopaedic significance in the fact that she was the victim. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to WP:N/CA, "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources". The case do have headings in major newspaper, in at least two countries. For what matter the case is known, is not important, as the coverage itself is the criteria for notability. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So we ignore the obvious conflict of interest among the media? HiLo48 (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is misleading to link to conflict of interest in this debate, as I can't see any obvious signs of users neglecting NPOV have had an inpact of this article. The criteria is significant coverage of media. Grrahnbahr (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Grrahnbahr - WP:COI is completely irrelevant to the media's coverage of the case. --Chriswaterguy talk 07:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom has it right. This is a crime involving a non-notable person. Simply having coverage by outlets in different countries isn't the intent of "international coverage". This is a regular crime against a non-notable person. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a murder of an journalist working in a foreign country. It is not regular at all, and is covered by major media in at least two contries. According to the criterias, it is no demand for a notable victim, as the case itself could reach notability by significant media coverage. Grrahnbahr (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. She was non-notable before her death, journalist or not, and the fact that it was covered by media anywhere won't absolve her from being covered only because she was a murder victim. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

agree with Niteshift, she was not a journalist merely an employee. and even if she was, it adds absolutely nothing to notability about her death. LibStar (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a regular crime" - but certainly not a regular case. There is plenty about the case which is not "regular", as mentioned elsewhere in the AfD. --Chriswaterguy talk 07:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was not a high profile media personality, so I don't think the media COI is relevant. The case is notable for the impact that social media had on both the search for her, the identification of and abuse towards the accused and it will continue and increase during the upcoming trial. There was an article about it just the other day. It will probably end up changing some laws over what can and can't be said online. The-Pope (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She may not have been a high profile personality before her death, but did you listen to or watch any of the ABC coverage at the time? It was massive, obviously because she was one of theirs. It's unlikely to change any laws, because there's no point bringing in unenforceable ones. HiLo48 (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not change the law, but articles like this show that it is more than your usual missing person/murder case. The-Pope (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing anything but a tragic death that has received respectful attention "worldwide". The article is WP:NOTNEWS right now. Naturally, if the story gets attention that leads to changes in the law, the article should appear on Wikipedia. I didn't see a story about the impact of social media. Unscintillating (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree that it was a case of missing white woman syndrome (I do suspect that the volume of coverage this got was largely due to the fact she worked in the media), but it still got massive amounts of press over a sustained length of time. Definitely a step above your ordinary violent crime in the notability stakes. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: This was a high profile incident. The article is deserving of development to reflect this. Afterwriting (talk) 15:25, 16 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 04:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing outside of WP:ROUTINE suggests any real notability. WP:NOTNEWS, too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:VICTIM. unfortunate death, that garnered a lot of coverage at the time, but it really is just another murder. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no long term notability Greglocock (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, not everything that gets some media attention is automatically worthy of an article.--Staberinde (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per "no long term notability" = then, what's this?. This murder happened 4 months ago, and the media is still harping on about it. That's called WP:SIGCOV. — MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

because the court case for the accused started 4 months after. LibStar (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is still coverage over long periods of time. — MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 07:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A mention 4 months later isn't "long term notability". When did 4 months become "long term". The essay WP:RECENTISM suggests a 10 year test. Even if we use a 5 year test, 4 months is hardly a long time. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that looks like a 'mention', then some people have really high expectations. — MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Do you really want to quibble over the use of "mention"? Or maybe we should focus on the fact that 4 months is hardly "enduring". Niteshift36 (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the trial is going to be finished tomorrow? or the news outlets will stop after 4 months? nope. Is it impossible to wait a few more months, to get a clear view as to whether or not this article is notable? definately not. Now, keeping in mind WP:BLUDGEON, I think that's about it on my part. — MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was an murder that had a deep and significant impact on the city where the victim was murdered. It galvanised a response from males and females alike - there was a march of thousands down the street where she was snatched. There was also a marked public reaction in Ireland, where she hailed from. Notability here isn't dependent on the victim's profile, but the public reaction - and this was / is notable. Colon el Tom 13:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a extremely significant event in Melbourne and Australia that has had continued reactions since. Rallies of 30,000 people are illustrative of this. MvjsTalking 14:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this was an important story in both Brunswick in Melbourne history. The impact of social networking was of importance in this case and it is something that should be noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.124.37 (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What happened to her wasn't extraordinary, but the public outcry, the peace march, and the way it revived Reclaim the Night in Melbourne and other Australian cities was historic. Never before in Australia has the rape and murder of a woman created such a reaction. Interestingly, it preceded the protests in India about the student who was violently raped on a bus. It may be a coincidence, but it feels like these events are linked, and we as a society aren't sitting back and letting violence towards women be accepted as normal or inevitable.

As for the cynical "white woman syndrome" comments, and to those saying it's because she was working for the abc that she got all the media coverage, well there might be some truth in this, but there are many white women who are raped and murdered in Australian Cities every year, and they don't get this kind of attention. I think there are a lot of legitimate reasons why the public were so affected by this story; 1. the CCTV footage of a missing woman in the company of a strange man allowed us all to play 'detective,' 2. it happened in Brunswick, a neighbourhood which a lot of people have a personal connection to, being a popular place to go out, as well as a place where a lot of students live, 3. Her body was found, and the murderer was charged within a short space of time; so the interest had built up and then the discovery resulted in strong emotions. Just as the police raid on the Stonewall hotel that sparked the LGBT rights revolution wasn't particularly notable at the time, neither was Jill Meagher's rape and murder, but because it catalysed change, The Stonewall Riots have a place in Wikipedia. Time will tell whether the momentum generated at the time of the march builds into a movement, or becomes a distant memory.

User:doloresdaphneTalking 14:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doloresdaphne (talk • contribs) [reply]

Comment: I agree with the comments of User:doloresdaphne above. Whether we think the reasons for it are fair or equitable, the public reaction to this event (peace march, social media) was huge. The case in India that doloresdaphne refers to is the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, which has extensive coverage on wikipedia - and having occurred 16 December 2012, is more recent than this event. Format (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion has been reported in The Age newspaper in Australia: Murder victim Meagher may be wiped from Wikipedia. St Anselm (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The media coverage on this case was substantial. You can argue about whether that media coverage was proportionate or not, and what might have influenced it, but I don't think that's a relevant consideration. The "conflict of interest" policy refers to conflicts of interest in WP editors, not whether the media might have had personal motives for turning a case into such a big news story - extent of news coverage is relevant for notability, the reasons behind that news coverage are irrelevant. SJK (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood romances, babies, and their strange names get an awful lot of media coverage too. You will find mention of them hard to find in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is sufficient media coverage to pass WP:GNG and therefore the WP:Notability guideline. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, see WP:NotNewspaper, which is a part of WP:What Wikipedia is NOT. I haven't seen any verifiable evidence from reliable sources that this is any more than a quickly forgotten event, or that society has changed, or that laws will change. Unscintillating (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No long term notability. The reason this case gained so much public attention was the vivid CCTV footage that was captured immediately prior to her demise and that was extensively shown in the media. I contend that had the last known movements of the deceased prior to her disappareance not been captured by CCTV, there would not have been such public attention to it. I cannnot see how the deceased is really any different to any other missing person who is subsequently found to be dead and that a criminal trial ensures following such discovery. The deceased would not have been in the public eye if not for the sensation of the events surrounding her death, and for that reason I contend that she be deemed unsuitable to have a page devoted to her in Wikipedia. May she rest in peace and may her family adjust to her untimely passing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrostyInOz (talk • contribs) 22:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— FrostyInOz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is about an event that touched many people, not only because of the person (whom most of us didn't know) but because of the issues that her death brought to prominence (which all of us should know). Jill Meagher's ABC colleagues used social media effectively to bring attention to the case, in a way we haven't seen before, and it grew from there. As we got to know more about what happened that night, the dangers of doing something that so many of us have done without a second thought (walking home from the pub) became very clear. Jill Meagher's broader legacy will be to remind us of that, which is why the article on her disappearance should not be deleted but enhanced with detail and context. NotherAussie (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - there is plenty of precedent for WP articles on newsworthy Australian murder cases. This one is not as notable as some, but the use of social media and CCTV has certainly added to it. I say keep for now. (Disclosure: alerted to this by news article, but I've participated in plenty of AfD discussions in the past). Adpete (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The impact of the crime on the public is notable and ongoing. This was reflected by the media response locally and worldwide. The legal and political response regarding use of social media and impacts on the legal system are also notable with signficant comments made by Police and the Victorian Premier. While Jill Meagher may not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) notable person requirements, the murder event and subsequent response is notable. As per WP:N/CA don't rush to deletion. Peter Campbell 23:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hugely notable. Massive public reaction, big changes in attitudes to crime and sentencing for violent offenders as a direct result of this murder, which will be remembered for a very long time. I am astonished that there is even a question about this. Simply, deleting this would be absurd.

