Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 January	25 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Antonio Toriello

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

Toriello seems to be an incredible person. Unfortunately, none of his accomplishments can be independently verified. All citations of significant facts come from Paradoxxmedia, a website that claims itself part of the "United Beings Project" that this article clearly states is a project of Toriello himself. In other words, Toriello himself is the source of all information about himself. No news sources can be found to verify any of these facts independently. The only thing Toriello can be verified as is a named director of 3 corporations in the UK, and as president of a shadowy organization called COSINT CAMEROUN, an organization purportedly dedicated to the improvement of health in Cameroon, but whose website is woefully empty of any information. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concentrated on his claims of being the 'at-large ambassador' from Sao Tome. A search for São Tomé e Príncipe embaixador itinerante Toriello returns exactly one hit, a press release by his own purported organization. A site search of of the country's press agency returns nothing; the only reference to an at-large ambassador refers to a diplomat from Australia. If the fringe stuff there isn't enough, I went through his flickr stream and it seems to me that some of those images are photoshopped, although I'm no expert. A search for 'Frate|Friar Emanuel', which is one his aliases, returns nothing much, and a search for 'Marvin Toriello' seems to indicate he used to be a minor singer in Italy at some point. However, all that happened in the 90s so there would be minimal web content. The whole idea of being a "general" in some peace organization seems made up, however, I will note this video where he is seen in uniform (!) involved in the presentation of an Italian award to a notable Indian law enforcement official. The video was uploaded by "CORPISANITARIINTER", which seems to be another alias or a name for one of his multiple organizations. I also searched Italian web, news and magazine sources and I could find nothing. Every single hit refers in some way or another back to his website. Assuming for a second that this isn't some massive hoax, in the end he fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO under all his names and aliases, and his organizations also fail WP:ORG. As usual, no prejudice to reversing my !vote if someone can come up with valid rationale to keep this. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If the deletion of this article has to be based on an "authentic" independent criterion of verifications, then with all due respect, a large part of articles in Wikipedia should be re-considered for deletion. However, the point here is not that, but to establish if the accomplishments verification of Toriello's case are from an independent source or not.

Questions: are reputed printed-media newspaper considered an independent source and an eligible criterion of data verification? If yes, are these media printed format accepted even if not verifiable from internet because removed from the web archives of the issuer networks, or in other words, in form of original printed newspaper? If yes, then, the fact that these printed newspapers are not published in the net, it does not mean that these are not a valid independent source of data verification. The solution here is simple, if this is the case: where to submit the original printed newspaper format about Toriello’s articles then? Not knowing how to proceed as I'm new to Wikipedia, to obviate the snag, I have referred to ParadoxxMedia website itself as some of the articles about Toriello are there published in form of pictures scanned from the original articles which have been issued by notorious newspapers in Italy and India, and which for the instance their data have been removed from their archives due the long time passed. However, myself I have personally verified the originality of the whole before to hazard any publishing idea and, although ParadoxxMedia is part of UB project, these are totally independent from Toriello, nonetheless is the founder and, for the instance, who he is not at all aware yet of this on-going, since this is just an initiative nothing to do with him. The fact that someone is the founder of an organization or a company, does not mean that he is making use of its own structure to publicize himself: facts talk by themselves. Therefore, before stating that all this is a massive hoax or accusing someone of self-making up all this, a fair, serious and deep investigation should be launched to establish the genuineness of the Toriello's case. Specially regarding the diplomat status, someone should be more attentive before to consider it as a massive hoax, as if the documentation published on ParadoxxMedia website are not considered a valid and independent source of verification, it does not make someone a scam or a forger of photos, videos or whatever, as alleged by “freerangefrog” user. Myself, as an occasional freelance writer, before to tribute this article to Toriello's life, as according my opinion worth to be published for many reasons and which satisfy the general public interest, I have been screening his doing since 10 years with enough neutral critic sense, although my well acquaintance with the person. I don't see any sense of Toriello himself referring independent verification accomplishments to his own website where it is clearly stated that he is the founder. Sorry for my expression, but someone doing that must be really dumb! However, if necessary, I can provide evidence of genuineness of the case by standing for it to any request, even if I would have to personally meet concerned Wikipedia decisional board, in order to clear the person name for self-advertisement. Regarding COSINT org, any enquiry about Toriello membership should be addressed at http://www.cosint.eu/ and www.allafrica.com. (For general information, CO.S.INT is an Italian NGO founded in 1986 by Italian General Giuseppe Garibaldi as a military supporting structure, which by the time became a paramilitary organization and today a civilian organization authorized to wear an uniform contemplated by its statute. The rank given is honorary and based on the qualification and experience of the person, as mostly those who become member are a military or ex-military person. Any doubt about it, enquiries should be address to the Italian Government. Instead, regarding the Toriello’s diplomatic position, as it is a serious affair, any allegation of Toriello’s forged identity, inquiry should be addressed to the government of the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome & Prinicpe of which I make myself available to provide any verifiable documentation and official contacts. In other words, understanding the seriousness of the case, before any allegation of hoax or forgery, a serious investigation should be considered before deletion of articles in such a way to assure equally justice to all concerned parties, keeping in consideration that the web is not the only source of independent data verifications. DrKlain (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a lot to digest, but the bottom line is that we still have no independent verifications that Toriello has accomplished all that is claimed. Scans of newspapers can be altered -- citations to actual newspaper articles, with dates, would be preferred. No copies of newspaper articles need be submitted -- modern newspapers have online archives that can be searched. Since Toriello's activities are recent, some record of his activities should have found its way to the internet, but outside of ParadoxxMedia and his other ventures, none has. Given the claimed significance of the man, this seems unlikely. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thank you for your impartial and open comment. Myself I’m surprised about it as I never thought there was so much to be digested. Wikipedia being an open source platform, I did not aspect to find in it a sort of “inquisitive tribunal” ambience at the point of users launching allegations (“massive hoax” and “fake identity”) towards someone (whomsoever) without having conducted a serious, unbiased and deeper investigation about publishing cases, than just basing the independent verification’s source of person’s accomplishments on the web only. If something is not on the web, it does not exist! Sorry, but this is absurd! For the instance, me too I’m surprised that newspapers don’t keep certain data online archives, but the reasons could be thousands. It does not have to necessarily be because that news doesn’t exist, or because there is something dodgy or dreadful about it, and neither has to necessarily be something hoaxing or whatever someone wants to see in the back of the story. In fact, the reason of so much to say, it is just due to the serious allegations (diplomatic fake position and the forged “honorary” COSINT general accreditation,) moved towards the Toriello person (but it could be X, Y, Z), otherwise the case could really be resolved with few simple words: “Yes, newspapers in printed format, although not published in the web, are a valid and acceptable media independent verification’s source for a persona accomplishments and complying with the Wikipedia guidelines, OR NOT, these are not a valid source of independent verification ”. That’s all! Why the need of such allegations and accusations? However, although I was ready to submit ORIGINAL (and not photocopy) copy of the newspapers reporting news about the man, below are cited few of the many articles released by the press.

Italian Press: Cronache del Mezzogiorno, Cronache della Sera Group, article issued 25/09/08 by Gabriele Bojano; Cronache del Mezzogiorno, Cronache della Sera Group, article issued 02/10/06 by Mariano Iodice; Interno Otto, Il Mattino Group, article issued 05/12/09 by Ralph Coluccino; Il Salernitano, PCRL group, article issued 20/11/05 by the staff; Il mattino, article issued 30/09/96 by Fabio Jouakim ( of the same Il Mattino, but different journalists, there are at least 6/7 more articles); Famiglia Cristiana, magazine issued October 2006 by the staff;

Indian Press: The Pioneer, article issued 06/03/97 by Arvind Bhandhari; The Statesman, article issued 16/09/97 by Arvind Bhandhari; The Hindu, article issued 03/11/97 by Hindu Staff reporter; The Statesman, article issue 21/12/97 by Staff The Pionner, article issued 22/08/98 by Vidisha Krishan

There are around other newspapers articles and some magazine articles of which I will have to search in case of need. Regarding the Toriello diplomatic position, enquiries could be addressed at +239 2221142, presidency office of the DRSTP, Colonel Victor Travares Monteiro, director of the Gabinet of the presidency office, as their official website is still under construction; or at the Sao Tome & Principe Emabassy, Portugal, Dr. Edgar Torres, counsellor to the Ambassador. In the end and in other words, if such evidences are not a valid source of independent verifications complying with Wikipedia guide lines, I have not at all objection for article's deletion.Thanks. DrKlain (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment pasted from my talk page.

* Reporting talks Hi. Because of my experience lacking, I have to apologize to the FreeRangeFrog user as I posted the below comment in his talk page, which I learn not to do it, therefore I’m rectifying it by copying below the talks:

Hi. Before to proceed I have the need to share with you that I'm new to Wikipedia and English is not my first language, so I apologize from now onward if I will be inappropriate by addressing you here my thoughts. First of all I'm touched by your welcoming in your talk page by stating "be nice", because the way I met you in the Toriello deletion's talk page, you "appear" to be not so "nice", rather quite prejudiced, as according to me you are not performing as an editor user, but more like a non impartial "inquisitor" by bordering legality with your serious allegations toward someone that you don't know in the real life and just because nothing substantial came up by researching the web about the man. So, as I was saying, if something is not on the web it means that doesn't exist or whatever is there, for you is just "rubbish" and made-up, or it has necessarily be a "massive hoax". Based on which grounds??? Yes I know there are "rubbish" and "scams" around, but it does not mean that has to necessarily always be like this, and just because your web research turned "nothing" or because evaluations have to be based only according your criterion! But I repeat, may be I'm new to Wikipedia, so it is just matter of time for me to get used by understanding how the system works. However, and trying to be short as there would be a lot to say, few users let me notice some incorrect assertions of yours which I would like to highlight and bring to your attention: 1) You said that "I concentrated on his claims of being the at-large Ambassador of Sao Tome and Principe"; actually, you should know that these are not his claims, but in this circumstance, it is me that I'm introducing the man for inclusion in Wikipedia's article as I believe that his life dedicated to certain social causes are worth enough to be published as the press have already given some relevance and tough not available on the net for whatever reasons. Moreover, in view of thousand articles published here and there without any "authentic" consistency bla bla bla, but just favorable circumstances have permitted it. In short! The man doesn't not claim anything, and even the data posted in the net, photos, videos and projects, actually you should know that are done by others, (call them friends, collaborators, "followers" or call them anyway you like), but you should be open to the possibility that someone else has done and not necessarily done by himself. Have you interviewed or have you met the man before launching such allegations, or have you conducted an unbiased and serious investigation before to draw any conclusions, rather to just base them on a web search? I have done for almost 10 years mate, and I have seen the man standing alone to fight priest's pedophilia against church and facing any kind of attacks in return, so you should kindly pay some little more human consideration before someone that you don't really know and before launching such incorrect allegations. 2)At the point were you state " A search for Sao Tome e Principe embaixador itineratnte Toriello returns exactly one hit, a press released by his own purported organization", some users have clicked that link and open a web site wwww.allafrica.com with an article mentioning his name. You should know that this website it is nothing to do with "his own purported organization" as it is an independent African website, therefore before stating it, you should properly investigate about the ownership. 3) If you are not an expert, then you should avoid stating that some flicker pictures of the person are photoshopped. As a serious impartial editor which I'm sure you are, you should be stating it only after an opportune professional investigation and not just based on your personal impression. 4) Final and most serious are your allegations for his diplomatic position and his given honorary position as general of the COSINT, which you should have conducted a serious and scrupulous investigation (as serious journalists do) before launching them. I'm sure you are not interested at all to deepen the story about the man (why should you? after all you are an open source editor like me, but the only difference is that you are an expert editor), but in case yes let me know and I will be glad to share with you my 10 years "journalistic" observation of his activities, and let me make this clear, that all this, it is nothing to do with the deletion case of his article. In fact, if the Toriello's article fails WP.GNG or any other Wikipedia's guide lines, fair enough, but that has not to entitle users to launch unproved allegations or judge someone a scam or a "massive hoax". Kindly advise if any violations has been made by posting this message into your talk space so I will amend it. Regards. DrKlain (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC) 23:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. First off, please don't threaten me with legal blabber, because it gives me heartburn and it fails to advance your cause. Second, I invite you to read through this very carefully. I'll distill it down for you: People with biographies in Wikipedia are considered important and notable by other important and notable people and organizations. It matters little what I think, your article will be kept or deleted solely on the basis of those guidelines. Having said that, this is what you should do:Provide proof that he is an ambassador. This in and of itself will make him notable. Provide proof that he is notable because of his work as a friar, or monk, or whatever he was. Provide proof that he is notable, under our guidelines, for whatever other reason.