The reasons for the huge public concern are irrelevant. The fact of it is what matters. Tannin (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'"Keep'". This event galvanised women and men across Melbourne and Australia against violence against women. In addition to the 30,000 - strong march down Sydney Rd not long after Jill's death, attendances at White Ribbon Day events a couple of months after her death were many times larger than in previous years. Media and community discussion about violence against women in this country is now an open and common discussion as never before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnzacFrank (talk • contribs) 23:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This event was more than simply the death of an ordinary Australian citizen, it was a highly publicized murder of a journalist known to many. For decades to come, when a woman goes missing in Melbourne, many will reflect on such a highly publicized incident. It has become a part of Australian history and Australian history has a place on Wikipedia. The deceased was a journalist and was widely known, the nature of the article is of little threat to anyone's privacy. The article exhibits to Australian society, a prime example of the prevalence of violence against women in the society of the time. It has become a significant historical event. Reasons for keeping this page far outweigh it's deletion. NacIVY (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you have evidence to show that Jill Meagher was widely known prior to her disappearance and death, please do provide it. I've seen nothing to suggest this. Colon el Tom 00:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From my personal experience living nearby as well as what I have read in the media and on blogs, this incident made significant and lasting impacts on: perceptions of safety in Melbourne (especially for women), risk of social media commentary prejudicing a fair trial and wider debate on appropriate sentencing for similar crimes. lheydon (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this was a national media conversation about women's rights and safety in Australia equivalent at a national level to the 2012 Delhi gang rape case. It is emphatically not just a "missing white woman" syndrome - thousands of people marched in Melbourne in a campaign to highlight the matter. Slac speak up! 01:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - This was an appalling nomination by an American editor, who clearly failed to make even the most rudimentary effort to assess the significance of this event in Australia. Now it has led to the humiliation of Wikipedia in the Australian media. Hope you're feeling proud of yourselves. The philosophy of deletionism is a scourge on this project. Manning (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This tragic murder changed a number of things. 1. It could have been "any" woman throughout Australia (not just Melbourne, I am from Sydney)- most women have walked 400 m in a supposedly busy and safe area late at night. It changed women's behaviour. 2. CCTV Camera - this helped solve the case with its widespread coverage. Ironically, we understand we are 'safer' because of such cameras' omnipresence, which in turn may or may not deter future attacks. 3. The unprecedented march of thousands in Melbourne cemented the first point. A tragedy, it lives on our minds and hearts and has touched and shaped society. [[User:Coastien| 27 January 2013 124.179.58.153 (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - While random rape and murder by an unknown assailant may be common in other countries, it is a rare occurrence in Australia. This was a societal shock to the Australian population because (1) Jill was not attacked by a relative or acquaintance, and there was no pre-planning or other motivation, (2) the assailant was known to Police, and while Australians historically hold a relatively dim view of uniformed authority, there is a general feeling that the system keeps us safe and (3) the assailant had approached other women previously, but due to (2), had not been reported. This is an open wound in the Australia psyche, and the societal ramifications have yet to be fully appreciated. It is therefore premature to delete this as being insignificant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.10.115 (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The crime gained immense national coverage and led to significant media coverage on the issue of CCTV and women's safety. Qualifies per WP:INDEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE. BlackCab (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only (semi-)valid pretext to have this article is the extensive media coverage, but this coverage is just as unwarranted. The media often create such a feedback loop when one of them is concerned (which in this case is also multiplied by the MWWS factor, without a doubt). There is no point to perpetuate this cycle. With all due respect, Jill is not any more important or notable than any other person murdered in a similar way (which happens rather regularly, even in Australia). Sergey Khantsis (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If extensive media coverage is no longer an indicator of notability, then what on earth is? Since when did we get to decide if media coverage is "warranted" or not? Manning (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lot of SPA's are muddying the water here. The evening news, by its very definition, is national coverage - the primary claim made for notability, yet not all national news stories are worthy of an encyclopedia article. The reality is, people are not going to be looking up this story years from now, and in the unlikely event I'm mistaken, the article can be written then. In the meantime, the appropriate forum for these story is Wikinews. Rklawton (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to say keep on this one. A rally of thousands of people down a major road in Melbourne takes this well outside the realm of "just another death" - even if some are unhappy that this was potentially driven by "missing white woman syndrome", that is now just a part of the story (though arguably not an NPOV one). The march and gathering was an unprecendented response in Australia and received wide coverage... like it or not, it's a notable event. --Rob.au (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - The scale of community response to this event is notable in Melbourne's history. Tens of thousands of people walked along Sydney Road in a "Peace March" after the murder of Jill Meagher. See: http://www.theage.com.au/photogallery/national/peace-march-for-jill-meagher-20120930-26ta3.html Craig Rowley (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To all those locals triggered by the article in The Age to now tell us how important this really is because such and such happened, how about you get cracking with your editing and add some well sourced words on such and such to the article? Right now, the article doesn't deserve to be kept. And I'm from Melbourne too. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI have already edited parts of the article as it was in dire need of some attention, yes. It is pretty comprehensively connected to the rest of Wikipedpia now, and I have polished some bits and added in more sources. However I have been reluctant to go out of my way on some parts of the story, as the trial starts soon, and I would rather not risk jeopardising it. Fairly sure there will be lots coming out of the trial reports to update the article with. NotherAussie (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Victorian Premier has suggested law reform might be necessary to avoid social media coverage of this event. If such reform is legislated, then this event will not only have been "worthy of notice" by the Victorian Premier, but also by the Victorian Parliament. It will have been an event that directly led to significant law reform in Victoria. http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/media-centre/transcripts/5044-full-transcript-of-premier-ted-baillieus-interview-on-774-abc-melbourne-mornings-with-jon-faine-01-october-2012.html Craig Rowley (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge now I don't know how this could be done though, but certainly the subject being an incident in [Brunswick], and the only reason why the article became notable is because she worked in the media and it was covered by her media colleagues - but the quality and caliber of the media reporters is quite notable! If she was a cashier at the local supermarket then it wouldn't have got an ounce of the media coverage that it did. That said, it raised a lot of awareness of [rape] and victims of rape. The reasoning behind my idea here is that the impact that the media did was important in bringing the awareness to the Australian community. On the other hand - the deletionists should go and check out the thousands of horses that are deemed to be "notable" included in Wikipedia after only winning a minor race. Should they all continue to be listed, then this article should also be a keep as it has made an astounding impact on a community and country and raised unprecedented awareness of the security and safety of women in this community. Thanks for reading.Alvin M. (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment a "rally" of any amount of people does not make for notability. Each week there are rallies of all kinds and causes all over the world and they are not noted in Wikipedia. I think the people who are highlighting the rally part and not the end effect - ie parliamentary change or similar, should consider the fact that this in itself is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xmusica1 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I would agree that a rally in and of itself does not amount to notability. My earlier comment refers to this rally in context. A rally of this size and of this kind is not a normal response in this environment and as the commentor below notes, it is only partially indicactive of why this occurance has become notable. -- Rob.au (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment Sure, rallies happen all the time and this rally is only part of the story, but it examplifies all of it. People marched to remember Jill Meagher and they marched to highlight unacceptably high levels of violence against women. If one woman's disappearance and death has that influence, it is a notable event. To the editors who are concerned that we will suddenly experience a spate of articles about ordinary people being killed: let's deal with that when / if it happens.NotherAussie (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The creepier thing about this all is that Adam Ernest Bailey will likely get a Wikipedia article written - if he hasn't already got one written already! Alvin M. (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind me guessing that you probably meant Adrian Ernest Bayley, the man charged with the rape and murder of Meagher. What makes you think he would get an article? HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the others this would not have been a news item if she were not in the Media.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.6.207 (talk • contribs)

— 211.27.6.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the most notable murders in Australia in recent times. --58.178.161.100 (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This event is not temporal as this event caused a 30,000 female and male march for a female victim.

Similar events that are not temporal and remain in Australian cultural history are Juanita Nielsen (4 July 1975), Karmein Chan (13 April 1991), Caroline Byrne (8 June 1995), Jeanette O'Keefe (2 January 2001), Siriyakorn 'Bung' Siriboon (2 June 2011) and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eiger3970 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could have been a rape and murder of anybody. She was just an average person, but as she worked for the media, the ABC made sure her story was picked up. I do not mind if we keep it, but in the future, we should also be allowed to keep all other wikis on everyday murders. Kelly2357 (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet 30,000 people haven't turned out on the streets of Melbourne in response to any other "everyday murder" (which with only 173 homicides in Victoria in 2011/12 would be better described as an "every second day or so murder"). The Victorian Premier has since expressed a potential to reform the law as a result of the notable scale of interest and thus potential to jeopardise the trial. It is the scale of public and government reaction to the event that makes it a significant event, and thus a topic that is notable, regardless of the occupation of the victim. Craig Rowley (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Kelly2357. This isn't an everyday murder, which the article itself makes clear. Meanwhile, wikipedia does have substantial articles on other (non-everyday) crimes such as (to pick two I have recently edited) the Murder of Anni Dewani and the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, so I'm not sure what your point is. Format (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep A notable murder that has led to substantial and likely long-lasting societal impact; not enough time has passed to fairly judge whether WP:NOTNEWS no longer applies (though what constitutes "enough time" is a very vague criterion and I'd argue that enough time has passed to exempt this article), but WP:SIGCOV has been more than adequately addressed and so the article should remain. If the article were simply about Jill Meagher herself, then WP:Notability isn't addressed and I would vote for deletion, but since the article is about the event of her death and its coverage, my vote is a strong keep. Thefamouseccles (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, per comments by Colonel Tom, Coastien and doloresdaphne, among others. There were a number of reasons for public interest in the case - including the CCTV footage and that she was taken from Brunswick. I'm sure that Missing white woman syndrome was one factor in the attention it received, but nonetheless it has received that attention, and a strong continuing interest. As someone living in Melbourne and having heard a lot about the case and knowing about the march, I consider the deletion an absurd suggestion that shouldn't have been made. If someone doesn't understand a topic, they should consider suggesting the deletion on the talk page before putting it to AfD. This death is a sensitive issue, and this AfD is not only inappropriate but makes Wikipedia look bad - I hope it can be quickly closed. --Chriswaterguy talk 07:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: This AfD has been open for 22 days, and there's no sign of consensus for deletion. It's about time to close it, and focus on improving the article. --Chriswaterguy talk 07:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The reactions to Jill Meagher's disappearance was unprecedented in Australia. The combination of public action and social media was exceptional. My post for Global Voices Online gives some of the impact: Australia: Social Media’s Search for Missing Woman "This week Melbourne has seen what is perhaps its biggest and its saddest social media campaign following the disappearance and alleged rape and murder of Jill Meagher." Too important to delete when living people of much less significance remain. 30,000 people who took to the streets can't be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Rennie (talk • contribs) 2013-01-27T07:23:59

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

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

The result was redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Namah Shivaya Shantaya

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

There is no reason to think this book is specially notable--inclusion as an item in the reference list on the author would be enough. The contents of the articles show how little there is to say: a contents list of the book, and an overdetailed publication history DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; seems to fail the GNG, once we strip out the stuff which is actually about the author there's just a list of contents and editions; the article is just part of a broader pattern of promotional editing. bobrayner (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article creator's comment: I will try to insert more secondary sources on it to show its aderence to the WP notability criteria.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 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) 21:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article creator's comment: I've just added 2 secondary sources: 1)a legal source mentioning the book of this article as a spiritual treatise/fundamental text of the Ananda Marga spiritual movement. This point out the adherence of the article at WP criteria notability point (3); 2)an academical source showing the historical relevance of the author. This to point out the adherence of the article at WP criteria notability point (5). I hope that is sufficient. Otherwise I can also add other secondary sources. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The legal source [18] appears to be a court document filed by Ananda Marga, an organization founded by the author. This is not considered to be reliable secondary source independent of the subject. The second source, from what you've excerpted, appears to make a statement about the author but not about the book. Location (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article creator's comment: thanks Location for your comment. Please note: 1)when one Court accepts (and don't rejects) that something on a legal document has probative value, this is considered true for the purposes of a lawful consideration of that subject. So you have to accept it as a part of the legal and public structure of that organization. This is important because the Court is an entity not only independent from the subject but is a legal entity that can also definitely outline its public structure. So these books are part of the Ananda Marga spiritual organization and this legal document is useful to show the adherence of this article to point (3) of WP notability criteria. 2)Of course the second source I've added on the article makes a statement about the author. This is to show the adherence of this article at the WP notability criteria point (5) (i.e.= "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable").--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway I've just added another academic secondary source. I hope to dissolve all doubts.--Cornelius383 (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that a document in scribd.com is a reliable source leave alone an academic source? Even if it were, on which page does it discuss the book? In this edit you have just added an unreliable source on a tangential topic. It doesn't help your cause in anyway. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 20:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. This article lacks significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 20:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article creator's comment: I have added: 1)a legal document showing Namah Shivaya Shantaya as a part of the spiritual texts of the Ananda Marga spiritual movement, 2)an academic source showing the historical importance of the author (Giani Zail Singh, seventh president of India has said about Sarkar: "Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar was one of the greatest modern philosophers of India. (Inayatullah, 2002), 3)an academic research centered on the author that quotes this book (Chien Hui Liu, pp. 3 & 20). I think it's sufficent to show the adherence of the article to point 3) and 5) of WP notability criteria.--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: And here we go again. Is it Bigots Week at Wikipedia? This book treats a subject of immense interest to the millions of followers of Shiva (Shaivites) in the world. Unlike many other treatments of the subject, this book presents Shiva as a historical figure, justifying that assertion and analyzing Shiva's role as the "father of human civilization". I don't know if it makes the book notable or not, but at least one movie has been created that is based on this book (see here). --Abhidevananda (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. I've just added this further secondary source in the article.--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A youtube video based on the book is hardly a secondary source. bobrayner (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Added: IMBD, ilcinema.org, mandy.com.--Cornelius383 (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are reliable sources, either. Please read WP:RS. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book is a spiritual (or religious or sacred as you prefer) text of a religious or spiritual group as quoted in the legal source, somebody have even created a movie on it: point (3) of WP notability criteria. We have the academic source that quote Giani Zail Singh, seventh president of India that has said about Sarkar: "Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar was one of the greatest modern philosophers of India. This to show the importance of the author: point (5) of WP notability criteria. I think that its sufficient.--Cornelius383 (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius, to what are you referring when you say "point (5) of WP notability criteria"? Gtwfan52 (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. LK (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User:Cornelius383 has been going out of his way to show that the author of this book is notable. Without even addressing that, the notability of the author has exactly 0 to do with the notability of the book. Even if the court case were on point, which it isn't, as a primary source it says nothing about notability; either of the author or the book. Gtwfan52 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ananda Marga? I do not see any serious discussion as an independent work, but it is referred to as one of Sarkar's works in several places that discuss the movement. I could also support deletion or a different target, as I don't see the independent notability. Mangoe (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What was the title in its original language? If it was originally published in say, Hindi, then we'd probably get more hits if we searched under the original title. So far I'm not seeing a lot. I know that a lot of books in India tend to not get a lot of coverage even when they're very popular, but this doesn't mean that they aren't held to the same standards of sourcing and notability as a pulp novel from America would.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. Barring sources in Hindi, I just wasn't able to find anything to show that this book has really accomplished everything that the article states it does. I'm fully aware that books aren't heavily covered in India and that only 10% of news coverage for any given subject never makes it onto the Internet, but that doesn't mean that this book gets to skip the same rules of notability that every other book has to pass. That the book was written by a notable person and covers an obviously notable subject matter (Shiva) does not extend notability automatically to the book. Very few authors are so notable that any of their books gain notability automatically and the thing about that rule of WP:NBOOK is that it's understood that if the author is that notable, that the book would have sources focusing on it and pulling out the "notable author" card wouldn't be necessary. As far as the movie rule goes, having a movie adaptation does not automatically make it pass. The film itself must be notable and I'm unable to find anything about the film that isn't a primary source or from a source that Wikipedia would consider reliable. It doesn't seem to have gotten any actual coverage, not even coverage to say that it showed at Cannes. Even then I can't really find anything official for this and even if it did show, it didn't seem to have been one of the big, fancy "official selections". There were about 1,000 selections for Cannes in 2009 alone, so merely showing during that time isn't enough to show notability. The type of film that would give notability would be something along the lines of 99 Francs at the very least. As far as it being part of a religious text, you'd have to show that it was notable. No, it doesn't have to be as widely covered as the Bible or the Vedas, but it does require more coverage than "this is totally notable". You'd have to show coverage that indicates that it's an important book, which I was unable to find. There are various unusable sources, but nothing that would indicate that it passes notability guidelines. Really it all boils down to reliable sourcing and there just wasn't anything out there to show that this book was as notable as it would need to be to pass notability guidelines. That's the long and short of it. Unless there are sources in another language, my vote will be to redirect to the article for Sarkar.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editor's note: This book is a part of the vast literary heritage of Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and it's one of the various articles related with Sarkar, that I recentely wrote on WP and that have been proposed for deletion by BobRainer. Have we to prefer an encyclopaedia representing the various aspects of human knowledge or have we to continuosly propose for deletion all that we don't like/agree? It's very easy to delete an article but it's more difficoult to build one, or constructively help to support/expand/improve it. As a relatively recent editor I ask me: is it more useful to see in WP some experienced editors (strengthened by their advanced procedural knowledge and by a discrete logistical support of a few others) engaged almost exclusively in the easy work of deletion rather than in the more difficoult task of articles' creation and improvement? I hope you all will understand if I express here my strong complaint but I don't really even know where to write it.--Cornelius383 (talk) 08:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting "delete" isn't as easily done as you claim. When people do proper research, it can take some of us anywhere from half an hour to a few hours or days to come to a delete vote. It's sometimes just as much work to research a delete vote as to create an article. I know that I spent quite a bit of time searching before finally commenting here and I know I'm not the only one. In the end it doesn't matter what amount of time is spent coming to a decision. If an article subject is ultimately not notable, the amount of time put into it is irrelevant. It's frustrating to see articles that you spent a lot of time on get nominated for deletion, but all articles are subject to notability guidelines regardless of how much time you, I, or anyone else put into creating them. I'm saying this as someone who has personally had to go back and vote "delete" on articles that I'd previously helped work on, as well as redirect articles that didn't pass notability guidelines. I didn't like it, but it happens. If you want then a copy of this can be moved to your userspace ala WP:USERFY, but be aware that moving it back into the mainspace will only result in it getting deleted again if notability is not proven. All notability must be proven via reliable sources, which is ultimately what the argument against this book stems from. Other than your claims in this article, we can't find where this text is nearly as important as you say it is.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:27, 26 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) 02:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frazer Smith

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

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

Delete due to the lack of coverage in independent reliable sources -- Kourtneykardashian (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC) — Kourtneykardashian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion was not started correctly, I have added it to today's log. I am neutral in this discussion. -- Patchy1 23:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks reliable sources. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:03, 2 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, Mkdw ^talk 09:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per lack of notable coverage. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 21:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a few references in Billboard, including an article 13 Oct 1979, p22 "Morning Madness at KLOS-FM"[19]. Also more recent press: OC Register[20]; Pasadena Weekly[21]; LA Times[22][23][24] Because much of his career was in pre-internet era, there's likely to be more offline. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I haven't looked up the references, but I can tell you that Smith was a fixture on rock radio in Los Angeles in the late 1970s. He is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacaparum (talk • contribs) 13:12, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER. Warden (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colapeninsula, as well as other sources found offline, such as Chitwood, William (23 December 1986). "Frazer Smith: Bad-boy deejay is back on the air: He gets multi-year contract at KLSX", The Orange County Register, p. D08. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seem to be enough sources that offer significant coverage for this to meet WP:GNG. Gong show 23:38, 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 no consensus. as per the discussion has no clear consensus since it was opened last December 22, 2012. This discussion has been available for discussion for over 5 weeks with 4 relistings. This will get to nowhere as per the discussion has few participants giving their own opinion but unfortunately, it fails to meet a clear consensus. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 02:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Southdown PSV

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

Appears to fail WP:CORP: Just another bus company... bobrayner (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- from the look of the navbox template, it would seem that we usually do have articles on local bus operators. Whether we should is a differnet question. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page is used on many templates and other locally-related pages - removing page would create many redlinks on other pages. I am also very knowledgeable on this subject, granted it has not any sources, but will endevour to find some when possible. Thanks. Tom the Tomato (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By "many templates" you mean one template, yes? It was on {{Bus companies in South East England}}. I have fixed that now, so the redlink problem has gone away. Not that it should make any difference since that seems unconnected to our deletion policy. Is there any evidence that Southdown PSV is notable? bobrayner (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Incidentally, that's a very big navbox listing bus companies. I think some other ones on that navbox might be good candidates for AfD). bobrayner (talk) 16:59, 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 00:17, 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, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:21, 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence the company meets WP:NCORP notability criteria. I can't find any news coverage. There isn't even much on the company's own website, so presumably most of the article is WP:OR. Sionk (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect somewhere - A Google News search provided results here (brief mention through a company duty manager) and here (both of these are for an armed robbery on a Southdown PSV, this second link is an interview with the bus driver), here (another brief mention), here (brief acknowledgement for their services) and finally here (the company caused trouble in 2007 after discontinuing two routes). The company is probably well known in that local region but there isn't much for a Wikipedia article at this time so I wouldn't object to a redirect somewhere as this company is still relevant to that area's transit system. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close as no consensus - Relisting four times is just silly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though the 'keep' comment seems to have an erroneous argument and the 'merge' suggestion' gives no target article! Sionk (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gave no target because this bus company serves many areas and I didn't know which target would be appropriate but I suppose if I had to choose, it would be selectively merge to Copthorne, West Sussex. SwisterTwister talk 03:52, 25 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) 02:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tomin Thachankary

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

Not notable. Canoe1967 (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The nominator made a similar claim in this discussion that was refuted by multiple members of the community. This page unfortunately fell victim to a lot of vandalism in the preceding months which led to that discussion being created. However, here are multiple reliable sources that deal with the individual in question (Times of India - Aug 11, 2012, The Hindu - Sep 26, 2010, Khaleej Times July 7, 2011, New Indian Express - Dec 27, 2012.Pectore^talk 18:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be found for the material that is controversial. Without the controvery there is no notabilty. Has any source in the mainstream media made mention of a temporary suspension and the reasons thought to be behind it? Were his assets actually frozen, if so were they later released? To include one without the other is POV.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources linked above are in mainstream media. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see articles in Google News and Google Books and good work Pectore! NPOv disputed etc tags can be added in that article if needed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Titodutta (talk • contribs) 02:30, 17 January 2013

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He appears to be notable, with coverage spanning years. We can rename the article if necessary. Some examples:

Tomin Thachankary’s petition dismissed - The Hindu, Dec 2, 2010
Tomin Thachankary’s assets to be frozen - The Hindu, Aug 19, 2007
Court grants bail to Tomin Thachankary - The Hindu, Sep 26, 2010
Thachankary approaches HC against CAT order - The Hindu, Aug 18, 2010
Tomin Thachankary catches the eye at NIA meet - The Times of India, Aug 11, 2012
Tomin Thachankary back in service - The Hindu, Apr 13, 2012
Tomin Thachankary gets posting - The New Indian Express, Aug 4, 2012

It seems like there's a number of events in 2007 to 2010 that can be discussed, along with his reinstatement last year and the stuff he's been doing since his new IG posting. Silver seren^C 05:35, 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 delete. KTC (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BUCK Enterprises

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

Multiple detailed searches for this band did not provide enough for this article. At Google News, I performed two searches, one with "BUCK Enterprises Christian ska band" which offered one result here (first result from the top, an event listing in Dayton, Ohio). The second, "BUCK Live Buck Enterprises" (one of their albums, BUCK Live) offered several results, mainly events, which through the previews, don't seem to be enough for this article. Please note that some of results in this past link are for an irrelevant company also called Buck Enterprises. A Google Books search only provided one result here (third result from the top). A different search provided results here (reunion show in 2011) and reprint here, here (briefly mentions them and their 2001 album) and here (briefly mentions one of the drummers who is now at another band). Despite the 2011 reunion show, there isn't any evidence to suggest they are officially reuniting again. Billboard showed no evidence of charts and the lack of reliable and significant sources overall is probably due to their Christian music ties. If a redirect were possible, it would be to Galaxy21 Music but that article seems to have some issues so I plan to check it for AfD soon. SwisterTwister talk 20:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Non-notable band. As the nominator said, the sources, few as they are, are not usually notable and if they are they are event listings/brief mentions. Vacation9 23:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure to meet notability standards.Hoponpop69 (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete They do not meet WP:BAND and I can't find any support for WP:GNG. While I am aware of the band, they do not meet the criteria for inclusion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:26, 22 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 redirect to Melodifestivalen 2013. If the person's only claim to notability is appearing in a content that ***hasn't even happened yet*** then that's a pretty obvious note that they're not individually notable .... yet. And per precedent, even appearing in such an event doesn't confer notability anyway. However, assuming AGF there is a possibility this person may become notable at some point and it's not unreasonable to assume her name may be a search term ... therefore, redirecting to keep the history. Black Kite (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia Olsson