If you do any of these things, without using your website as reference, the likelihood that the article will not be deleted will increase dramatically. Until you do that, however, arguing endlessly that you know he is a very important person matters little. We strive for proof, and the verifiability of the sources that provide it. The Wikipedia article deletion process is about finding reasons to keep information, not delete it. It is under that belief - that valuable information should be included and presented to our readers - that I wish you the best of luck. And please, limit your argumentation to the deletion discussion page instead of here. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Last comment I wish again to clear few points before to give an end to such long arguments thanks to valuable advises from FreeRangeFrog user: 1) I’m not DYING to have this Toriello’s article published as it is not an affair of life, I was just wishing to report news which according to my modest and quite impartial freelance journalistic experience could be of public interest. Again I have to repeat that if Toriello’s case doesn’t much Wikipedia’s guidelines, deletion is a fair action. That’s all! For that I have to again apologize to FreeRangeFrog user if he misunderstood my comment for a legal threatening to let advance my case, which absolute it is not. 3) Again I’m asked to provide proof about the case, but no one here is clearly helping me to understand if the proof which I have in my possession are valid or not and which are: original copy of printed newspapers, video interview etc, etc, which unfortunately are not published on the web by independent source but our website dedicated to the man who, although has been the founder of the group, he is not at all involved in the activities which are independent from him. Regarding his diplomatic position as ambassador at-large of the DRSTP, I can access original document decreed by the President Manuel Pinto da Costa and which are scanned and published on the web. But again FreeRangeFrog user says that I have not to refer to ParadoxxMedia website. So, kindly could someone help me in a clear way how I have to submit these original documents as a proof since are not published on the web by some other independent source than ParadoxxMedia site? I could even request the cabinet of the presidency to provide a notified copy of his diplomatic passport, but again where to submit? Are all these ok with Wikipedia guidelines? Kindly advice in a clear and final manner in order to close this case if all these are not matching with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Thanks. DrKlain (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DrKlain seems to be in sole possession of the documents that can verify the claims in this article. How is that so? Does the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe not publish such official documents for public inspection? Is every newspaper that has ever reported about Toriello so backward as to not have web archives? I want to assume good faith here, but the claims made about Toriello are too grandiose not to have left a footprint on the web. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You have repeatedly said that the records that prove this person is an ambassador from Sao Tome are available - I assume those are the same that you 'scanned' and placed in your website. I could not find them. If you know where they can be seen or obtained online, can you provide us with the link so we can verify them? While you're at it, could you please point out where we can find this person's bio on the COSINT wesbite [1]? I could not find a single mention of him there either. More linking and concrete proof, less arguing please. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum there's some puffery here. ("travelled all around the world due to his many skills"?) However, let's start here.

Sources do not need to be online. If you have in your possession paper clippings that support some of these statements, you can (and MUST, if you want the statements to remain) cite them old-school with bibliographic references. I know there are publications that are not online but -- personally -- I find it a bit difficult, as someone said, to swallow the idea that NONE of your sources are online. Not in JSTOR or anything? But ok. Cite them, though. If you can't then the article absolutely should come down. The article sounds like utter bushwhack to me, frankly. Elinruby (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply WikiDan61, I’m not the sole one having such documents, but I possess some of the press release as I have been collecting information about Toriello long back - as I said - because for my “journalistic interest about him for his controversial nature and since the priest’s paedophilia news resounded a lot in Italy in the late 96, resulting in a rapid and subtle “news blackout” campaign reaction by the church, tending to denigrate his persona and defame him to the public eyes. However, as FreeRangeFrog user says, although I have answers to your fair doubts, as the story is complex and entwined, these would sound just inconsistent arguments, so let’s focus on whatever independent evidence I could be able to provide. FreeRangeFrog, this next link I’m providing is nothing, but brings up his politic activity involvement at that time and could be a point of consideration as his name is in the list of “parlamentari” which it means “of the parliament”: [2]. Kindly look in the name’s list of “parlamentari” as he is listed (6th line from the end of the “parlamentari” list) as a representative of “Socialisti Italiani”, an Italian political party. Here, instead, find the link of the documents decreed by President Pinto da Costa which accredit him as ambassador at-large of the DRSTP: [3]. By scrolling the page down, the scansion of the documents are there. This is also an answer to WikiDan61, as these documents are printed and for public inspection there, but up to now not yet published on the web as the official website of Sao Tome and Principe is still under construction: [4]. Regarding CO.S.INT I have no connection with this org, although I was present to his honorary nomination, but I can enquiry on Monday, and in mean time you could reconsider as an independent source of verification the link you already have and note it as a point to keep in consideration although it does not say much: [ref>http://fr.allafrica.com/stories/201112070715.html], where it reports the news that Toriello went to officialize the COSINT in Cameroun. Meanwhile, I will work to get in touch with networks and newspapers to see if they could help to retrieve Toriello’s past published articles from their archives for an online verifications, although difficult, but not impossible. I will work as well as on the advice of Elinruby user. Thanks for advising. DrKlain (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article about Toriello being named ambassador-at-large is cited to AllAfrica.com, but there is no record of such an article at AllAfrica.com. Such inconsistencies make the entire story a bit difficult to believe. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Hi. I think that some confusion is there as I never mention that allafrica.com has reported the news about his ambassador at-large nomination, which the link was rather related to the official celebration of the COSINT Cameroun (In fact, I apologize for it as there is a mistaken link on the ParadoxxMedia site which I have pointed out to the concerned web host). Kindly go through my previous reply and I’m sure that this confusion will be cleared. I said that unfortunately the documents regarding his diplomatic position are just published in ParadoxxMedia website as the official website of Sao Tome and Principe [5] is still under construction. To obtain such documents I have requested them to the cabinet of the presidency. Therefore, there is nothing grandiose about the man as he is just carrying on his social projects in which he believes (like anyone else), by following unusual schemes which portray him as a “ controversial and ambiguous “ character and for which today he is paying for it, for his presumption and probably “arrogance” of that time, because he thought to be able to “defy” the secular power of the church by just publicly exposing priest’s pedophilia activities. Unfortunately, he got back a fierce response from the institutional power which defamed his name and silenced the press to avoid the diffusion of news about the case, with consequent minimization of the whole story and generating a sort of isolation and distrust around him and his entourage, especially when his sexual abuse’s experience endured by a priest became publicly. Therefore, not knowing the true story behind the man, you are right to assume everything about his story inconsistencies, but this is what it is, and I can’t change the facts or invent things to pursue his case, and although I’m sympathetic towards the man, it does not mean that I will be his accomplice by scamming around and pay legal consequences for his eventual alleged fakery. Or you are open to the possibilities that this is an “out of the box” story, or you have per really assume that all about him and his life (videos, photos, organizations, myself and other personalities involved with him and whole data in the web) is a “massive well organized hoax” as FreeRangeFrog user was assuming from the beginning. If there is not another complying Wikipedia guidelines way to proof an independent source of verification about his accomplishments (like by sending all authentic media material to a Wikipedia structure/office/point for verification of authenticity), I’m sorry but I have to surrender myself as at this stage I can’t do more than this. Thanks anyway for the fair given opportunity. DrKlain (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

mmmmK. I did find the the name on the list as described, so possibly he *is* a socialist member of the Italian parliament. Or maybe has the same first and last names as a member of parliament, always assuming that radicali.it is a reliable source, which I have not tried to investigate. On the other hand, the sao tome ambassador at large link gors to paradoxxmedia too, and http://www.saotome.st/index.php doesn't look terribly under construction to me. I know I don't have the patience for much more of this, personally. It's not much of a claim to notability anyway. Honorary title of a very small country. Seems to me that if he's actually notable it would have been as an anti-pedophilia crusader, and it beggars belief that he is in fact a crusader who has generated zero press. I am not buying the media conspiracy thing. Newspapers are run by political parties in Europe -- no way they would all agree to cover up for the Vatican. If he's thebest thing since sliced cheese why doesn't he have an article in the Italian Wikipedia? If he is tat important someone else will start and article about him, and maybe they will know what a footnote is. Elinruby (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that link merely says that someone with the same name (because we don't have a way to ensure it's him) attended a march in support of a death penalty moratorium in 2007 as a representative of one of the very minor Italian political parties, which I should point out, does not exist anymore. parlamentari in this case does not necessarily imply that he is a member of Parliament (upper or lower house). You will notice how other names in the list are prefixed with 'Sen' (Senator) and 'on.' (onorevole, or 'honorable', which is used for members of the lower chamber of deputies). It would be simple to find a reference to this person in the Italian Chamber of Deputies site, or even the Senate. If that was the case we wouldn't be having this conversation. That list unfortunately proves nothing. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is this 2011 article (in French) from a site in Cameroon that would establish the fact that Mr. Toriello is in fact the representative of COSINT (which is a part of the Italian Red Cross) in that country. Still not enough to pass WP:GNG at this point, but this seems to back up at least some of the claims in the article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, COSINT does not appear to be affiliated with the Italian Red Cross or the International Federation of Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). It appears to be its own unique organization evolved from a para-military organization purportedly founded by Giuseppe Garibaldi. (According to their by-laws.)

Reply Hi. It may be my last comment to this, and nothing to do to support my case. As I said, if Wikipedia doesn’t contemplate in its guidelines another way to establish an independent source of accomplishment’s verification (like an investigative journalistic office where to submit original media materials for verification and not available on the web), at this point our talks are airless, as according you editors point of view, unfortunately, there is nothing much on the web to verify. On the contrary, instead, in my and some other hands we have original printed newspapers and videos footage which could be found and archived at that time, but unfortunately are useless as this material can’t be submitted to some Wikipedia point for verification, therefore, I bitterly have to agree that my Toriello’s article is very weak to be credible. Then, you editors have the right to assume anything since having nothing much in the hands and not knowing the true story behind the man. But myself and someone else, knowing it, we could keep giving answers to your fair doubts, but again…it would be for you editors just airless talks, as justly everything has to be verifiable on the web only.