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

Non-notable performer who has not yet made her debut so seems to fail WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Creator removed PROD and notability tags so taking to discussion. Mabalu (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:25, 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 00:10, 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 00:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - her spot in Melodifestivalen 2013 indicates her notability as a singer.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the ONLY reason? I was under the impression that singers and performers need extensive third-party coverage to demonstrate their notability. A single spot in a single festival doesn't sound sufficient. Mabalu (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have nothing against a redirect to an appropriate article (Melodifestivalen 2013?) until such time as the individual achieves additional notability in her own right, but right now a full article seems WP:TOOSOON. If she does go on to represent Sweden at Eurovision then that's notable, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Mabalu (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how familiar you are with Melodifestivalen. But usually being involved with that show is notable as it is the most watched show on swedish television and you have to have had some sort of recognition by the music community to appear on the show. Redirecting it now just to create it again in a months time is a waste of time and effort. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem to be what WP:Rollback is for. Notability achieved? Rollback the redirect because no text is lost. Doesn't sound like too much effort. If she is going to be so notable though, it seems strange that nobody else has shown a faintest bit of interest in the fate of the article... Mabalu (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, where are the sources? The only sources are one that actually calls her "an unknown", and a list of who's appearing in the show (I've not checked, but do all the other 20-odd perfomers also have WP articles? I have randomly checked a few and apart from Swedish House Wives, they did have articles, BUT also showed evidence of notability. I have no doubt that Felicia Olsson will be there in a few years time, but for now, a redirect, which can be easily reversed at an appropriate time, seems logical. Right now, she doesn't appear to pass any of the requirements for musical notability, which seem pretty rigorous. Mabalu (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the ridiculous amount of press and viewers Melodifestivalen gets and the role it plays in Sweden, I'd be tempted to see performing there as an indication of notability in itself. However, whether one agrees with that or not, the article need reliable third-party sources, not as a way to point at notability, but because the entry needs to be verifiable. I don't know if I'd call the sources and links gathered in the article so far sufficient. /Julle (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article be deleted/redirected, however, I'd want to argue that the conclusion of this disucssion shouldn't be that the article should be kept deleted or redirected unless a new AfD discussion reaches another conclusion: it's likely that more will be written about her in the near future. /Julle (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a classic case of WP:TOOSOON isn't it? fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG as she hasn't recevies significant coverage in reliable sources. That she is going to contest in the Melodifestivalen, confers no notability. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, within just a few weeks Olsson will have met the WP:NMUSIC criterias 1, 10,11 and 12. Deleting this article now is truly a waste of time. Secondly, Mentoz notion that performing in Melodifestivalen confers no notability is wrong. My say of Keep has not changed. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason why turning the article into a redirect is appropriate at this point in time. The redirect can then, with the click of a button, be speedily reverted to the previous version of the article at such a time, when, and IF, Miss Olsson gains notability. No text need be lost - just temporarily stored. Mabalu (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:CRYSTAL, BabbaQ? Your opinion that performing in Melodifestivalen confers notability, is not supported by any notability guideline, and most important: this topic blantantly fails WP:GNG. Regarding Mabalu's point of redirecting instead of deleting - I don't see any reason why some non-notable singer's name, who performed in the semi-final of the yearly Melodifestivalen, should be redirected to Melodifestivalen, and a deleted article can also be restored with a click of a buttom (though only by admins). Mentoz86 (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to that competition just like we do with others like Idol. No notability shown outside this contest. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. BabbaQ's one line non policy based keep once again adds nothing here. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you compare Idol and Melodifestivalen.. then you obviously dont follow Melodifetivalen (talk about not adding anything to the discussion). But I let the closing admin who hopefully will have a clue about Melodifestivalen decide this.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability quite clearly. Article can be restored if subject receives significant coverage in future.--Staberinde (talk) 11:47, 26 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. After four (!) relists the consensus is in favour of keeping. Michig (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Velvetpark

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

A 10-year old Lesbian/Feminist magazine. I came across this while editing an article about a leading lesbian activist. Velvetpark's website links to the Wikipedia article, so it appears they're using it as an extension of their publicity. Grace Moon, the publisher, seems to be the author here. I've searched for secondary coverage about Velvetpark online but can't find anything of significance. Because they claim to be read on five continents I think its only fair to launch an AfD rather than Speedy Delete. Currently fails WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom statement, internet search reveals no credible notability of the subject in any major (or minor) sense. Sionk's analysis of failing WP:NCORP is correct, and should serve as the rationale for deletion. -T.I.M^(Contact) 22:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I think there are enough sources to pull together a good short article but I'm not sure how interesting it would be and who will do the work. There are cites to notable contributors, some articles, and even the court case(s) but I'm not sure that's enough. Keep per improvements and sourcing. Insomesia (talk) 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, Courcelles 01:05, 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 00:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The wrangling with the US Patent office over the use of dyke in their byline as well as their hosting of the writings of a closeted West Point cadet both were covered in reliable sources, making this magazine meet WP:GNG. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 02:00, 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 00:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage to show notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This is a curious case: the argument for retention seems to be that being not-quite-notable in several different ways makes something notable.

(1) The "dyke" controversy receives the most passing of passing mentions on a blog, and a paragraph or two in an article in Comparative Hungarian Cultural Studies. The article's discussion of the magazine seems to be based on the magazine's own web site. Only the sacred gravity of An Academic Journal gives this superficial plausibility, but WP:SCHOLARSHIP presents a fairly nuanced view of how scholarly articles should be used, and I'm not quite sure that the article, in this specific context rather than in general, is reliable enough to establish notability.

(2) Contagious notability: the magazine had a famous employee, therefore the company is notable. Evidence? A few passing mentions. But WP:ORGSIG.

(3) Its "renowned" awards, and here the evidence seems to be something that's tantamount to a press release in SheWired. Alexrexpvt (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of sourcing, ample to show notability is established certainly for this subject matter of this article page. — Cirt (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough on the page to make it noteworthy. Should be expanded. Sean Egan(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't look notable or encyclopedic to me - seems to be no more than a small footnote in the coverage mentioned. ---- _nonsense ferret 18:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Big enough web footprint for me, I favor a low bar for journals and publications regardless of ideology or content. This is the sort of material that a comprehensive encyclopedia should cover. Existence confirmed and verifiability is satisfactory; the fact is that publications do not often write about their competitors, which makes finding so-called reliable sources more difficult than it should be. Sticklers for policy-based rationales can file this under the policy of WP:IGNOREALLRULES, use common sense to improve the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 23:42, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fulvia Celica Siguas Sandoval

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

The article has been flagged for several years as using a single source, being factually inaccurate and failing to meet notability standards. Nothing has been done to address these issues. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:23, 3 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 3. Snotbot t • c » 15:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary keep. These are regular editing issues. Notability is noted and being one of the first transexuals in Peru would also seem to add to her notoriety. We need to check the facts, and once established, likely meets notability requirements. I have no time at the moment but I can take a look of no one else does. Also it's likely sourcing is in other languages so that challenge needs to be met. The one source states "Fulvia Celica Siguas Sandoval (Peru) has had 64 surgical operations since December 1979 to complete gender reassignment. Of these, over 25 have been to her face and neck, with other alterations including ear reductions, transformations to her legs and arm liposuction. Fulvia – a transsexual TV clairvoyant – hit the headlines back in 1998 when she registered as mayoral candidate in Lima, Peru. She sadly passed away on 10 September 2004 at home in Lima, Peru." Insomesia (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response These are regular editing issues that have been extant for a long time. I would assert that being listed in Guinness is not, by itself, sufficient grounds for notability. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 05:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see an effort spent on finding sources in her native language(s). If none truly exist then sobeit. Insomesia (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject is not notable, fails to meet GNG. GHits shows the Guinness site, but the rest appear to be blogs, social media, etc. Several GBooks hits, all sourced to Wikipedia. Only 2 GNews hits, one a passing mention (referring to Guinness). No GScholar or JSTOR hits. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. GregJackP Boomer! 21:52, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I added a source for her death. The surgeries are suspect. --Auric talk 17:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The 'in memoriam' is from the famous Spanish transsexual politician Carla Antonelli, and I've added a link to a brief from a major Colombian newspaper noting the Guinness record - that should be enough to pass WP:GNG. Diego (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:30, 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 delete. No views in favour of keeping this in three weeks makes this a clear delete. Michig (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Explosion Fight Night

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

This is a kickboxing organization that has put on one show in the past 18 months and only 5 in its history (dates back to 2010). All the article's sources are the organization's website. Other sources I found appear to be either press releases for upcoming events or results from those events--either way it's just routine sports coverage (see WP:ROUTINE). Jakejr (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a minor organization with a lack of significant independent coverage. All of its events were previously deleted as non-notable. Mdtemp (talk) 17:26, 9 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) 00:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no indication that this organization is notable. I found no significant independent coverage of this organization, just the usual routine sports reporting of results. Papaursa (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible delete if additional sources aren't found. After some detailed searching, I found two relevant links here, here, here and here and here. I'm not fluent in French or from France so I wouldn't know how much more to search but I'm not seeing much for this article. I'm happy to reconsider if other sources are found though as mentioned in the beginning of my vote. SwisterTwister talk 21:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:GNG and article fails to assert why the organization is notable. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:09, 24 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 redirect to List of LGBT periodicals‎. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Pillar

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

A google search for "The Pillar Salt Lake City" does not bring up any sources. No evidence that this magazine held any notability. v/r - T P 03:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at least redirect to List of LGBT periodicals‎. No sign that sources have even been looked for but there is also no reason to delete when a list article is available. Insomesia (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This search has yielded some sources that at least mention the publication. The NYT article here has only a passing mention. Other articles from these search results in The Salt Lake Tribune are paywalled, and I don't have access to them to ascertain the depth of coverage. While Google hits do not directly confer to topic notability, there apparently aren't many for this publication. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From this search in Google Books, this article was found, which seems adequate regarding significant coverage, although it's largely about people involved in various ways with the publication and their opinions about it. Here's a passing mention in a dissertation. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at the very least redirect to List of LGBT periodicals, per Insomesia (talk · contribs), and per good references analysis by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs). — Cirt (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per what policy? NA1K is pretty clear that his sources are about some people or mention the publication in passing. Where is the significant coverage about the subject? Again, redirecting is fine by me.--v/r - T P

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of LGBT periodicals seems reasonable; I'm unable to find in-depth coverage for this publication. Gong show 23:46, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Dykstra

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

Non-notable model lackng GHits and Gnews of substance. Lacks reliable coverage. The references provided in the article are not enough to support inclusion into Wikipedia - they are mostly random examples of her work and one line mentions of her. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. I agree Fails WP:BIO. Deangunn (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A search for this lady pulls up mostly photographs, mentions of the fact that she was going to be Miss World but then got pulled because of some naughty pictures online, and the record of her arrest in Florida in 2006 (when she was 18) on a minor drugs charge. However, I do see that she's been interviewed in GQ magazine, after appearing nude on the cover, and there's another interview by some people called the Daily Grind. These "interviews" are extremely trivial, artificial and superficial and this is not a lady of extremely high accomplishments. Nevertheless, I must rather reluctantly conclude that she's notable, because I can link two sources that have noted her.—S Marshall T/C 01:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per Wikipedia, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Interviews are primary sources, where are the secondary sources." reddogsix (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This distinction between primary and secondary sources is a bit complicated and subtle, actually, Reddogsix. It's best to use the form from WP:NOR rather than WP:N, because WP:NOR is policy but WP:N is only a guideline. From WP:NOR it links, in footnote #2, to this page. The page does indeed say that interviews are often primary sources, but it also says a lot of other things and should be read as a whole.