However, just for the sake of neutral journalistic investigations, and please note it that is “NOTHING TO DO WITH MY ARTICLE’S CASE ANYMORE”, allow me for the last time to rectify assertions in your talks which according me are not correct. I have to apologize to Elinruby user as the link for Sao Tome official web site is the following [6] and not the previous which by mistake I have linked to ParadoxxMedia. In fact, this is the right link [7] and the one pointed out by you [8] is not published from a governmental body. Regarding Toriello’s position of ambassador at-large is not “honorary” which rather it is a political nomination appointed by a Presidential decree, but still, even if honorific, it comes from a Presidential decree of a recognized Sovereign State, [9] so please don’t throw ashes on it by minimizing and labeling the country “small”, since there are smallest countries than it. (e.g. Vatican, which are just 1000 citizen and a lot to say about its history how it got power etc. etc…, but let’s stop the issue here, or I have to assume that there are discriminations in your assertion). The point is that; first of all you should be neutral about it and without parting for one or another country despite its geographical characteristics; second, I’m sure you know that Ambassadors at-large [10] appointed by any recognized Sovereign State have all similar privileges and value, and then nothing to do if the appointing country is big or small, poor or reach (otherwise again I have to assume that something here it borders discrimination). About the press coverage, as I said, it was blocked at its origin itself at that time, so the news were immediately contained from the naissance’s city, Salerno (south of Italy), and mainly covered by “Il Mattino’s newspaper group and “Cronache Del Mezzogiorno” (of which I have provided citations with the name of the journalists covering the news), and please consider the fact that in the 1996 very few were willing to “challenge” the undisputed power of the church. Just today, with the changing systems thanks to evolving generational visions and more “impartiality”, church’s authority could be contrasted. In fact, their concealed deviations and wrongs, start to come out thanks also to person like Toriello’s precursory public denounces. But again, all these are just arguing, so let’s stick to FreRangeFrog user’s advice and to whom I wish to clarify his raised point and which is that I have never mention that Toriello was a parliamentary, but I just pointed a link where his name was listed there, as to give a small evidence of his role as a “Socialisti Italiani’s party representative” and of which I mentioned in my article. In the end, as I’m becoming more accustomed with Wikipedia’s guidelines, I have realized of being unadvised and hasty, so rather to promote the man’s accomplishments, I probably have belittled them by missing WP:GNG. At this point, FreeRangeFrog user is right saying that talks are not relevant, therefore I can’t deny the fact that at this stage my article is not complying much Wikipedia’s guidelines, although I have to mention my effort of having contacted all concerned sources in my knowledge to point them out the concerned removal’s information from their archives. May be a day something will come up. Let’s see! However, for now I understand the necessity to reach to a conclusion. DrKlain (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete available sources are not independent of the subject, not sure if any of his achievements reach our standards of notability. J04n(talk page) 12:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can find any external reliable sources that talk about him. FurrySings (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait the persona is well known in italy and india but is true that he is very exstravagant person. original cut of newspaper are available to the news agency and that shows that there are evidence of his achievments although not posted on internet. the point is to find the way how to get these cuts so it is not correct to say that the persona has not achieved nothing because not verifiable in internet. i have contacted a journalist that has written one of the articles and he has confermed it. for verification this is his email: ~~removed email address~~. regardin the position as ambassador at-large im enquiring. UwikiRepo (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC) — UwikiRepo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Private contact with a journalist is not considered a reliable source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:47, 31 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. This is the incorrect forum for these pages, please see redirects for discussion. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 19:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rk 62 assault weapon

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

the Rk 62 is an assault rifle, not an assault weapon Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:32, 24 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 24. Snotbot t • c » 23:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close because this is the wrong forum. Redirects are discussed at WP:RFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:32, 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 speedy redirect to Houston Independent School District. There is a well established guideline to follow at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 15:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Northside Elementary School

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

non-notable elementary school, per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools Woodshed (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per longstanding consensus for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as school fails to meet any of the tests for elementary schools, especially as it does not yet exist. Also, my curiosity is piqued as to the legitimacy of the linked images, File:Sherman SE Elevation.jpg and File:Sherman SW Elevation.jpg, given that they are high-quality architectural renderings but claimed to be the work of a random uploader with a strongly-related username. - Dravecky (talk) 05:56, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grænseløs Greatest

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

Non-notable comp. I can't find any meaningful sources. PROD was denied. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am quite convinced there was extensive coverage of this topic in the medias in 1999. This coming monday I am going to the Royal Danish Library in Copenhagen to search microfilmed newspapers from 1999, as they are not available online. Please, do not close this discussion until tuesday 29 January 2013. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 16:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response Can you provide English-language sources? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response That would be even harder to find, and I am not sure whether that would be successful. WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:NONENG provides solutions to this question. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 12:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Spent a couple of hours browsing newspapers of April to May 1999, and did unfortunately not find anything worthwhile. Perhaps the album is mentioned in another period of time, but I am not going to spend more time on this issue. You may proceed with the deletion of this article. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 18:40, 29 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. Snow ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Super temperate

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

I'm sorry, AfD. But technically, this example of a thing made up in school one day does not seem to meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion, so here it is. I thought about ignoring all rules and deleting it anyway, but I decided to err on the side of following the rules when the creator removed my prod. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sooner the better AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Super duper intemperate delete. We really should have a speedy deletion category for this sort of nonsense. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete Searching Google yields hits for "super temperate", but the hits were always as casually created superlatives rather than a definite concept. There is no notability, or even verifiability, for this topic. I've never recommended snow delete before, but it is warranted here. Mark viking (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Unreferenced wordcruft. ^King Jakob _C 23:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Super Fast Super bad garbage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With no references, the article fails WP:V. Unscintillating (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Mkdw ^talk 05:09, 28 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CourseTrends

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

The article does not appear to describe a company that meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Prod removed by the author, with no addition of sources, and I was unable to find reliable sources with my own search. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lack of secondary sources AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aside from good details like the history, the article is promotional and entirely unreferenced and could probably be deleted as speedy criteria G11. My first Google News search, "CourseTrends Austin Texas" provided press releases from a website, WorldGolf.com, which looked like genuine news at first but I realized they weren't when I clicked them. Another search with the founder and CEO, Alan Stalcup, provided one of those articles again (November 16, 2006). However, my third search provided something rather interesting here (second result from the top) which seems to mention them in 2006 but it requires payment, there isn't much through the preview and jconline.com (the newspaper's website) does not provide the article for free and redirects to pqarchiver.com. Looking again at my first search, I realized there's another news article on page 3 here (last result at the bottom) which also mentions them and notes they are from Austin, Texas, suggesting it is indeed them. A search at that newspaper's website (lohud.com) provided some "Haverstraw Town Board reports" but none from 2009 and only from 2012 and 2011. After some other searches, I found this which mentions them a small number of times for a three-year contract but nothing substantial about them. Additional searches with some of their clients and their COO Warner Mizell provided nothing. Although the large number of worldgolf.com press releases is unsettling, the few news articles I found suggest the company has received small coverage but it is not enough for an article especially for notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources I find are worldgolf.com which is a WP:PRIMARY source as they are publications of press releases. Does not seem to meet WP:COMPANY. Mkdw ^talk 19:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party reliable sources covering the topic. — ṘΛΧΣ²¹ 02:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Evrard Kouassi

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason. The two appearances for Hajduk Split listed in the infobox are not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 22:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence this player meets GNG or NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate when he actually plays for Hajduk Split, as their own website says he hasn't even played for them yet. According to a number of sites he has been scouted by a few different clubs and a few websites says he looks a good prospect. Govvy (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the figures in the infobox are false, as he joined Hajduk on the 17th January but the league season doesn't resume until next month. The only game Hajduk have played in January was a friendly which they won 1-0 - this game was played the day before he joined the club. This player fails both WP:NFOOTBALL as he yet to play in a fully-professional league, and the general notability guideline due to a lack of third-party coverage. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 16:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom, this man has not met any guidelines due to not being written about, nor playing a professional football match. Premature page creation. C 679 17:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom. FkpCascais (talk) 00:49, 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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 02:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shields (Star Trek)

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

Wikipedia is not a fan wiki, and it does not need to go into excessive detail about a work of fiction. I do not believe that the Shield technology of the Star Trek universe is in and of itself is notable. This article's references are to sources such as Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual which do not establish notability. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 22:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Surely there has been scientific analysis about the design of shields in Star Trek and whether or not they would work in the real world. Is there not a source like "The Science of Star Trek" that would cover this? Erik (talk | contribs) 22:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Physics of Star Trek probably does address this, but I suspect the subject at hand would fall short on the requirement for significant coverage in third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I think anything relevant that could be discussed about Star Trek shield technology could be discussed on the various Star Trek pages, or at Force shield. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. An even baker's dozen references, drawn from just one quick Google Books search, and ignoring as many primary sources as I could discern. Some of these are trivial, some are probably not independent, but they demonstrate pretty conclusively to any Wikipedian who understands our notability expectations that the concept of shields in Star Trek has permeated the culture. This is without me opening a single book--this is all available via Google Books. Now, as to whether the article should be cleaned up or merged elsewhere? Those would be local editorial decisions, but there's clearly enough material to write a decent standalone article that meets all Wikipedia expectations. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough sources discussing this to have an article. --Michig (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has enough coverage in reliable sources. Even if some may be insignificant, the sheer volume of hits means that the concept of shields in Star Trek has been the subject of real-world analysis. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:45, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Project

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years. Seems interesting, but not notable. Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding anything to indicate this as a notable venture, and even the External Link that was offered seems to just be the ProBa Russian Language School's commercial offering rather than anything matching to a project. AllyD (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:40, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of secondary sources AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:27, 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. J04n(talk page) 13:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mahendra Prasad Chaubey

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

This biographical article about an author and teacher in Montreal contains no independent reliable sources or other indications that the subject is notable. I searched Google Books and Google News and was unable to find any such sources or other indications. His three books seem to have gone unreviewed. I was unable to find much information about the publisher, "Selfcare Publishers". but I note that its publisher's entry at Library and Archives Canada has an email contact address that appears to belong to Mr. Chaubey.[11] All in all, I found no indication that he passes WP:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC, or WP:AUTHOR. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The publisher of his four fiction and poetry books, Smallcare Publishers, appears to be a legitimate small press (e.g. they have been around for >20 years and have published other authors) but his books are held only in single-digit numbers of libraries according to Worldcat and there is no other evidence of notability, so he does not seem to pass WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:44, 28 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jasser Haj Youssef

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

Seems like a non-notable ad. Tagged for notability for 5 years. Boleyn (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Google News searches provided this (French news article), this (talks about a new album), this, this, this (both brief mentions), this (brief review) and this (more in-depth than the other links). I'm not fluent with French but he certainly has not been ignored and it's possible additional sources may be Arabic. Curious if he received attention from British media, I searched at The Guardian, The Telegraph and BBC News but found nothing relevant but a search at La Presse de Tunisie provided this (brief mention for a 2011 event). If additional sources are found, I think this article would be a keeper but I'll establish my vote when other users have spoken. SwisterTwister talk 21:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – there's a bucket full of notable & substantial references at fr:Jasser Haj Youssef. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the :fr: article has some broken references, the RFI and New Morning references there seem substantial enough to meet WP:GNG by a bit, and I would be surprised to find that the other links, if corrected, didn't provide additional evidence. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:48, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barre Seid

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

The person in question is not notable for anything in particular. There are only a few passing mentions of him in a few college-related pieces. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think there are sufficient BLP concerns to justify this article's deletion, but I do think that the article subject arguably meets the GNG, for reasons unrelated to the Shimer College kerfuffle: see e.g. this extensive article on Seid's political contributions from 1996, this sketch of him in the memoirs of a past president of Roosevelt U, and of course this Salon article (cited in the text) on his highly probable role in funding the Clarion Fund's Obsession video. But even with those sources at hand, it is difficult to work up any satisfactory profile of the gentleman without running into BLP and NOR concerns. This one may be better left to Source Watch and its ilk for now. -- Visviva (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Primarily notable as a donor to various charities and other projects. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only real coverage from the sources is the Salon example, and that is shaky coverage at best. Being wealthy doesn't make someone notable. Dreambeaver(talk) 00:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how he meets the notability guideline. Being a donor doesn't make you notable, unless you donate $1 million dollars each week to a different controversial organization that ends up starting a big media calamity surrounding your donations and your intentions. And even after that, you would have been possibly notable for having all that money to donate (and from where it came from). — ṘΛΧΣ²¹ 02:20, 31 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 00:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capstone Associated Services