The correct view is that a literal transcript of an interview is a primary source. But interviews may not be literal transcriptions, particularly when published by journalists. Once an independent person edits the interview for relevance and clarity, and adds a quick pen-portrait of the interview subject, you get an interpretive element to the source which places it beyond the normal limits of what a primary source is.

Both of those interviews have been edited for relevance by independent people and are framed in a quick (one-paragraph) pen portrait of the subject written by the journalist. They're trivial and superficial, but I've reluctantly concluded that in my judgment as an experienced editor, even though they're interviews, they're admissible for the purposes of WP:N.—S Marshall T/C 21:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I originally wrote Jessica Dykstra's wikipedia article 2 years ago, and it was deleted. Since, I've kept my finger on the pulse of her career, and wouldn't have rewritten it if I didn't think that she was past the point where it would be nominated again. She has been in Frederick's of Hollywood since her original article was written. Plus the controversies with Miss World and GQ Magazine add to her notability. She's in 2 motion pictures this year. Here's the trailer for Pain and Gain, which you will see her in throughout. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEQ8jyvmYtw --71.54.247.55 (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please demonstrate how this meets Wikipedia criteria? See WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please demonstrate how this meets Wikipedia criteria? I'm not even sure how to respond to that.--71.54.247.55 (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might make it: She's not even listed on imdb for Pain and Gain, she's probably just some beach babe type that appears in a few scenes, but I'm generally in alignment with S Marshall's views. She's more notable than she was in 2010. And since its Wikipedia's 12th birthday this week, I refer to what we often say, but which Larry Sanger said first in drawing up the first "deletion policy" page in November 2001: "When in doubt, don't delete."[25] --Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I appreciate the sentiments expressed by S Marshall, I note that one of the sources referred to cites a contentious event (annoying feminists), and per our policy on handling sources for biographies of living persons, we should strive to back up such events with multiple sources. Since so few are forthcoming, and it seems to be the only potentially notable thing she has done, I think we're better off leaving this out. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:07, 25 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 redirect to Interchange (road). MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malfunction Junction

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

Barely cited (only one non-dead link, and it's just referring to it as a nickname for one of the many examples. This is almost entirely original research on various highway sections that people find annoying to drive on. This makes it possibly close to inherently POV, with such statements as "seemingly endless maze of ramps" and the like. Against the current (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep—AfD isn't article cleanup. Please note that like Spaghetti Bowl (transportation), there are interchanges given the "Malfunction Junction" nickname. Imzadi 1979 → 22:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. This article makes me uncomfortable with all the OR. Still thinking about this. --Rs chen 7754 23:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Imzadi1979. Dough 48 72 01:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its a problematic article. Is it meant to be a list of interchanges that have been called 'malfunction junction', a general list of interchanges that confuse people or snarl up a lot (in which case I think a better term than a bit of journalese, however snappy, should be found) or an article on the junction in Florida which spawned the phrase?TheLongTone (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article as it stands is contrary to Wikipedia policy. If you have multiple things with the same name, they should have different articles (see WP:NOTDICT) - you don't cover Columbia, SC and Columbia, MO in the same article, so why would you cover Malfunction Junction, AL and Malfunction Junction, CA in the same article? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is essentially a list article, and might be legitiamte as such, contrary to what Colapeninsula says, but what should (and should not) be included seems to be a matter ofpersonal opinion, which we call WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - at this point, there's nothing worth keeping that isn't original research. Should someone come up with an article that meets Wikipedia guidelines, it can be recreated. --Rs chen 7754 19:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rschen7754. Deletion is not eternal.--Charles (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is essentially a list of junctions we don't have articles on, nor are likely to, with a couple of exceptions which are listed without a source to verify that the term has been used to describe them as 'malfunction junction'. The article appears to be largely WP:OR. --Michig (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Interchange (road), but I would caution that a copy-and-paste merge is not what I want to see happen. I'm sure we can make a decent, cited paragraph out of this article. –Fredddie ™ 15:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is important where ans why accidents happen. It is also important why and what junctions have problems but I strongly recommend to use references! I am still missing capacity details on articles about road juncions. --Hans Haase (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - far too much WP:OR and similar nonsense in there, but it could be a valid article if redone from scratch with proper referencing. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:00, 26 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) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 05:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All Too Well

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

Should be deleted, with a redirection back to the parent album Red. Per WP:NSONGS, whilst charting does make a song a notable, notability aside there should be extensive coverage of the song as a primary subject. In this case there isnt, and chart positions could easily be added back to the album. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This passes NSONGS No. 2 criterion three-times.HotHat (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the album. --Michig (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The album article is already to verbose that this is not feasible in the first place because it is in great violation of SIZERULE, so that is the reason these must either be deleted or kept. They meet the criterion of No. 2 and these sources confirm No. 1 Daily Mail and US Weekly. So, now it must be kept, or else wikipedia's rules don't matter at all!HotHat (talk) 04:30, 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, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article obviously needs some work, but word has it, the label is testing it on radio to be released as a single. it has charted on the US Country Airplay chart to prove this. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 13:34, 20 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Treacherous (song)

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

Should be deleted, with a redirection back to the parent album Red. Per WP:NSONGS, whilst charting does make a song a notable, notability aside there should be extensive coverage of the song as a primary subject. In this case there isnt, and chart positions could easily be added back to the album. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:NSONGS having charted on a national chart. While I would grant that the "bubbling under" chart is not a significant one, the country chart and Canadian charts are. RadioFan (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the guideline says NOTABILITY ASIDE an independent article is only necessary where there is sufficient independent coverage. In this case there isn't. If you're going to vote against an AfD at least make sure you understand the reasons as to why something was nominated in the first place. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I exported the entire history of this article to http://taylorswift.wikia.com/wiki/Treacherous so if it does get deleted here, please feel free to continue editing it over there. Dream Focus 22:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the album. --Michig (talk) 07:23, 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, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The song got enough coverage to have its own article, such as here, here and here. These are just some of the sources that I found away from the page. This article requires expansion, not deletion. Nominator should do their homework before making meaningless Afd's. Till 09:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Till this is the second time you've been verging on uncivil. Please keep the the comments strictly about the article and not the editor. This article was nominated because I researched and decided that Taylor Swift songs were being given articles because they charted but charting alone is not enough to warrant an independent article per our notability guidelines. Unless there is something unique like the song was used during a promotion or performed several times some comments from an album review or in passing from tabloid-y websites doesn't constitute significant coverage. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A song being performed doesn't make it notable. And how was that post uncivil? You probably didn't bother to look for sources and nominated this when it could have been easily merged. Till 00:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he did say "verging on uncivil" (not saying I agree, just correcting). — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming something negative id bad faith whihc is uncivil. It is my interpretation of the guidelines that if a song charts thats brilliant good for an artist but the coverage about a song should stem beyond mentions in an album review, or because the song premiered online several days before the album released. Like I said above it was used in promotion or performed several times etc. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article obviously needs some work, but as Till presented above, there's some sources covering the song on its own. I would love to expand all of the Red song articles, but at the moment, I really don't have the time. So at best, a redirect would suffice. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:16, 22 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Babysue

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

Not notable. The only mention of it is at zinewiki.com Prof. Squirrel (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No third party sources. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Rangoondispenser (talk) 06:18, 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, Courcelles 01:05, 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, KTC (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:WEB. Appears to be an attempt to sneak an article on a non-notable musician in through the back door, so to speak. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:02, 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 keep. Consensus to keep following relisting The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritismes

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

Article is about an art/theatre/film project by artist Guy Maddin due to be completed sometime later in 2013. As such, it is probably WP:TOOSOON for this article. Article is sourced to an interview by a theatre magazine, the remainder of the sources are a self-authored publication by Maddin and a handful of blogs pieces. I can't see anything substantial here or online to indicate it is widely known. The project already has an ample paragraph in the Guy Maddin article. Sionk (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of the article: the project is sourced to/discussed in reputable periodicals (e.g., Border Crossings, Sight & Sound) on two continents. Although the completed project will constitute a film, it is also a hybrid art installation project in multiple stages: the first stage installation has already taken place at the Centre Pompidou in France, and so while the feature film stage is forthcoming, the art installation stage has begun and the project is continuing: it may be useful to have this page established so that it can be expanded as it develops. Although, as noted, the project is also mentioned on the main Maddin biography page, since the project involves 100 short films it may be useful for this page to host information about them to avoid the creation of further unique pages for these films. Maddin himself is one of the most notable film directors in Canada and has a worldwide reputation and this is a major project. JonathanGBall (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Border Crossings and Sight and sounds do not verify information about the project, but information about tangential topics i.e. the 2010 film Take a Bath and the collage play The Inn of the Guardian Angel. To prove notability the secondary sources need to be about the subject i.e. Spiritismes Sionk (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To heighten its accuracy, I have removed some of the material in the article that is planned but not yet completed/confirmed. [User:JonathanGBall|JonathanGBall]] (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the current shootings already live on the website of the Centre Pompidou, and the announcements to do the same in Winnipeg and at the MoMa, this project is already so high-profile that it would be a waste to nix what is already here. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Border Crossings article IS in fact about the project as a whole: it is titled "A Constellation of Narratives: Dreaming the History of Lost Cinema" and in it Robert Enright and Meeka Walsh interview Maddin specifically about the Seances/Spiritismes project. The article also confirms that the project " began in Paris at the Centre Pompidou over a three-week period in February and March of 2012" JonathanGBall (talk) 17:03, 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, KTC (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Martijn Hoekstra. There's sufficient coverage already in existence to justify an article on this in-progress production. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as having the coverage to merit being a reasonable exception to WP:NFF. It serves the project and its readers to allow this to remain and be improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:47, 20 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. KTC (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veer Gidwaney

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

In order to have an article here the person must have been the subject of non-trivial by multiple, independent third party reliable sources. At best this person was 1/30th of the subject of one such source (allegedly being part of a 30 people under 30 piece by Maclean's). DreamGuy (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nothing notable that I can see. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we had an article on Control-F1 then it could have been merged there, but we don't, and I don't think there is enough independent coverage to support an article on the company. Not enough independent coverage to convince me that this is suitable for an encyclopedia. --Michig (talk) 10:56, 26 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. KTC (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Penrose

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

Basketball player who did not meet collegiate athlete notability standards per NCOLLATH, or GNG. Did not play professionally and is now out of he public eye. Rikster2 (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nice effort on the article, I can tell someone really cared about it, but he isn't notable. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH. Routine game coverage does not satisfy WP:GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 20:20, 22 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.