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

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY for WP:CORP. Has some links but trivial coverage or mentions, business listings and pr anouncements and reprints fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Was speedied deleted previously under Capstone Associated as spam. Lacks "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" WP:GNG Hu12 (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:N. The article is sourced with a variety of sources. These are not trivial coverage, which is a term that has a specific meaning under our guidelines. The listing on investing.businessweek is from a source that cannot afford to be less than reliable. Unscintillating (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a directory listing. How reliable the source is irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 11:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its an unacceptable source and Fails WP:CORPDEPTH--Hu12 (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom; snowjob about the meaning of "trivial coverage" notwithstanding, it doesn't have actual significant coverage. --Calton | Talk 11:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 27 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 00:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology of Lost

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

As much as I love this show, this article has been tagged with problems for too many years without any improvement. It is purely an overly-detailed display of the show's plot and recurring elements without any significant interpretation or reliable sources to back up claims. Enough worthy and cited material can already be found at the main Lost (TV series) article, as well as its season and episode articles. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Much plot regurgitation, but very little else. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with the nominator. This doesn't really seem like appropriate content for Wikipedia (as it is mostly unsourced or interpretative speculation from primary/non-independent sources) and represents a content fork where none is needed. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not to evoke WP:OSE, but I'm a primary contributor on another Abrams show's mythology page Mythology of Fringe, and from what I know there, most of those elements can be commented on by secondary sources to augment the primary-work discussion (some already are). Given that Lost was a much more popular show (at least in the first few seasons), as well as having a companion guide, I would be reasonably expect that more sources - about how the mythology elements were conceived and how they were received - should be doable- the article already has several. That said, the nom arguments amount to issues with cleanup, even if it has been sitting for several years, which is never a reason to delete an article. A merge might be possible, but I don't see where it could go (the main Lost page is too long for any more detail). Note that I would expect WP:NOT#PLOT to be considered for the overall article, but not necessarily for every single element in the mythos; currently the article is maybe a little heavy in plot over out-of-universe function but its nowhere close to a point I would consider deletion before cleanup. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 19:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTPLOT. Anything relevant would be covered on the main page for the series or its related articles. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It may be worth mentioning that several works have been released by reputable publishing houses which extensively analyze the philosophy of Lost. These include Lost and Philosophy: The Island Has Its Reasons (already listed in the article's Further Reading) and Ultimate Lost and Philosophy: Think Together, Die Alone (ISBN 9780470632291), both published by Wiley-Blackwell. Normally, it would be inappropriate to create a separate "mythology" or "philosophy" article about a TV series, but given the existence of book-length treatments about the philosophy/mythology of this show issued by a respected academic publishing house, it seems to me that Lost can be regarded as a special case. Hence I regard the basic topic of the mythology/philosophy of Lost as having potential and sufficiently notable to merit a separate article. I admit that I haven't read either book, so I don't know how closely their respective discussions parallel the material in the article. I suspect though that these works take a high-level overview of themes in the series as a whole and compare/contrast them with themes in the major philosophical schools and religious trends such as gnosticism. In contrast, the article as it currently stands primarily is a list of sci-fi elements found in Lost with descriptions of how they tie-in with the plot. This largely (albeit in some greater detail) duplicates the main Lost article's discussion of the plot, so (WP:NOTPLOT) applies. I would vote "keep" were I presented with a very differently written article that is largely devoted to an examination of Lost's mythology/philosophy in light of influences derived from various world mythological and philosophical traditions and teachings. But I'm reluctant to vote "keep" for *this* article as it currently stands, which to my eye would need to be completely rewritten to do far more than just rehash elements of the plot. --Mike Agricola (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The subject is a notable one, as Mike points out, there are sources out there that analyze the show in a pedantic way. This article could summarize that, but that's not what it is doing here. Television articles with lots of references to specific episodes raise the red flag of WP:OR. This article is mostly based on that. The subject is notable but the current article needs to be reworked so that it is based off of reliable sources and is not a retelling of the plot. RadioFan (talk) 15:05, 30 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. To delete, that is. But consensus that this should be editorially improved, e.g. by making it a dab page. Sandstein 20:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commoners in the United Kingdom

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

inaccurate information based on interpretation of a outdated 19th century text.The article is attempting to define "commoner" and wikipedia is not a dictionary.The article starts: "In British law, a commoner is someone who is neither the Sovereign nor a peer. Therefore, any member of the Royal Family who is not a peer, such as Prince Harry of Wales or Anne, Princess Royal, is (technically) a commoner". The law referred to is not cited. Members of the royal family are not "technically" commoners, this information is wrong.The only reference given is to an 1893 book talking about younger sons of peers.Oxford dictionary defines "commoner" as "one of the ordinary or common people, as opposed to the aristocracy or to royalty."At best this article is coming up with an extremely arcane and rarefied definition of "commoner", but in fact I believe it is just plain wrong, see many similar comments on the article talk page, and it should be deleted}} Smeat75 (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for Wiktionary. This could keep us going some time, but I agree that on the present evidence this topic does not have the makings of a Wikipedia article. As pointed out on the talk page, the concept of 'British law' is muddled from the outset; the term does not appear to have had a legal meaning in itself in Britain and unless anyone can provide a proper authority on the subject then the OED definition stands. The term is used in more than one sense, again adequately deal with in a dictionary. Otherwise, the place of the commoner in English society is a fork of Estates of the realm - not a very satisfactory article in itself but properly dealt with there. There are differences between medieval English social order and French, (or Scottish, Welsh, etc) which could be explained better in that article but, with respect, notes in an anthology of literature written as an introduction to Chaucer are not really an adequate source and do not directly address the topic. --AJHingston (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I overlooked commoner - (which should probably have a hatnote to common land for the specifically English legal use of the term). There is an overlap with Estates of the realm but we do not need to confuse things further. --AJHingston (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is a poor article at present. If improved, we might be able to keep it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but ~~improve~~convert to a disambiguation page with a wiktionary link. This is confused, misguided and inaccurate. The assertions about who is "technically" a commoner are absurd and contradict the OED and Wiktionary: they need good sourcing if they are to stay. Moreover it's infecting the rest of the encyclopaedia via links - see Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother for example. I've boldly edited the lead so it just reflects the everyday usage. I agree the article reads more like a dictionary definition at the moment, ~~but think that there is probably enough to say on the subject for a decent article in time~~. Mcewan (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is the Guardian discussing the varied meanings[12].
Comment This is starting to look more like it might be a candidate for conversion to a disambiguation page. Mcewan (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have certainly improved the article Mcewan but I still question whether wikipedia actually needs what is more a dictionary entry than an encyclopaedia article. That article you link to from the Guardian says "Buckingham Palace's press office, which discourages use of "commoner", seems to have a more restrictive definition: anyone not belonging to royalty." It seems to me that if anyone knows about this sort of thing they do. They discourage use of the word and define it as anyone not belonging to royalty. I think the original article was written by people pushing the ludicrous pov that royals who do not also possess peerages are "technically" commoners, the talk page actually refers to the FAQ section of a usenet discussion group as a source. If this article is kept, could others put it on their watchlist and make sure that this silly idea that HRH The Princess Royal, for instance, is "technically" a commoner does not make a reappearance.21:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeat75 (talk • contribs)

Converting the article to a disambiguation page might be a good idea Mcewan.Smeat75 (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to lean that way too. It's surprising how long the rather odd notion about "technical" commoners has survived unchallenged. If anyone can find this reliably asserted anywhere else, it would be interesting. Otherwise it just seems a sort of urban myth. Mcewan (talk) 08:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having a disambiguation page occured to me too - on reflection it seems the best option. The confusion over the use of the term probably arises because it is defined by exclusion. But the royal family are sui generis - defining them as not being part of the aristocracy does not make them commoners. Second is the confusion over eligiblity to stand for election to the House of Commons. But it is the House of Commons, not Commoners - there are examples of heirs to a peerage serving as MPs then in the Lords when they inherited the title (or in more recent times relinquishing it). --AJHingston (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 18:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - looks like a dab page in the making to me. Bearian (talk) 23:46, 29 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SurGATE Messaging Suite

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

Article about a software application, without any independent references. I was unable to find any Google news articles or book sources. - Mr X 00:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no 3rd party reliable sources to establish notability; created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 17:33, 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, Wifione ^Message 18:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 28 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 Abrams & Bettes Beyond the Forecast. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 19:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abrams & Bettes

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

Utterly unnecessary, unnotable and definitely not a dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. ukexpat (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Abrams & Bettes Beyond the Forecast - Hi, I created this article as a redirect after I moved it to its new page. Not sure how it became a disam page but I didn't intend on making it that way - just a simple redirect. Thanks. MikeM2011 (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, revert to redirect to Abrams & Bettes Beyond the Forecast. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 27 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Boxing Federation

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

Contested Speedy. Article creator has admitted to creating paid promotional articles. Non-notable sports organization formed two months ago. Can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Ridernyc (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator has never admitted to creating paid promotional articles that do not meet the wikipedia policies. The nominator first marked it for speedy deletion which has been dropped by an editor and now again marking it for deletion without further checking. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to his continued attempts at distration and continued refusal to provide sourcing here [13]. Ridernyc (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I contested the CSD, but only to suggest it deserved a wider discussion here because some sources were present. I haven't had time to check out the references, or search for any others, to establish notability. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note If you think the links given in reference section are not reliable then explain the reason on the debate. Please, share your views for proposing the deletion. Please, don't just comment that you didn't find any reliable sources etc. If the sources are found non-reliable or no reliable sources are added then admins will do the rightful for the article. Also, you'll not find me arguing with non-reliable sources. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. Source 1 is self-published, source 2 is a wiki, sources 3 and 4 are not in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources--more like brief press releases. Google News search turns up little more. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search didn't turn up any significant coverage in reliable sources for this organization. I found lots of press releases and posts to blogs, wikis, Twitter, Facebook, and youtube. However, none of these support a claim of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:56, 27 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 00:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Innovative Artists

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

Non-notable agency -- fails WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is now - some more WP:RS would certainly be nice. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 17:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 17:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

When I saw the first version, initially tagged it for speedy delete, but I thought it just reached the level of notability after talking to the author and searching the web. The best source I have found so far is Company Overview of Innovative Artists Talent and Literary Agency, Inc. in Bloomberg Buisnessweek. I now think it should be kept.