Rikster2 (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indians-Tigers rivalry

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

PROD removed by primary editor (actually it looks like two different accounts run by the same person, which is another matter). This is a non-notable "rivalry". In my Google News search, I see that a few journalists use the "r" word in conjunction with these teams, but there's no indication that it actually is a rivalry. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely not notable enough for its own article.--Astros4477 (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't let the long history between the two teams fool you. Out of the three sources in Google News, one states that it is a rivalry, and the second mentions those two teams played against each other second most-time in American League history, which is an interesting tidbit, but not enough to create a "rivalry" article. Also the Indians and Tigers had their peaks in separate eras, which made most games they played against each other mostly irrelevant. The Tigers of the 1930s and early 1940s, the Indians were near the bottom of the division, ditto with the Tigers of the late 1960s and 1980s. With the competitive Indians teams of the late 1940s-1950s and 1990s the Tigers were in the lower division, or in some cases last place. Scholarly sources of these teams doesn't mention of rivalries neither. In other words classic WP:NOR violation. Secret ^account 04:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you could teach us a thing or two about original research. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Indians were certainly not near the bottom of the division in 1940 [26]. They were 1 game from the top. And the top was occupied by the Tigers. Rlendog (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The number of time the Tigers and Indians have finished 1st and 2nd in the standings: 4. 1908, 1940, 2007, 2011. From 1901 to 2012, 111 years, it's happened 4 times. That's not enough for a true, notable rivalry.Ultimahero (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Just because teams play each other a lot, it doesn't automatically make them rivals. Sources that describe the two teams as long-time rivals just aren't there. Frank Anchor^Talk 05:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think we have to ask how we're defining "rivalry". Do all divisional opponents have some form of rivalry between them? Sure. But for a Wikipedia article aren't we asking for substantial rivalries? I mean, when someone comes here they're looking to read about rivalries that are notable to baseball as a whole. And in that sense Tigers-Indians just isn't notable. Sure fans of those teams might be interested but it doesn't matter to Baseball as a whole. It's not notable.Ultimahero (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep They arent there if you aren't looking for them. Such as here, here and here. Oh and the real crown jewel of these refs I have found with a whopping 1.5 minutes of effort is this Forbes examination of their rivalry. Let me just quote CBSsports for a moment "Indians/Tigers is intense. The rivalry here stems from the fact that both teams normally contend for the AL Central Division Crown. Each series draws a significant amount of passion, as something normally is at stake for the winner. With baseball's American League being what it is with the big-market powerhouses to the east, the best chance either team has of winning is through the divisional title.

The past few years have seen the Indians and the Tigers flip flop for divisional superiority. Since each city has a passionate baseball fanbase, it can be argued that the brewing resentment is just waiting to erupt into full-blown hatred." Definitely passses WP:GNG with these WP:SOURCES PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I believe that you are just trying to find anything you can that might support your conclusion. However, these articles you’ve cited are very poor. Let me explain:

As you cited from the CBS article, it asserts that the rivalry is “intense” because the two clubs “normally contend for the AL Central Division crown”. However, a simple look at the standings refutes this claim. From 1995 through 2001, The Indians won 6 of seven division titles. During the stretch, the Tigers had a losing record every year and never finished higher than third in the standings. From 2002 through 2006, both teams only had one winning season each: 2005 for the Indians (when they finished 22 games ahead of the fourth place Tigers), and 2006 for the Tigers (where they finished 17 games ahead of the fourth place Indians). From 2007 through 20012 the two clubs have finished above 500 only a single time in the same season: 2007, when the Indians were 8 games better than the Tigers. So in 18 years of playing for the AL Central, the two clubs have been in contention with each other only once. (And that’s if you count an eight game differential in the standings as contending.)
The “ClevelandFan” article is not about the rivalry itself. It doesn’t even discuss the rivalry, thus it does not apply.
The Blade article says this: “Somewhere in all of this warm and fuzzy rhetoric is a budding rivalry between these two teams, and the players are well aware of it to.” So the author believes that the rivalry is just beginning to form, and will be competitive barring a “collapse unforeseen by most national pundits”. Well, that collapse happened, as the Tigers finished in last place in 2008 and the Indians have been below .500 each year since. So the very thing the author cites as a possible impediment to this just barely conceived rivalry wound up happening. So, at best this article might be able show that there was a rivalry for a year or two, at best. Hardly demonstrates there’s a rivalry in the sense that is needed for a whole Wikipedia article to be devoted to it.
The article by Forbes is not a good article. It’s major premise is to consider how much teams will mark up “rivalry” games, with the idea being that if fans are willing to pay more to see their club play a particular foe, then perhaps a rivalry exists there. However, the subsequent ranking have nothing to do with said mark-up (for example, the Cardinals-Cubs are ranked lower than the Pirates-Phillies despite having a higher mark-up). Presumably the writer just subjectively chose whichever teams he wanted.Ultimahero (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Ultimahero, If this shouldn't have an article than why should Brewers-Cubs? And how much AL Central and Indians-Tigers do you watch? The games are competitive, the two cities are close to each other and share lots of similarities with each other and for fans of the Indians and Tigers the game has a big game feel to it. It is the only divisional game for Indians fans that has a big game feel to it . The only reason the Yankees-Red sox rivalry gets far more attention than Indians-Tigers is because of media hype and market size and that New York and Boston have bigger market sizes than Cleveland and Detroit. The same goes for Dodgers-Giants and Mets-Phillies. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clecol99 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brewers-Cubs shouldn't have a rivalry. I would support that article's deletion as well. However, that's not the point. A flawed article in a different area of Wikipedia doesn't justify a second flawed article with the same problems. I don't watch many Tigers-Indians games but I don't need to. Are you saying we can only judge whether or not a rivalry exists between two teams if we watch the majority of games? Certainly that's not valid criteria. I don't need to watch the Yanks and the Sox, for example, to determine that they have a big impact on baseball and their rivalry is notable.
As for your criteria, how are the Tigers and Indians "competitive"? In the last 19 years, the time since the AL Central was created, the two clubs have finished 1st and 2nd in the division only twice. And one of those was 2011, when the Tigers finished fifteen games ahead and the Indians were below .500. I can't see how that's competitive. As for the cities being close, so what? That can enhance a rivalry, but that doesn't make a rivalry. Cincinnati is close to Cleveland too but that doesn't mean anything. Finally, how do you quantify "a big feel"? So the Indians aren't a good team the last few years, thus having little to play for, so the Tiger game are the only ones that make Indian fans excited? I get that but that doesn't make it a notable rivalry. It means absolutely nothing to the people outside of Cleveland and possibly Detroit. Come on, the Yanks and Sox or Dodgers and Giants have had far more impact on Baseball and it's history. That's why they get more coverage.Ultimahero (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumptions that the Tigers game is the only game that is a big game for Indians fans is wrong. In my opinion a big game feel is a game that has more excitement than a regular game. (e.g an indians game against the mariners or Royals). BTW a big game for Indians fans are games against the Reds, Tigers, Yankees or even the Red sox or a quality Interleague opponent. As for Brewers-Cubs, Indians-Tigers is a bigger rivalry than Brewers-Cubs and deserves more attention than it gets. And in 2011, for most of the year the Indians were relatively close to the Tigers . Even in 2012 the Indians were close to the Tigers until the end of July pretty much. And there IS history. In 1908 and 1940 the Tigers were only ONE game ahead of the Tribe for the A.L pennant. And Ty Cobb of the Tigers barely beat out napoleon lajoie of Cleveland for the batting title in 1908 or 1910 i'm not sure. And in 2007 the Indians and the Tigers were pretty much neck and neck during 2007 until the Indians swept the Tigers to finish them off and the games drew BIG crowds in both stadiums. And the same thing happened in 08 when both teams were bad. And also later that year the two teams got into a brawl that resulted in FOUR ejections and punches were thrown. There was also a brawl in 1936 where after the fight the Tigers fans threw stuff at the Indians. So I think some history is there and the hatred is there. Thanks, Clecol 99. Teamed up with Geocal5 to make the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clecol99 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF on how other stuff existing doesn't impact the current discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never assumed that the tigers were the ony big game for the indians fan. You said it was the only divisional game with a big feel. So I was asking what you meant. In any case the rivalry may matter to you but its not notable to baseball as a whole. No one outside the fan bases cares. And there have only been 4 1st and 2nd place finishes between the clubs: 1908 1940 2007 and 2011. That's hardly a notable history. Ultimahero (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is not quite the case that the Indians and Tigers were never good at the same time; in 1908 the Tigers won the pennant over the Indians by half a game. Also, in that era Cobb and Lajoie were competing for the batting title. And in 1940 the Tigers won the pennant by 1 game over the Indians. Of course, two pennant races and some competitiveness over individual honors do not by themselves a rivalry make. But there is more to a rivaly than just competing regularly for a championship. Two teams in the same region may often have their own rivalry separate from competing for a championship, i.e., for bragging rights. This is often recognized by today's interleague play. And the Indians and Tigers, both from industrial midwest cities who have been in the same league and division for many years would seem like good candidates for such a rivalry. That of course does not make it so. So we need to go to the sources. And PortlandOregon97217's are convincing to me. But they only scratch the surface. Here is a story I found on Google News going back to 1936 describing a rivalry between the two teams. [27] Here is another Google News story from 50 years later also describing a rivalry between the two teams. [28] Here is a story from 1940 claiming a rivalry, albeit in little detail. [29] Here is another story presuming a rivalry exists between the two teams. [30] Rlendog (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PortlandOregon's sources are not satisfactory in my view, as Ultimahero described. These sources are better, which makes what I thought was a clear delete more borderline. I'm still not sure that these are enough to establish that an actual rivalry exists, or existed. But this is good work. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? Forbes is legit! And to all those questioning the level of the rivalry. It doesn't matter if it is a friendly rivalry or a bitter rivalry. It is still a notable rivalry according to Forbes, and all the other souces dug up. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is the Forbes article legitimate? Did you see the comments I made above?Ultimahero (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SOURCES. Nothing you can say can erase the fact that an article in a reputable and huge publication explicitly mentions an Indians-Tigers rivalry. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... It proposes a methodology for determining which are the biggest rivalries then subsequently ignores it's own criteria. That invalidates it's credibility in my opinion.Ultimahero (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I use the sources to assert that certain articles pass the WP:GNG. The gng is what I usually go aim for. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I'm just pointing out that this notable source is problematic because it doesn't follow its own criteria. Are we always obligated to accept a source, even if it has massive internal problems.? If this is the best the "keep" side has then they're in trouble. Are we not allowed to question the slurce if it doesn't even follow its own criteria for notability? I'm not saying the article makes no sense because I simply disagree. I'm saying it can't even follow the guidelines it lays out so how can it be useful to the reader?