That's just a Bloomberg directory listing. It confers no particular notability. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I marked this for speedy one of the two times it's been deleted. What coverage is out there is routine for any talent agency; there is simply no notability above and beyond what could be expected for any other company in that industry. And given the history so far, I recommend the title be salted if the AFD results in deletion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Variety article used as a reference already seems to meet the requirements at both WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, but it is only one source so doesn't really show notability of the subject by itself. Can you explain the relevance of WP:ROUTINE, which is part of the guideline for notability of events? Is there any indication that there are more articles out there like that? VQuakr (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few others of its stature, but nothing the cries out notability. I'm fine with deleting it.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE indeed refers to events, but I consider it a valuable concept. When a particular entity receives coverage in a medium that is dedicated to the niche or industry that entity exists in, do we consider that to be significant coverage? My canonical example for this are technology startups. Five years ago a startup getting press was quite notable - today there exists a whole gaggle of tech rags and websites that produce routine coverage for these companies. Thus, a series of articles on TechCrunch can hardly be considered significant coverage. I would look for coverage in the New York Times, Forbes, Wired, etc. So I consider an article about a talent agency on Variety to be pretty much the same - routine. And therefore not meriting inclusion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:14, 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 discussion closed. Neither the nominator nor anyone else now wants an administrator to hit the delete button for this page, and the continuing content discussion is on the article's talk page. Uncle G (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aegialeus

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

This is really a WP:TWODABS situation. This page, tagged as a disambiguation page, contains three lines (each of which presently violate the requirement that disambiguation pages have one blue link per line), but only two of the entries are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Disambiguation pages are not meant to host non-notable terms. Unfortunately, efforts to classify this page as other than a disambiguation page, or to conform it to the manual of style for disambiguation pages, have been met with reversion. This page should be deleted and Aegialeus (king of Sicyon), which is a far more prevalent result in Google Books searches, should be deemed the primary topic and moved to this title. bd2412 T 16:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn based on the addition of materials to the page eliminating the WP:TWODABS concern. bd2412 T 13:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Strong keep - this is a purely vindictive nomination; the material is clearly encyclopedic, is parallelled by disambig pages in GERMAN, FRENCH, SPANISH, GREEK, BULGARIAN and SLOVAK, and it will disappear into the memory hole if deleted since it is information found nowhere else on english wikipedia. The obvious need for a disambig arises from the fact that there are multiple characters named "Aegialeus" (not just the king of Sicyon) needing disambiguation. The nominator has made numerous factual errors in his campaign to "mess" with this page, and each time I have corrected him, he comes up with a brand new (but equally unfactual) angle for messing with the page, which suggests that he has a bee in his bonnet because the "given reasons" keep shifting each time the are proven incorrect. Factual Error Example No. 1) Nom stated in edit summary that there were no disambiguated links on the page, therefore this is not a disambig page. When corrected that there are indeed disambiguated links on the page, though, he did not give up, he looked for a new pretext. Factual Error Example No. 2) Nom stated in edit summary that rigid adherence to MOSDAB is "mandated by policy". You'd think he'd know better, but I refer him to the famous words of Emerson which are most apt in this instance: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is strange that you would refer to a "foolish consistency" while rejecting the proposition to classify this as a set index. If the material is encyclopedic as you say, then it should have an article, or exist in another article to which a link can direct the reader. Please understand that the purpose of disambiguation pages is to provide a brief and simple correction to readers who type a term or click a link looking for one meaning, without realizing that there are multiple meanings available. Disambiguation pages are not meant to be mini-articles, or to disambiguate material not notable enough to be covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. bd2412 T 16:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  - No, I keep trying to tell you, but you won't listen, that it is fine the way it is. It ain't broke, please stop trying to "fix" it because you are doing more harm than good. Robots have linked this disambig page to disambig pages in all the other languages, and they automatically will delink those useful pages in other languages if this ceases to be a disambig, because they are programmed not to link disambigs with non disambigs. This isn't a full article, it is a disambig, and once again, you are standing on petty rules and regulations over common sense. That may be the 'letter' but I don't think that's the 'spirit' of the law - or in this case, just a guideline. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - You would set a precedent allowing any owner of a two-bit website or promoter of an unknown garage band to add their entity's name to Wikipedia's disambiguation page matching the name of their entity, on the grounds that it can't be covered anywhere else in the encyclopedia. Do you concede that the third name is not notable enough to be covered anywhere else, in any actual article? bd2412 T 17:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
      - If you seriously have to ask me that, I guess I haven't been clear enough for you, so unfortunately I will have to repeat myself one more time: There is nothing "wrong" with this article that needs your "fixing". All of the information contained in the article is encyclopedic and notable, and definitely belongs somewhere. Your hypothetical red herring / strawman accusing me of trying to shoe horn a "garage band" in, when that is not and never has been my actual position, is so devoid of logic, it doesn't warrant any response. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Let me propose this, then: move the material on the third Aegialeus to Aeëtes. Isn't that the most intuitive place for what little material there is on a character whose claim to notability would derive from being the son of Aeëtes? bd2412 T 17:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
        
        As a follow up to that last proposal, The Aeëtes article names Absyrtus as the son who was killed by Medea (Aegialeus is just an alternative name used by a handful of writers). Aegialeus was properly mentioned as an alternative name in Absyrtus until it was removed in this apparent act of IP vandalism. I have restored the name there, in a slightly more readable sentence structure. Since the characters are one and the same, that seems to be the best target to point readers to, if they are searching for information on this Aegialeus. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep. In the first place, there's another Aegialeus who comes up a lot, the one in the Ephesian Tale. That makes four, as I don't see any reason to discount the son of Aeëtes. In the second place, you're both wrong. It's not a dab page or a set index; it's a given name page. This conveniently fixes the problem of references and multiple links (both tabu on dab pages). The bolding, however, has to go. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am amenable to that solution. The problem, in my view, lies in the insistence of using a "disambiguation" tag on a page including material for which there is no Wikipedia article, which sets a very bad precedent. If this was merely a list of names, the lower threshold of notability for inclusion in lists would apply. bd2412 T 17:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep, based on most recent edits to include four legitimate entries. However, the status as a disambiguation page is unclear. If this is a disambiguation page, the references clearly do not belong on the dab page. If it is some other type of page, the references may be OK. But since each of the current four entries mention the target (though with variant spellings), IMO the references are unneeded here and this could be a dab page. older ≠ wiser 12:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - moving the refs off of this disambig and to the proper page was the correct and best solution all along, as we all seem to have just now realized; unfortunately everything else has been tried first, including this deletion nomination. Those refs are just a vestige of when this used to be the only Aegialeus page explaining all of them together as a non-disambig, but they don't need to stay on the disambig. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - We are in agreement on that point. I withdraw my nomination for deletion based on the existence of other articles covering materials using this name, thereby eliminating the WP:TWODABS concern. However, if this is a disambiguation page guiding people to different meanings of Aegialeus, why retain links to Inachus, Adrastus, Argos, or the names of the scholars who reference Aegialeus instead of Absyrtus? Someone who is looking for Aegialeus will not be helped by links to topics other than different uses of Aegialeus. bd2412 T 13:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  - I have drafted proposed language on the article's talk page. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 schools of Kansas City. Per the usual. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nashua Elementary School

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

K-5 school. Zero refs. Tagged as an orphan since 2011. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards, though there is standard non-notable, run-of-the-mill, largely local coverage and it certainly does exist. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. 16:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Schools (even high schools) need to meet our notability criteria, and there's no evidence that this does. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Add to the elementary-schools list in List of schools of Kansas City (which includes schools in the North Kansas City School District) and redirect there, per the usual procedure. Deor (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools of Kansas City Added it to the list so suitable for redirect per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Mkdw ^talk 19:58, 30 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 23:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dushyant K. Issar

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

No indication of notability per WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIO; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources; "DK Issar" gets a few passing mentions in Google Books search, but can't find anything online to support the assertions made of him being an expert commentator on any news channel or other news media. Altered Walter (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Not notable, nothing from google search, removing K also does not show any notable resource.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:25, 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. User:Milowent makes the best argument on the delete side, but the rough consensus is that sufficient sourcing has been established. The re-write helps too.Kubigula (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Kosiner

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

Can find no reliable independent sources to establish notability for this person. Articles creator has admitted to being paid to create biographical articles. Ridernyc (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either the nominator doesn't know how to use search engines or doesn't bother to see the reference section. I've never admitted to getting paid for creating articles that do not meet the WP:BIO. Several editors have contributed in the article. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The Inside Toronto source looks reliable and independent, and doesn't obviously sound like a promo piece. Elsewhere, a news search reveals a few news hits such as this this Toronto Star source. Ridernyc, While paid editing is frowned upon by many editors, it's not specifically disallowed as long as the conflict of interest and neutral point of view guidelines are adhered to. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is also frowned upon when creating biographical articles. If a person is notable they should not need to hire some to have a page a created for them. The issue of being paid however is secondary. A more key issue is someone creating large numbers of non-notable article over a 24 hour period. Ridernyc (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never intended to misuse wikipedia for my own benefits. There are many articles pending reviews and all pages I created with sources in references. I've already requested to neutral editors to check all the pages I created to verify whether or not they meet the wikipedia policy. If I suppose to misusing the wikipedia then I would never state this. I hope some editors will guide me properly and if my words hurt you then I'm very sorry. Regards, NickAang (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the article sources mentioned above. They seem to be passing one line mentions during coverage of much larger events. A five paragraph article that merely mentions "and the DJ was" is far from significant coverage in my eyes. Ridernyc (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Inside Toronto source seems to have at least seven or eight paragraphs directly relating to him, with direct quotes. Sounds to me like that passes the guideline in WP:42 that states "there must be at least one lengthy paragraph, and preferably more, directly covering it." Similarly, the Toronto Star source has most of a paragraph, which isn't too great but can count towards notability in my view. We can go through all the other sources if you like, but there are other people on here who are better suited to the task, if I'm honest. However, even this is significantly different from your initial claim of "Can find no reliable independent sources to establish notability for this person." as I did all of the above via a two minute web search. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note This debate is for Evan Kosiner and not for any DJ. If you think the links given in reference section are not reliable then explain the reason on the debate. Please, share your views for proposing the deletion. Please, don't just comment that you didn't find any references etc. If the sources are found non-reliable or no reliable sources are added then admins will do the rightful for the article. Also, you'll not find me arguing with non-reliable sources. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Read the article, he had quite a notable career, easily passing WP:ENTERTAINER. And references have been found to show he has received coverage, passing WP:GNG as well. Either of those things proves notability. Only nominate articles for deletion if you believe they aren't notable, not because you are suspicious of the creator of the article. If you have any evidence someone was paid, then bring it to the proper venue. Dream Focus 20:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article and I have read the source and I still believe he is falling short of the GNG. If he has quite the notable carrer please provided the sources for that information. It's easy to say something passes GNG providing sources is another story. Ridernyc (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well aside from the one and a bit sources above, there's this interview, this Ryerson University piece or this news article. I make that significant coverage in four independent reliable sources. Now we can argue the toss over whether four satisfies the "multiple" bit of WP:GNG, but it'll have to wait as I have an urgent appointment with one of these.... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I disagree with the nominator that there are no reliable independent sources; but what there is, is mostly crap. Essentially this guy falls afoul of the "competent professional" rule. E.g., just being a good stockbroker, media analyst, doctor, lawyer, etc., rarely is enough to be notable. This guy's only twist is the story that he started so young, which has gotten his PR material reprinted close to verbatim in a number of publications. And now he pays a wikipedia editor to do it here. The paid article isn't the problem, though, its that he paid to get his resume on wikipedia, and that's not enough, no matter how awesome he is at his jobs.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say that please don't get me wrong or don't blame me. I've been contributing to wikipedia and created many articles for which I'M NOT PAID. I never added articles randomly knowing that its a promotion. so, please, don't hate me. If I did something wrong then kindly guide me. Regards, NickAang (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

at least you didn't have to sell a kidney i hope. i'd feel better if you admitted in retrospect some of these articles were probably not wise to create.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I understand that the topic does not meet the wikipedia article guidelines then I admit that. Otherwise I won't comment here. May be I need to learn about the reliable sources. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Please, also check the WP:WIALPI if the topic falls in this criteria. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not-notable and spam. GregJackP Boomer! 13:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - The person is notable as google search returning enough links. NickAang (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, this person is not-notable as google search not returning enough RS links. Buy Vicodin cheap cheap.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LOWPROFILE. NickAang (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nick: please strike the "keep" on the above edit. You only get one !vote. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Why is everyone missing the obvious WP:COPYVIO? Most of the article was copied from this page. — ^Wylie_Coyote 15:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. It will have to be rewritten. I did a bit of work on it. Dream Focus 15:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is copied from that page because every "news article" on him is based on his PR, including the PR he paid to write this article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have rewritten this article from scratch using the sources I referred to above. This should make a decision to keep or delete much more obvious. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Changed vote with cleanup, but he's barely WP:CREATIVE. — ^Wylie_Coyote 04:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how being in some unknown HBO videos, and industry training videos notable? Ridernyc (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. — ^Wylie_Coyote 04:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If multiple reliable sources said he was a notable lavatory attendant, that would still meet WP:GNG and be worth a stub. As it stands, he did do the HBO videos when he was 7, and the Motorola corp stuff when he was 13, which is a bit more noteworthy. And he owns a television station, which means he's as notable as Stanley Spadowski. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as entirely promotional (G11) and copyvio, would need a complete from-the-ground-up rewrite because of that. Sandstein 20:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't it already been rewritten enough to eliminate those concerns? Dream Focus 21:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it got reverted by a new editor (likely connected to the subject) before Sandstein chimed in.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iraqi technical colleges and institutes

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

One blue link since creation - fails WP:LIST, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. ukexpat (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE useless list. It would be better to write the articles first not the other way around. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are technical colleges and institutes usually notable? If so, there are grounds for keeping. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list would be useful if it had blue links. As it stands, the material is not verifiable. Andrew³²⁷ 16:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is not cleanup. Insofar as Iraq has multiple technical colleges, it doesn't seem unreasonable to list them all in one place. Yes, it would be nice if we got this referenced, and if articles were created, but being unreferenced is not the same thing as being unreferencable, and the existence of these schools could easily be confirmed. Secondly, the fact that not every item on the list has an article is not now, nor has ever been a standard for having a list at Wikipedia. I don't really see the need to delete a list now which could exist in the short future with a little effort. It's a waste to do so. --Jayron32 18:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with User:Jayron32 - turning (most of) the WP:Redlinks blue should be fairly easy. Roger (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a list of notable institutions. Yes, they are nearly all red links but this is because of our woeful coverage of Iraqi educational institutions. Hopefully this list will be a spur to changing some of the links to blue. TerriersFan (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list contains an appropriate topic that can arguably be useful, and like TerriersFan mentioned, may even spur the creation of related articles on notable institutions that fall in this category. I disagree with the sentiment that articles must precede lists, and you'll be hard-pressed to find any Wikipedia guideline or policy that requires it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:02, 30 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Service Magazine

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

Non-notable publication. Unsourced. A search reveals no sources. PROD contested Mdann52 (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Found one report of the magazine launch ceremony from the Rwanda New Times[14], but beyond that unable to find any independent and reliable sources that significantly discuss this magazine. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) (coi) 14:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a passing mention of the magazine, but that's about it, besides the source identified above by Eclipsed. Not seeing enough for this subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMAG at this time. Gong show 21:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Blatant hoax WP:G3 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kholid rosyidi muhammad nur

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

Seemingly unremarkable. Article will also require translation. Noom (t) 12:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article's creator contested the PROD tag with no reason. Article is written in a promotional tone and needs translation. Satellizer talk contribs 21:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 27 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 2013 FIBA Asia Championship qualification. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 East Asian Basketball Championship

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

I'm pretty sure this is related to the 2013 FIBA Asia Championship qualification, however there's pretty much nothing salvageable: The lede is next to unintelligible, no sources are cited, and it pretty much imparts no information. Oh, and the creator has been blocked as a sockpuppet - I'd tag this for G5, but that seems a bit unfair, since I completely forgot to check back in on this article after I first PRODded it a month ago; additionally, it's possible that there might be a mergeable fragment or two, so some analysis from editors in this topic area would be useful. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 07:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't verify any of this information anywhere. If Australia and New Zealand were involved, I imagine there would be some sources available in English. The content that does exist in the article is so minimal that we could reproduce it within a minute or two if we had to in the future. Zagalejo^^^ 18:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question What about redirecting it to 2013 FIBA Asia Championship qualification? Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there still aren't many !votes after a week, that sounds like a reasonable "soft consensus". — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 11:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search and a Google News search reveal a total of seven (7) mentions of this topic, which include the Wikipedia stub and six sources that are either mirror articles of the Wikipedia stub or derivatives. Not even close to satisfying the notability requirements of WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. Spectacular FAIL. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it does seem to be a sub-topic of the referenced 2013 FIBA Qualifications article. All that I can discern are that (1) the listed countries are incorrect per http://www.fibaasia.net/Sub_Zones.aspx (there's no English-speaking countries in the East Asia bracket unless you count Hong Kong, which explains the dearth of English sources) and (2) on January 12th a seemingly reliable source (http://www.hoo.ph/2013/01/12/now-what-the-next-step-with-manila-fiba-asia-2013/) said that besides the Gulf Zone, "All other zones have not provided details on their qualifying, save for the West Asian zone, which will have their qualifiers this February in Tehran." So I think the best course of action is to redirect to the main article about the qualifications until the details can be substantiated, unless someone else can come up with something more concrete than my 10 minutes of research turned up. AgnosticAphid talk 17:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I guess some might object to my saying that blog counts as a reliable source. But I think my point still stands. AgnosticAphid talk 17:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose a redirect would be harmless, although what bugs me is that there's no evidence that this event will definitely occur. Maybe there will be some other means of selecting teams for the Asia championship. Zagalejo^^^ 19:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2013 FIBA Asia Championship qualification. I see that this event occured in 2011 and was covered in a section at 2011_FIBA_Asia_Championship_qualification#East_Asia. If it doesn't occur in 2013, someone that knew about the 2011 event might want to see how the 2013 selection for East Asian teams occurred, which would anyhow be mentioned at 2013 FIBA Asia Championship qualification—Bagumba (talk) 02:34, 30 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 Mixed. Looks like bundling didn't work out here, so I'm closing no consensus with leave to renominate individually, save for Katie Hultin, for whom I believe there's a rough consensus to keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Sittauer

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

Article about a female footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league nor has received any significant coverage. So therefore she fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. – Michael (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All bar Katie Hultin - none of these others pass WP:GNG and none pass WP:NFOOTBALL. A couple of these may possibly play for the national team in the future, but that is a WP:CRYSTAL argument and not a reason for keeping. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - all fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; can be created when/if they meet either. Giant Snowman 15:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of article creation, these women were in the highest tier of women's soccer in the United States. With the new professional league (National Women's Soccer League) starting in a few months, I think you will find some of them in the new league. As an example, see talk page for Julia Roberts (American soccer) for previous delete attempt and subsequent reconsideration. Women's soccer does not get the same exposure in the media that men do and often times male wikipedia contributors seem to jump at the chance to delete articles about women players when I'm sure there are plenty of other spammy articles ready for deletion. Why is this? Hmlarson (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is highly offensive. If you look at my contributions alone, you will see numerous contributions to male footballer AfDs... Also, your argument here fails WP:CRYSTAL. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hultin, Elston, Roberts Also, Katie Hultin played in Women's Professional Soccer. The article needs fleshing out, yes, but deletion? Seems she clearly passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Of the list, Katie Hultin, Lindsay Elston, and Julia Roberts (American soccer) pass WP:GNG, especially considering the context of low media coverage for women's soccer players. Hmlarson (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify where the previous discussion is for Julia Roberts (American soccer) that you alluded to? C 679 23:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bottom of Talk:Julia Roberts (American soccer). See also User talk:Hmlarson/Archive/1#Message re player articles submitted via AfCHmlarson (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like a deletion attempt, just a reviewer's comments when they accepted the article at AfC. The other link is useful for consideration here, thanks for that. C 679 00:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through all of these articles and none of them appeared to meet GNG or NFOOTBALL as they stood - normally, I would search for more sources, but these are all very short, stubby articles with tonnes of information missing, and no real claims of importance made, a lot of them sharing similar flaws. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hultin who played in a "fully professional league". The nominator of this job lot obviously doesn't bother with WP:BEFORE. Delete/userfy the others until they play in the new NWSL. 176.253.26.24 (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered my vote, must've been asleep when I went through these, as Hultin has played a pro game. As to the these others that supposedly pass GNG, all I see is a bunch of routine stuff, reports from the teams they've played for themselves, or local sources. In fact, I'm stunned that Julia Roberts was accepted in the AfC, because the comment left by the guy who accepted it is a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL! There is actually very little evidence that Hultin did play a pro game, especially as the article creator did not bother to actually show that she did, either in prose, or in the infobox, or even with sources - so unless someone finds a source that says she did, I'll revert my vote to Delete All again, because I couldn't find a source anywhere. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Roberts - She gets a bit more publicity than the typical soccer prospect, but part of it is due to her non-unique name. She wasn't selected in the NWSL draft, which might be a little surprising but also shows she's not a sure-fire NWSL player. My hunch is that she makes it eventually, but that only merits a userfy, not keeping her at the moment. Bdure (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 13:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 11:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes football notability as a fully professional league and the top of its kind in the country. That's the WPS. The games were televised. (I know. I watched a fair bit.) They were reported on air by ESPN. Beyond that, Annie Sittauer recieved coverage as a high school player and a university player. Most of the women who make it to this level will have similar media coverage aiding in notability. --LauraHale (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Close as no consensus – it appears these articles should be considered separately if any of them are going to be deleted. I certainly can not vote delete all or keep all based on the discussion above. C679 11:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Cloudz679, closing this as no consensus and allow to renominate separately if wanted, sounds like the best option. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:53, 29 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 Carmen Ortiz#Personal life. The consensus here is that the Dolan's career is not sufficiently notable to merit a biography or extensive coverage, largely based on a lack of significant sources beyond some news coverage that mainly focuses on his wife. Nonetheless, most of those arguing that have also endorsed putting a redirect in place. The article history remains in case anybody wants to merge some of the content. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Dolan

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

Bio about an American businessman that thoroughly fails to meet WP:GNG, and which was created as far as I can see only as a result of the ongoing BLP fallout resulting from the Aaron Swartz case. This person is not notable for being married to Carmen Ortiz, nor is he notable for having been mentioned in a few websites because he chose to defend his wife on twitter from a geekstorm. If the lack of notability is not enough, WP:BLP1E should. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the entry. Personal involvement of an ex-IBM executive in the Aaron Swartz case in this manner is notable; indeed it has garnered subsequent coverage in the UK Guardian. Dolan sought public attention via his Twitter posting. His prior career clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Dolan's notability is comparable to other spouses such as Silda Wall Spitzer and Ruth Madoff. References to "geekstorm" clearly fail NPOV: this usage seeks to minimize the contributions of Aaron Swartz and marginalize those interested and concerned by the subsequent events.
Redirect to Carmen Ortiz. Nothing notable about him. Every article prominently mentions his wife; he's only in the news because he spoke up for her, and he's done nothing independent of her to gain any notability or fame. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't worry that WP:GNG is unmet-- he was CFO of the Dodge Group after all. And his marriage was widely reported, making him a notable spouse of a public figure. I do worry that the article, left unwatched, could run afoul of WP:BLP1E/undue weight on what FRF calls the twitter "geekstorm"-- that's a 1-sentence mention at best in his life-- that's a valid concern we should watch for. --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, originally Dolan was reported as being former CFO of IBM itself, a extremely notable post that, it appears, he didn't actually hold. (CFO of Dodge Group, not IBM). So, yet another reason that having a true NPOV, "boring" article on the exec is useful. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you point me to the guideline that says a CFO is notable? Or that being the spouse of a notable person confers notability? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being noted in a RS confers notability. Being married to a famous person is one way you can get noticed. Both the engagement and the wedding got mentioned in RSes. You can get noted for having a spouse that is a top candidate for candidate for governor, or you can get noted if you get mis-reported as the CFO of IBM. Point being, there's an encyclopedic value in having a simple bio on the person-- he was noted by RSes before the Swartz case and he certainly got noted by RSes during the Swartz case-- WP:GNG is met, and we just need to guard against UNDUE. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being 'noticed' is not enough to cross the notability threshold; we strive for significant coverage by reliable, third party sources. And notability is not inherited. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, being 'noticed' is not enough and this is also a case of just barely being 'noticed', which is clearly not notable.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable for his work at IBM, at least not for anything reported here. Not notable as a spouse of a political appointee. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Merge unless more sources found establishing independent notability. Jonathunder (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Carmen Ortiz. It looks like of the sources provided, the ones that would qualify as WP:RS are mentioning him only because he defended his wife. They show that she is notable, but don't show that he is notable, because notability is not inherited. CaSJer (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 11:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep Notability is not inherited, but his public pronouncements on the Aaron Swartz case have since made him the subject of adequate media attention on him specifically to justify WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if that's true, I'd argue that media attention would make him a case of WP:BLP1E. There's no reason to expect him to be notable in the future based on the media attention received for that one event. CaSJer (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. And that event is sufficiently covered in the Aaron Swartz article. 069952497a (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither Dolan's minor involvement in one notable event or his business career make him notable. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agnostic on this AfD nom. However, "defend his wife from a geekstorm on twitter" is probably a violation of WP:BLP as to the living people Dolan was "defending his wife" from. Unless I'm misunderstanding the meaning of "geekstorm." Perhaps it's a term of endearment? David in DC (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure, I love all geeks, regardless of how much storm they kick up. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Milton Friedman. MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other people's money