The Reading Eagle says the rivalry “seems to be building up to major proportions” based on a single instance late in a single game in 1936 where a manager protested and fans threw fruit. Presumably, the author is not claiming it is at a high level but is building towards it and we would need to revisit the issue at a later date to see if anything materialized. Did this author ever revisit the subject? Because history doesn’t seem to support the notion that the rivalry went anywhere.
The Toledo Blade article says, “The rivalry simmered, spitting little patches of smoke, but there wasn’t much substance, not much to get excited about.” The article is about how, again, there MIGHT be something developing in the 1986 season. Again, history tells us it didn’t as the Tigers finished third and the Indians finished 5th. So did this author revisit the issue and give a follow-up?
The Herald Journal doesn’t discuss the rivalry, it just calls it a rivalry in the 1940 season. Which 1940 was one of the few examples of Indian-Tiger competitiveness, so that makes sense.
The Meriden Journal discuss the 1960 swap of managers. The article calls this “can only be interpreted as an attendance gimmick”. Hardly outrage, like we would expect from a notable rivalry.Ultimahero (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- why can brewers cubs-I repeat-BREWERS CUBS have an article if this can't? This is the same, but fiercer. People that said delete, you have to think about the other ones you guys let on. from, Geocal5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geocal5 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It bothers me how one person will cite an incredibly vague delete reason, and then folks will start to piggyback like it is WP:JUSTAVOTE PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A flawed article on a different part of Wikipedia doesn't justify creating a whole new flawed article with the same problems.Ultimahero (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PortlandOregon97217's investigative work. It is notable and reliable sources are available. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is flawed and successfully rebutted as non-sufficient. I saw his sources themselves, it was all passing mentions that didn't discuss the rivalry in general or didn't mention a rivalry at all, and the Forbes which is one of those gallery personal opinion human interest pieces that seemed copied it from the bleacher report, and I wouldn't consider it reliable at all in this context. The first source Rlendog gave was also passing mention that mainly discussed a feud that happened between the two teams at some random game. Again this needs more sources that discusses the rivalry in detail, not a bunch of passing mentions which is what been provided so far. Any journalist can claim team A and team B is a "rivalry" which they are not. Secret ^account 03:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also the less than two minute difference between this and this AFD, along with the time difference in many others AFDs doesn't show much confidence that you put any thought into your comments here or even read any of the sources. Remember AFD is WP:NOTAVOTE. Secret ^account 03:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  It only takes a few seconds to open the page in question, hit control+f, then type in the subjects name, and in seconds you can see if the ref is trivial or more than that. It isn't hard, and it doesn't require you to spend the time and read the entire article. That would be a waste of time. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  I too looked at his sources and found them to be sufficient IMHO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sorry, but as a Tigers fan, I would have to say that this rivalry is notable. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 15:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But just because two teams face each other often and are both contending, that doesn't make it notable enough for its own article.--Astros4477 (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - As a Yankees fan, I could make an argument we have rivalries with our other AL East opponents (Toronto, Tampa. Baltimore), or the KC Royals from the late 1970s, or the LA Angels or Twins for recent playoff appearances. I could, but I wouldn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... We have way too many of these trivial rivalry articles. By this point of view every divisional opponent could qualify as a "rival".Spanneraol (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curse Forbes for perpetuating these fake rivalries! (sarcasm) Anyway, please read this if you still believe this is a trumped up rivalry. Remember, Verifiability and not truth. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't know that I've done a great job explaining my problem with the Forbes source so let me try again. Forbes is not a sports publication; it's primary focus is business and finance. While Forbes does publish sports articles or lists from time to time, even those are largely comprised of "richest team" types of lists. So I don't think anyone could rightly call Forbes an expert in the field of sports in general or baseball in particular. So, when a publication doesn't have an expertise in specific field should we really be citing them? I mean we wouldn't quote, say, an ESPN article as a source on world affairs, right? Because that would be out of their area of focus. So while it's true that our goal is "verifiability", the source also needs to be able to speak credibly in that particular field. Besides, if this "rivalry" is as substantial as it's proponents claim it to be then shouldn't we be able to fine some references from actual baseball people? Former players, managers, writers whose primary focus is Baseball, etc.?Ultimahero (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't let that slide, my fellow Oregonian friend. "Verifiability Not Truth" is Orwellian gibberish. Here's Mr. Jimmy Wales on the matter: "Everyone who thinks it is better to have an error in Wikipedia rather than correct information is always wrong at all times. There is nothing more important than getting it right. I'm glad that we're finally rid of the "verifiability, not truth" nonsense - but it's going to take a while before people really fully grasp what that means." (Sept. 25, 2012) The standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability and veracity. Carrite (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient sources, passes GNG, and I can't agree that there are "too many" of these rivalry articles. If there's sufficient coverage, we can have articles about them.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a historic rivalry despite the fact that the two teams have played each other many times over the years. Every team has played every other team in every sport many times over the years, this does not involve a historic rivalry capable of carrying its own page, such as, for example Packers-Bears in football, USC-Notre Dame in college football, Lakers-Celtics in basketball, Yankees-Dodgers in baseball, Kiwis-South Africans in rugby, etc. Carrite (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the Indians and tigers play in the same division 18 times a year so it is a legit rivalry. 198.228.200.28 (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Playing in the same division does not make it a rivalry.--Astros4477 (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, so do the Padres-Rockies, Blue Jays-Oriels, and Astros-Mariners. Do those deserve their own page? If not then same division is not enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry.Ultimahero (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. The sources are insufficient (as they rarely even discuss the "rivalry" itself) and there's just not enough history to support this inclusion. This article only dilutes true sports rivalries that are actually meaningful to people outside of a small fan base.Ultimahero (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThat is not a valid reason to why you say this is not a rivalry is because this is a divisional matchup that IS a good rivalry and to astros 4477 i'm not saying this is a rivalry because they are in the same division. This is a classic divisional rivalry that has hatred and some history. I would agree with that assessment if this was about the Indians rivalry with the Twins or Royals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.63.104 (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just assert that the rivalry has hatred and history. Document that hatred. Show how the teams have historically hated each other. And prove that there's a deep history because I don't see it. I see four seasons where these two teams competed for a playoff spot: 1908, 1940, 2007 2011. 4 seasons throughout more than 100 years of existence isn't enough.Ultimahero (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC) You shouldn't judge rivalries cheifly on 1/2 finishes there were also competitive seasons that were NOT 1/2 finishes I think there were a couple times in the 1940's or 50's where the two teams were within 10 games of the American League. There also is hatred because there has been a couple beanball wars over the years[reply]

Clecol99, I think close 1st and 2nd place finishes are the best way to judge a rivalry because that directly relates to two clubs being in direct competition for a playoff spot. In general, I don't think 3rd or 4th place finishes mean much. That being said, I'm open to examining more evidence but, with all due respect, its your job to provide it. I don't think its sufficient for you to say "I THINK there were some times in the 40's or 50's where X happened." If you think this rivalry should stay then you need to do the work to find the data. "I THINK" isn't good enough. As for the supposed "beanball wars", that's great. Find the references and we can talk about it. But I can't really comment on it until then.Ultimahero (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is deliberately neither a recommend keep nor a recommend delete - as someone who lives on the other side of the Atlantic I do not know enough about baseball to know whether the article is important or not. The main thing I notice is that the passion behind the above debate is more baseball-related, than Wikipedia related. The article is basically a description of the number of times two baseball teams have played each other and some currently unsourced assertions relating to that. That shows to me some NPOV problems, as I (and possibly much of the world outside the US) have never heard of them, any more than most of you guys have heard of Plymouth Argyle F.C., yet anyone in the UK interested in football can tell you who Argyle's local rivals are. Despite the fact that the article has been nominated for deletion there have been no attempts to improve it/demonstrate its notability by integrating those references proclaimed above. Other than a list of fixtures (and we are not here to write lists) the article tells me little more than can already be read at Cleveland_Indians#Divisional, which could be expanded by a couple of sentences and an external link to a results table which the rivalry article says it takes all its information from. Even the title shows NPOV problems (a more encyclopedic style would be "Rivalry between Cleveland Indians and Detroit Tigers"). Let us remember that our average Wikipedia reader is not an American baseball fan, and the article (if kept) needs rewriting to a point of view neutral of baseball so that it becomes informative to the worldwide readership, anyone from a Russian law student to a Kenyan grandmother, who may not be familiar with the ins-and-outs of league baseball and will expect to see independent references. Baldy Bill (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't doubt that this rivalry exists, but beyond mentioning this in the articles on the two teams, I don't see that an encyclopedia article on that rivalry is justified. Even if it were, the article we have would need a complete rewrite. --Michig (talk) 10:51, 26 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. Arguments explaining the subject passes point 2 of WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:GNG appear well-backed by significant, independent coverage by sources commonly accepted as reliable for this purpose. The arguments for deletion claim the subject fails WP:ENTERTAINER but without explaining the basis for that counter-claim. Salvidrim! ✉ 00:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HuskyStarcraft

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Husky (commentator)

Articles for deletion/HuskyStarcraft (3rd nomination)

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

Individual Not Notable, Systemic Bias (page created, updated, and of interest entirely to Youtube subscribers), Note: third time article has been nominated for deletion Selmatoed (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has coverage in reliable sources and seems to be at the top of his profession, even if it's a rather obscure profession. Systemic Bias isn't in itself grounds for deletion, and if you're concerned about it, you're better off writing articles on Angolan handicrafts rather than trying to delete videogame articles (Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias agrees with me). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I made a mistake including that. I apologize. Thank you for your suggestion. Selmatoed (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears in virtually nothing reliable except fan sites. Has the occasional mention on a notable video game site but basically nothing else in books or reliable sources. —Ed!^(talk) 15:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, I agree with Colapeninsula's comments. Does Selmatoed have something against The Game Station employees? NotMiserable (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to quickly respond that this is not the case (without diverting from the discussion here), I'm actually a fan/subscriber to husky and TB's Youtube channels, which is why I stumbled upon these articles. However, as someone who uses Wikipedia a lot, I felt it was quite a stretch for these two individuals to be listed in this encyclopedia with information on their personal life, video games "clans" and so on. Overall, it's just my personal opinion that these subjects don't meet notability for Wikipedia, so I went through the normal process. Selmatoed (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ENTERTAINER, though I can't imagine what the heck systemic bias has to do with it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being a e-sports game caster/commentator doesn't really fit with WP:ENTERTAINER NotMiserable (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well he sure as all heck doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I thought I understood the Systemic Bias thing but I guess I don't. I just meant that the article is frequently updated - and exists- solely by highly internet-savvy fans of the gaming youtube channel, and that there is undue detail given to the subject. Selmatoed (talk) 13:16, 12 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) 01:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Called a "hero of the PC gaming community" by PC Gamer. Has a large cult following. Ars Technica did a lengthy article on him and his role in the SC2 community: [31]. Seems sufficient to pass WP:BIO. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to point out that the blog Ars Technica did was a mere 600 words, not particularly lengthy by their standards. In addition, because the video game-oriented PC Gamer (online edition) posted a blog which included the words "community hero" (not your paraphrased version) does not mean that HuskyStarcraft is a "hero" nor notable by encyclopedic standards. Would like to reiterate per Ed that he "appears in virtually nothing reliable except fan sites" with "the occasional mention on a notable video game site but basically nothing else in books or reliable sources." (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources)

You seem to be biased against internet sources. While you are entitled to your opinion, the community has repeatedly accepted internet sources as reliable and therefore sufficient to verify notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Odie has shown, it seems that he passes WP:ENTERTAINER, not fails it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HuskyStarcraft's YouTube following does not qualify him as a cult figure, nor does he qualify as notable per WP: ENTERTAINER, WP: CREATIVE, WP: FILMMAKER, or WP: ATHLETE. Selmatoed (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable - does not meet WP: ENTERTAINER — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.8.172 (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.237.74.111 (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His youtube following can constitute a large fan base per WP:ENTERTAINER. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:17, 16 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, JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to meet GNG based on cited third party sources. Internet sources are still sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:42, 20 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be2

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

Notability has been questioned for more than two years and, at the present time, little or no can be found published about this company from verifiable and reliable third-party sources. The article appears to be more an advertisement created by a SPA than an independently authored encyclopedia article. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 00:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 23:47, 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, Mkdw ^talk 04:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are sources showing in the footnotes, including THIS from The Guardian. Administrators please note that the third relist is supposed to include a detailed rationale of why no call is being made. Carrite (talk) 23:32, 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 no consensus. Maybe keep, maybe merge, maybe delete. There's no consensus after 4 full listing periods. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Lucky One (Taylor Swift song)

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

Should be deleted, with a redirection back to the parent album Red. Per WP:NSONGS, whilst charting does make a song a notable, notability aside there should be extensive coverage of the song as a primary subject. In this case there isnt, and chart positions could easily be added back to the album. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:21, 28 December 2012 (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/2012 December 28. Snotbot t • c » 17:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This passes NSONGS No. 2 criterion three-times.HotHat (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the album. --Michig (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The album article is already to verbose that this is not feasible in the first place because it is in great violation of SIZERULE, so that is the reason these must either be deleted or kept. They meet the criterion of No. 2 and these sources confirm No. 1 The New Zealand Herald and Grantland. So, now it must be kept, or else wikipedia's rules don't matter at all!HotHat (talk) 04:56, 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, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:28, 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 WP:WITHDRAWN . (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Grove