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

Article claims that it is a famous Milton Friedman phrase. Article is unsourced, and I can't find any reliable sources backing the claims made. LK (talk) 10:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is essayish/has a long way to go, but it appears that the concept/term is wp:notable. Side note....the given reason for the AFD was sourcing for a particular claim in the article. That is not a reason for AFD. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Milton Friedman, whwere it cn be better put in context.TheLongTone (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You couldn't find the reliable sources that establish the notability of the concept? Uh, let me copy them from the entry and paste them here for you...

Kevin D. Williamson - The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism
Ronald J. Baker - Implementing Value Pricing: A Radical Business Model for Professional Firms
By Eamonn Butler - Milton Friedman: A Concise Guide to the Ideas and Influence of the Free Market Economist
Erik Stern, Mike Hutchinson - Mindset: Returning to the First Principles of Capitalist Enterprise
Barrington K. Brown - Topics on Economics and Social Science
David R. Henderson - The Perverse Economics of Health Care and How We Can Fix It
George Shultz et al - Principles for Economic Revival
Dmytro S. Kharkov - Milton Friedman’s 4 ways to spend money
Russ Roberts - Spending other people’s money on other people
Ron Ross - "Friedman's Four Ways". The American Spectator. 5 October 2011
Donald J. Boudreaux - Other People’s Money. CafeHayek. April 2011
Russ Roberts - Other People's Money CafeHayek. November 2005

Let me know if you also require assistance reading them. --Xerographica (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may have missed something, but as far as I can see not one of those attributes the expression "other people's money" to Milton Friedman. Most of them are links to Google book searches for the expression "four ways to spend money", but not "other people's money". Some of them are web pages in which people use the expression in reference to Friedman, but do not assert that he used it. One of them is a Google book search in a book which mentions Friedman, and in a different part of the book, also uses the expression "other people's money", but does not, as far as I can see, link it to Friedman. That looks, in fact, like the sort of result one would get if one were to make a Google books search for "other people's money" "Milton Friedman" and simply post any hit one found here, without bothering to check whether it was relevant. Of course, I have no way of knowing whether that is what happened, but it has produced the same effect. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the links cover the same exact concept...a concept which is notable enough to warrant its own entry. For some reason, there's been far more interest in the expression itself than in the concept. Wikipedia is not a dictionary...

Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history.

--Xerographica (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~(possibly followed by a Redirect to Milton Friedman) or Transwiki to WikiQuote).~~ In order for this article to be on Wikipedia in this form, the quote has to be notable. The "lead" is incorrect; an article on the concept, using the term actually used in economics, with sources for the term used, should be in a separate article. Some of the "references" which you choose to quote here refer to the phrase or the economic principle — but the economic principle shouldn't be at this name. On the other hand, Other people's money (Friedman term) or Other people's money (Friendman quote) is likely notable. On the gripping hand, there's nothing presently in this article other than the actual quote which should be on Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In regard the merge request; there's nothing here which should be on Wikipedia, but a redirect to Milton Friedman would not be out of line, whether or not deleted first. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear that even Friedman used the quote to refer to government spending; it could refer to any organization which spends its members' (voluntarily or involuntarialy) contributed money. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been edited to attempt to refer to the concept, rather than the quote. The attempt is a failure, but it's clear that the merge options are now incorrect.

If you had actually read the reliable sources then you would have known that this article has always been about the concept. --Xerographica (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have to read the sources to determine what the article is intended to be about. At least some of your sources were related to the concept, but there hadn't been anything in the article other than about the quote, at the time I made my initial comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did Milton Friedman use this phrase with the meaning asserted here? We don't know, because there's no source cited. Even if Friedman did in fact use "other people's money" as alleged, it would just take its place as one among the hundreds of pithy phrases which sprang from the ramblings of this prolific raconteur and onetime economist. As shown by the disambiguation link, this phrase has been used with various related meanings for at least 100 years in many contexts. A list of several of these uses was deleted from the lede by editor Xerographica in this edit[15] If in fact Friedman uttered this phrase, editors can evaluate the meaning, context, and notability of such use and decide whether it should be referenced in the Milton Friedman article. We don't have a separate article for every goofy remark of Yogi Berra. We don't write separate articles about particularly amusing celebrity Twitter tweets. Relevant content should be incorporated in the Friedman article, if appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are two issues for us. One is the evaluation of the phrase as part of the lexicon. In this regard there is the faintest glimmer of hope because the phrase was used as a title back in 1914, etc. The more important issue is about the use of one particular phrase that Friedman (and others) may have uttered when talking about the subject of spending taxpayers' money or government spending. In these articles, the views of Friedman et al. can be set forth. In these articles, balance can be achieved. Besides, how many other phrases have Friedman et al. written or uttered when talking about the subjects? Are such other phrases notable? Surely not. --S. Rich (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dr. Friedman can be quoted (with citation) in Government spending or some other article on the topic. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of three word expressions any more than it is a dictionary of single words. BigJim707 (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I agree that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which is why the point of the article is the concept, rather than the expression itself. Are there enough reliable sources to support the notability of the concept? --Xerographica (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The concept (which is important) should be included in Government spending. -- BigJim707 (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the concept isn't notable enough to warrant its own entry? --Xerographica (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There, that was simple enough. --Calton | Talk 05:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The concept is notable, but he seems to be one of the many people who have used it. Writing the article in this fashion is a quote farm, and and pretty much amounts to advocacy. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Writing the article in what fashion? It's a stub...with a relevant passage and some relevant reliable sources. I don't understand why you'd prefer to delete a notable concept rather than help to improve the entry. --Xerographica (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a stub with an irrelevant "passage" and some sources, none of which relevance is established, and some clearly about a related (but not necessarily relevant) topic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Related", "irrelevant"...all the sources cover the same exact topic. If you think that they cover different topics...then please explain what the different topics are. For example, is the topic of the book Scroogenomics relevant/related to Friedman's topic? --Xerographica (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per your example — they're clearly not the same topic, it would require a reliable source to say that they are related (using the "definition" in the lead), and I'm not sure how much more of a source would be required for relevance. If you had a real definition, or if it were specifically about the quote (although some of the sources provided predate the quote), then it would be related, but relevance would still need to be established. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to find a RS that states that the opportunity cost concept is relevant/related to unused highway, bridge to nowhere and unnecessary war? --Xerographica (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Many of the connections are indirect, or only through other concepts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I need a RS to support the statement that there is an opportunity cost to spending taxpayers' money on a bridge to nowhere? --Xerographica (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or disambiguate. Didn't look at the article, but it plainly would work as a disambiguation page if not worthy of being kept. We could redirect this to government spending or to taxpayers' money and perhaps other places as well, and the basic purpose of disambiguation pages is resolving multi-option redirects like this. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a disambiguation page...Other people's money (disambiguation). It just boggles my mind that the CONCEPT of critiquing how the government spends taxpayers' money isn't considered notable enough to warrant its own entry. --Xerographica (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, keep this page or move the existing disambiguation page to this title. If the latter, the two links I suggested should be added to the existing page. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It just boggles my mind that the CONCEPT of critiquing how the government spends taxpayers' money isn't considered notable enough to warrant its own entry Well, to steal from Wolfgang Pauli, that's not right, that's not even wrong. Hint: Government spending.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unremarkable phrase. The concept of Economic liberalism or critiques of Market socialism or Mixed economy are notable, but particular phrases used in such arguments (with rare exceptions, such as Invisible hand) are not. Likewise, I wouldn't recommend redirecting to any of those pages, nor to Milton Friedman, as the phrase is also used in other contexts – for example, in critiques of commercial business. Cnilep (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The term and concepts have widespread coverage and use, grouped into two meanings. One is investment/loan related, the other refers to the concept that government makes poor or very different spending decisions because the decision makers are spending money that is not theirs. I did searches for the latter and there is a LOT of sourcing on it. Again, I think that this should be kept. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with DGG that other people said it first, and with Cnilep that it is an unremarkable phrase. I seem to recall Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man as something that could not be fixed, but it was. We may have to subject it to WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that the phrase is unremarkable...which is why the topic of the entry is the concept...a concept which is supported by numerous reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Xerographica (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That you know how to use Google doesn't automatically imbue the things you find as support for your position. --Calton | Talk 05:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there's a way to discuss this as some sort of important or noteworthy concept, it's not being done here nor am I seeing any sign of it being able to be done. Someone has confused an online encyclopedia with a soapboxing quote farm. And slapping a bunch of "See also" and Google-search-found links doesn't make it any more encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 05:38, 31 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 KYPCK. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ниже

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

There is no evidence that this is a notable album. Stefan2 (talk) 10:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to KYPCK. Article is not much more than a tracklisting, and only cited to self published sources, with no evidence of chart placing, so per WP:NMUSIC, this is the thing to do. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 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 delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shift4

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

This company appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Many press releases exist, but not finding significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. This article has been deleted before and I am unsure how or why it ever returned as nothing has changed. stymiee (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One of my Google News searches "Shift4 J. David Oder" mostly provided press releases including from internetretailer.com with non-press releases here and here (internetretailer.com) and on the second page from the Google News search above (Wireless News, Jul 15, 2007, third from the bottom). I also found some recent results, an endorsement deal here, brief mentions, press releases here and here and a news article here (probably one of the best results I have found, seven short paragraphs). Another search with simply "Shift4" provided some more press releases in the first few pages with some irrelevant results. Google Books also provided some results with two business directories and two articles, one from a Hospitality Upgrade which doesn't provide much through the preview and Casino Journal which doesn't provide much through the preview either. A search with "Katherine A. Oder" provided nothing but a search with "J.D. Oder II" provided some of the press releases from earlier with some republished press releases and this blog which talks about them a little bit. I also found this which mostly republished content from a 2007 press release. I've also noticed Steve Sommers, Shift4's SVP, commenting in several of these results and a comment from J.D. Oder in this one. Although Shift4 has received some news coverage and has been around for several years, I think the press releases outweigh them too much. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 29 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John David Chapman