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

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

Keep I have not seen Ms. Grove perform on air since her late-90s stint on CNBC. However, Amanda Grove is a keeper. This article may be a bit slim on details, but there is sufficient encyclopedic content for the reader to get what he or she is looking for. More should be added from the NYT announcement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. some bio details are PD (at times for a fee): Dec 1999 and some paywalled stuff.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With more sourcing and some TLC, I could easily see us keeping this article. But we need that sourcing. I'm coming up blank, but admittedly have not searched long. I'll take a crack at it later today or tomorrow, if someone does not beat me to it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chicago-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is an unreferenced blp, so seems clear candidate for deletion. If anyone has found reliable sources, please add them. Boleyn (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn due to improvements in the article - no longer an unref blp. Thanks for the help, Boleyn (talk) 12:16, 22 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 00:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Mayevsky

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

Nominate for deletion Suggestion in places of notability, but no references to back it up - pretty much an unreferenced blp. Over 5 years of being tagged as of doubtful notability, plus coi. Boleyn (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am having a hell of a time verifying this, but it might be due to the lack of English sources. The claims in the article, if true, would certainly put this person past WP:GNG. The blood substitute he allegedly invented might be notable in and of itself, but I can't get him past WP:ACADEMIC either. No prejudice to reversing !vote if someone can source this. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found this paper on pubmed which lists an E. Maevsky. We may have romanization issues here. And this is a list of publications that I think are all this person.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The usual transliteration of the surname certainly seems to be Maevsky (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). GScholar shows an h-index apparently far too low to meed WP:PROF#1 but, without the original Russian Cyrillic version of his name, we could easily be missing the bulk of his work if he usually publishes in Russian. PWilkinson (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further digging: This appears to be his university page where the name is given as Маевский Евгений Ильич. On perftoran, there are articles on the Russian and Ukranian Wikipedias, plus this Moscow Times article and a book section (though I can't fully access the last two). Chris857 (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found this article, which mentions him, but in the absence of verifiability for much of the article I think we should probably delete until we find some sources. --Michig (talk) 13:57, 26 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. Undeletion can be requested at WP:REFUND. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Footmovin' Records

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

Nominated for deletion Has been tagged for notability concerns for over 5 years. Couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notable coverage found in google.Hoponpop69 (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:20, 26 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IGuidance

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

Nominate for deletion Has been tagged as of unclear notability for over 5 years. I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 12. Snotbot t • c » 20:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - refs provided are all user-editable sites or corporate sites, with the exception of incidental mention in the NYTimes blog link, so no indication of notability. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Non-notable GPS software, failing both WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Funny ^Pika! 23:12, 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 keep for now. Analysing the arguments for both keeping and deletion, there are valid NOTNEWS arguments in favour of deletion, while the arguments for keeping are largely based on wide coverage and anticipated longer term significance. While wide coverage doesn't seem a convincing counter to NOTNEWS, there is a majority in favour of keeping based on perceived significance of this incident. Whether or not this crash will have any longer term significance will have to be judged at a later date, and if this doesn't materialize it can be discussed again at AfD. Michig (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Saltsjöbanan train crash

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Don't say stolen trains have never happened before, a search of google news archive will say otherwise. This is a case of WP:Recentism

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ...William 00:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 00:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC) ...William 00:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extraordinary crash into the house. Stealing by a 'cleaning lady'. Worldwide press coverage. BBC article [32] with continuation of the story: [33]. NickSt (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep The BBC, in a different country, have run at least two stories on this. 77.44.89.43 (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BBC runs many stories from Europe. that in itself does not add to notability or override WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#NEWS and spectacular fail of WP:EVENT. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the train wasn't stolen as was first stated. There was some kind of mechanical fault which caused the runaway. Coverage outside Sweden adds weight to this incident meeting GNG. Mjroots (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable story. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - News reports are now talking of "a number of serious safety breaches on the train and where it was parked". If the official report confirms this it will have serious implications for those running the railway. Edgepedia (talk) 07:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and others. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 08:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#NEWS. WP:Recentism. This incident is not important enough to have its own article. Not a single person was even killed. It could merit a one-line mention in the article about the train company or the line. The reason for the initial media coverage was the original suggestion that the cleaner stole the train, making this a good "novelty story" for the press. That has now turned out not to be the case, so extensive media coverage cannot be put forward as a reason for keeping this article. -- Alarics (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe the nominator should read WP:RAPID, while the article-creator needs the read WP:PERSISTENCE, as you were both a little trigger-happy. In an AfD, two weeks from now, we could have decided if this event passes WP:PERSISTENCE, while on the other hand; article should 't be created before they pass notability-guidelines, in this case WP:PERSISTENCE. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - at least for now. Covered in The Local (Swedish), BBC (British), Time.com's newsfeed[34], Herald Sun (Australia)[35], Gizmodo (Australia)[36], NTN World News[37], and the Malaysian Digest[38]. Global news coverage means that, for now at least, it passes WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - WP:RAPID, mentioned all over the world. not mamny news from this region of the worlds get that.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Apart from the great offence I take at Alarics's suggestion that an event is not important unless someone gets killed, there are several important points. These relate to, of course, transport safety in Sweden, and as I see it, ethics in journalism (if there are any). The world press called this woman a thief, but once the facts were learnt, it turns out the whole incident was an accident. No, this incident is worthy of an article not least of all for the reaction that it drew from the press (and I smell a few lawsuits coming from her). Kelisi (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You should not take offence, still less "great offence". See the notability criteria for rail accidents at WP:TWP/MOS: "Accidents where a significant number of casualties or a significant amount of property damage occur ... Accidents that form the basis for rail transport legislation". -- Alarics (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment "Accidents where a significant number of casualties or a significant amount of property damage occur" How much houses needs to be destroyed before it meets "significant amount"? Bobjork (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable per above. 37.52.0.172 (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— 37.52.0.172 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wish we would rely slightly less on what's reported in the news as our basis for what to cover and what not. As has been pointed out, most of the reason papers wrote about it was the novelty angle: people like to read about a train crashing into a house because, hey, that's weird. For example, some years ago we had a story making the rounds in the newspapers around the world about an involuntary childless Bavarian couple who, after years of trying still couldn't get children asked their priest and had to be taught that children come from having sex, not from praying. I'd consider this to be on pretty much the same level. /Julle (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree and that is why my vote is still to delete this article. The paragraph that has already been added to Saltsjöbanan is quite sufficient. The world media made far more of it than the incident justifies, because it was said at first, wrongly it now transpires, that the cleaner stole the train, bringing it into the category of "weird news". It now turns out that it was just a minor runaway incident, of which there have been hundreds in the world over the years, and we do not have a separate article for each one. -- Alarics (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except, it's not a "minor runaway incident", because it has quite possibly exposed major flaws in the way the locomotives are looked after and stored by that railway, and an investigation is underway. Not to mention the lack of ethics in journalism (again). Just because something's novel, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an article. This article passes GNG and, at least temporarily, PERSISTANCE (papers have reported both the initial theft claim, and then the fact it wasn't stolen.) As pointed out before, there is no reason to rush to delete an article this early - if nothing more happens after a few weeks, THEN it might be a valid candidate for deletion (see WP:RAPID, as pointed out several times). Even much more disastrous events tend to be targeted by trigger-happy people - the Sandy Hook shooting was nominated twice, for example, despite that being a clear violation of rules (it appeared on the front page). Lukeno94 (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should the discussion and criticism following the accident indeed have any effect on newspaper ethics and/or train security in Sweden, then that's a good argument to keep the article. WP:RAPID is indeed relevant here. My beef is with the, often mentioned, argument that since this was in the news, there should be an article about the accident. The fact that something was reported in newspapers could be a sign that it's relevant, but shouldn't be the sole reason to write an article, just like the lack of journalistic interest shouldn't automatically mean that something ought to be deleted. /Julle (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - That the train likely wasn't stolen makes this accident more notable, rather than less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.80.120.253 (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— 109.80.120.253 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep, this is going to have long-term consequences for the railway regardless of how the train ended up in the house. If it was stolen then security will need to be addressed, if it wasn't then safety systems and procedures will be in the spotlight. In either scenario there will be questions that need answering about how a derailment could result in a train hitting a house and what measures will be needed to prevent a recurrence. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "going to have long term consequences" is WP:CRYSTAL. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it is a certainty that there will be long term consequences. Speculation on what precisely those consequences will be would be WP:CRYSTAL at this point, but no speculation is needed to know that there will be some. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete a train crash of one death is not Wikipedia reports. WP:NOTNEWS. coverage in BBC does not advance notability, given that it covers these one day things as part of its European coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You ignore the inevitable consequences of the story, LibStar. There will inevitably be a shakeup, rolling heads, new procedures, new enforcement measures and the whole bit as a result of what happened at Saltsjöbaden, whether anyone was killed or not (no-one was, by the way; it was 0 deaths, not 1 death, and anyway, somebody damn well could have been killed). Furthermore, the world media wrongly called the woman involved a thief, and I feel certain that that will have its legal consequences, with the attendant consequences for the blockheads who let loose their "theory" when they should have been very careful what they told the media. Kelisi (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There will inevitably be a shakeup, rolling heads, new procedures, new enforcement measures and the whole bit as a result of what happened at Saltsjöbaden . that's all WP:CRYSTAL . when there is actual coverage of this I'll support the article, but as it stands it fails as per WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! You'd have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to see that. Trains don't just crash into buildings without consequences. Had I mentioned specific details just above, you could have levelled the crystal ball charge at me, but to say that nothing will happen is fatuous. Of course there will be important changes. Do you realize what an embarrassment this already is for the railway? And then they had to go and compound the embarrassment by voicing their "theft" theory, which will also have its consequences, which is plainly obvious to all who are not blind, deaf and dumb. Kelisi (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

do you know about predicting future notability of a recent incident? being an embarrassment is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But what they will obviously have to do about it is the point, not the embarrassment itself. I think you're using a very shallow analysis of the situation. Kelisi (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel the need to point out that although they have debated the relevance of the BBC's article, they've completely missed the fact I and others have presented several other reliable sources. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the kind of accident that is interesting and all involved might learn something from it. Full steam (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a valid reason to keep an article....William 18:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Coverage is still ongoing: [39] Lukeno94 (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I said above, "and I smell a few lawsuits coming from her". The ongoing coverage seems to indicate that the union will help her with that. So much for needing a crystal ball there, eh LibStar? Kelisi (talk) 17:33, 23 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 00:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Kulkarni

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

I have searched for significant independent coverage such as would render the subject of this article notable but I can find nothing within the terms of WP:GNG The tone of the article seems promotional -- _nonsense ferret 23:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: author is a marketing employee of easyFairs ([40]) The Banner talk 12:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I am not an employee of easyFairs although I am quite open about the fact that I do work for them as a consultant. I am quite transparent about who I am and what I do, I use my real name as an editor. However you appear to be violating wikipedia policies WP:HA WP:OUTING WP:PRIVACY. The subject of this article is no longer associated with easyFairs in any way. Kind regards. --EdWalker58 (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- none of the companies that he has worked for seems to have a WP article. I therefore assume they are NN. In which case he is also NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BASIC Alfy32 (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage. Encyclopedia article not justified. --Michig (talk) 10:18, 26 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.