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

Non-notable All sources I can find are from self published PR sources. Also article has been created by an editor who creates promotional articles for money. [16] Ridernyc (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Looking at the cited references, I see only the following: several dead links, company listing sites that do no more than list his name as a director, wrestling sites that do no more than list his name as a wrestler, other pages which do no more than include his name in a list, or otherwise give no more than a brief mention of him, pages that don't mention him at all, a page giving "PRWeb" as its source, blogs... This is a page crafted by a professional spammer who at first used to create obvious spam/non-notable articles, but who has now mastered such techniques as packing articles with large numbers of useless references to make it look as though there are sources, and toning down the promotion enough to evade G11 speedy deletion. However, careful checking shows that there is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have considered carefully the arguments presented by JBW above and after conducting a number of searches, and examining the links, can find nothing which would support a claim to notability within the terms of WP:GNG ---- _nonsense ferret 23:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything other than promotional stuff. If he was notably involved in the Leveson Inquiry, it should go in that article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William 20:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - dead links, blogs, shop talk. No. Bearian (talk) 23:53, 29 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 23:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cerroni

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

PROD removed by IP, no reason given. Original rationale was that this player fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL - no significant coverage, no appearances in a fully-professional league. Giant Snowman 09:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems as if someone has worked hard on the article, but I don't see enough there to pass WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - On the grounds of British Universities representation at the World University games is a FIFA recognized competition at the International level. Major Indoor Soccer League is also recognized as a professional league within the USA soccer pyramid under the USL, please see link for further clarification http://misl.uslsoccer.com/About/index_E.html - These points would cover Wp:NFOOTBALL. I have edited this article and any further assistance would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.64.185.24 (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Please note for WP:GNG articles have been sourced, proven reliable and creditable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.64.185.24 (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Sorry to post again, I have had an ip issue raised to my attention, to satisfy the further validity of this article, would a suggestion of update to professional soccer leagues within the USA for the Major Indoor Soccer League be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.14.66 (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ "The Major Indoor Soccer League was the top professional indoor soccer league in the USA. The league was a member of both the United States Soccer Federation and FIFA." quote from Major Indoor Soccer League (2001–2008) Wikipedia. WP:NFOOTBALL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.14.66 (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - do you have a reliable, independent source which describes the MISL as "fully-professional?" Giant Snowman 10:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoor_soccer--188.64.185.17 (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:25, 31 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 23:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Com-style

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

Several searches in GNews and GBooks have failed to yield any coverage for this topic, which appears to fail WP:N. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. It's hard to google for, because you get every website url "whatever.com/style", everyone talking about style immediately after a URL, etc. But even varying my searches I couldn't find anything even slightly relevant on Google, GBooks, and GNews searches. Searching for "commercial style" gives you a lot of stuff about mainstream rap, and nothing about this, so I don't think it's a notable term in this context. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Desta

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

Can find no independent reliable sources for this person. Ridernyc (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The person has contributed in the creation of Fundable and references have been given. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note Article creator has admitted to what appears to be paid promotional editing here. [17] Ridernyc (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fundable - no evidence of any independent notability. Giant Snowman 10:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Fundable. Not independently notable: the references are poor. CrunchBase is "A wiki-style database of Web 2.0 people" (TechCrunch). Experts Column is also an anyone-can-edit thing.[18] Others don't have detailed info. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please, stop lying about me. I have never admitted of getting paid for creating articles that do not meet the wikipedia policy. Please, check here. And thanks for the review. If the sources are not independent then please, do the right thing. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet almost none of your articles meet Wikipedia policy and you admit you were paid to create them. Again please stop all the distractions and provide reliable independent sources if you have them. Everything else is just disruption. You have already tried reporting me at page protection, already left a somewhat rude message on my talk page telling me to stop, the one thing you have not done is provide a single reliable source for the half dozen or so articles that have been put up for deletion. I offered advice about going to articles for creation which you rudely turned down claiming all the articles you created are notable. So once again I ask please provide sources that establish notability. Ridernyc (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can add reporting me to AIV for vandalism to the list of disruptions. Ridernyc (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't turned your advise rather I thanked you for it and from the beginning you've tried stalking me without giving advises. I was in collage and away from my PC. If the articles do not meet the wikipedia policy then delete them. Again, I've never willingly created articles that do not meet wikipedia policy for my own profit. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[19]. Moving on. Any sources yet? Ridernyc (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if you take money to write articles, no matter how well you think they might meet the rules, then that represents a serious conflict of interest within the terms of WP:COI ---- _nonsense ferret 23:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note If you think the links given in reference section are not reliable then explain the reason on the debate. Please, share your views for proposing the deletion. Please, don't just comment that you didn't find any references etc. If the sources are found non-reliable or no reliable sources are added then admins will do the rightful for the article. Also, you'll not find me arguing with non-reliable sources. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is on the article creator to know and provide proper sourcing, plus this was already explained to you above [20], however you fail to see this because you are now reduced to cutting pasting attacks on me in every AFD while still not providing proper sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG. Again explain why the article should be kept using sourcing, not how unfair it is that this was brought here. Ridernyc (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any significant independent coverage, the links provided in the article are neither significant not independent within the terms of the WP:GNG I don't really see that a redirect is necessary. ---- _nonsense ferret 23:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing more than a WP:COMPETENTPROFESSIONAL piece, e.g., just someone who is good at his job, no notability or accomplishments out of the ordinary range of a competent professional.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, my own Google News research (nothing turns up), nonsenseferret, and Milowent. I do not support the redirect for someone who "assisted" creating a company--and we have no source for that. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can find no coverage whatsoever in independent reliable sources. I also object to redirect on the grounds that he is not a founder of Funable, nor are there independent reliable sources to verify whatever it is that he is supposed to have done to help launch the company. Self-published sources for such claims are not acceptable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above editors, the lot of whom pretty much made the points I would have made. I have to reiterate the concern about sources, though - the two that aren't from the subject's website merely confirm that he exists and that a company with which he works also exists. Good as far as it goes, I guess, but it does little to establish the subject's notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 22:00, 31 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 04:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Torcida Sandžak

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

Topic doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines, no indication it has been covered in reliable sources. C 679 08:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages due to the same criteria:

Ekstremi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

C 679 08:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 08:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to FK Novi Pazar. Giant Snowman 09:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep both - I will add reliable sources, and I will improved the article. I will try to show that the articley meet notability guidelines. Thx--Nado158 (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I improved the article and added source like Kurir, Politika and Tanjug. I will continue tomorrow. Thanks--Nado158 (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep usefully referenced, clearly notable. --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now, the sourcing has improved greatly over the past 24 hours. Frietjes (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 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. Sourcing has been improved. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (talkin' to me?) @ 22:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marinci (supporter group)

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

Topic doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines, no indication it has been covered in reliable sources. C 679 07:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 07:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I will add reliable sources, and I will improved the article. I will try to show that Marinci article meet notability guidelines. Thx --Nado158 (talk) 08:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FK Spartak Zlatibor Voda, no evidence of independent notability. Giant Snowman 09:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now, the sourcing has improved greatly over the past 24 hours. Frietjes (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I improved the article and added source like Sportski žurnal, B92, Kurir, Večernje novosti ect. I will continue tomorrow. Thanks--Nado158 (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep usefully referenced, clearly notable. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HotBox Radio

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

Can find no coverage of this internet radio station in Independent reliable sources. Ridernyc (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The radio station has enough coverages from reliable sources. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, that comment is utter bullshit, I'm stumbling across these Ridernyc-nominated afds of your articles as someone who is an inclusionist at heart, and you are doing a disservice by making claims you can't support!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent, please comment on the content, not the contributor, and don't take any other editor's personal opinion as best practice. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again please provide us with coverage in multiple reliable sources because I can find none. Ridernyc (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note Article creator has admited to what appears to be paid promotional editing here. [21] Ridernyc (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Please, check paid editing and I never admitted that and never intended to create articles that do not meet the wikipedia policy for my own profit. The nominator didn't show any guidance and also received comments from other editors for nominating articles for deletion without researching in depth. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that establish notability?

Note If you think the links given in reference section are not reliable then explain the reason on the debate. Please, share your views for proposing the deletion. Please, don't just comment that you didn't find any reliable sources etc. If the sources are found non-reliable or no reliable sources are added then admins will do the rightful for the article. Also, you'll not find me arguing with non-reliable sources. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can find no newspaper or book sources for this internet-only radio station.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 (shock, horror): An article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. No evidence that this station has been allocated any AM or FM transmission with a significant audience that might allow it to pass WP:BROADCAST. We're left with a one line stub saying "HotBox Radio is a non-notable piece of internet radio run by a non-notable person". Zero news and book hits. Unsalvageable, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that in this case I thin the article creator actually made this article wore after nomination. At first it at least mentioned one of his other non-notable articles which gave the illusion of a claim to notability. Ridernyc (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unless the article is edited to show that it is being broadcast legally, not merely webcast. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Where are the independent sources? Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:26, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Social Work Helper

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

Non-notable website. Can find no overage in Independent reliable sources. Ridernyc (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note Article creator has admited to what appears to be paid promotional editing here. [22] Ridernyc (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Please, read paid editing and I never admitted that and never intended to create articles that do not meet the wikipedia policy for my own profit. The nominator didn't show any guidance and also received comments from other editors for nominating articles for deletion without researching in depth. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources to establish notability? Ridernyc (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note If you think the links given in reference section are not reliable then explain the reason on the debate. Please, share your views for proposing the deletion. Please, don't just comment that you didn't find any reliable sources etc. If the sources are found non-reliable or no reliable sources are added then admins will do the rightful for the article. Also, you'll not find me arguing with non-reliable sources. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. None of the eight sources are independent and reliable. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete per Dhooper383 (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC). Social Work is a global profession, with over 760 schools of Social Work and approximately 700,000 social workers in the US alone, yet wikipedia is not reflective of that fact in listing social work resources. Notoriety is also based on the resources used by a profession. Socialworkhelper is a US based site, and has been listed in social work directories around the world which has been proofed in the references. The Social Work authority sites are notable when referencing social work resources. To dismiss social work references by social work authority sites provides a bias against the profession.[reply]
Delete It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to promote something that doesn't have significant secondary sources. Dreambeaver(talk) 00:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just simply can't see how this meets, in any way, the correspondent web content notability guideline. It seems to me more like a personal project that has not been reviewed by any of the web content-dedicated high quality websites we already know. — ṘΛΧΣ²¹ 02:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note No one stated that it was wikipedia responsibility to promote anything. I stated that it would be biased to dismiss sources used by the profession. "High quality websites we already know" is not the standard specified in the notability guidelines. If you are going to reference notability, you should actually read what it says. If labeled as no inherent notability, it must be noted the following:

"Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe are "important" or "famous" are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice. No web content is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of content it is. If the individual web content has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other web content of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists (see "If it's not notable", below). When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. High-traffic websites are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller websites can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger websites."

This site has been referenced as a project that no one cares about, but its an educational tool that is currently ranked 150,543 in the US and 1,160,994 World Wide not bad for educational website for an unpopular profession. The fact that it has been noticed by other independent sources meets the standard under the notability guidelines. Deciding whether the independent sources are notable is not within your purview to decide especially when they meet the test of an independent source.Dhooper383 (talk) 23:13, 31 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 deleted WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax, WP:CSD#A7 no credible claim of significance or importance JohnCD (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Leung (actor)

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

Non-notable actor Seaphoto^Talk 07:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination - once all the false statements by this editor have been removed, the only credits are high school theatrical productions. The author has even gone to the length of fabricating articles on non-existent movies to puff up his fantasy of being a star - complete with falsified awards (see his edit history[23]. Seaphoto^Talk 07:08, 24 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 24. Snotbot t • c » 07:32, 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmot Faulkner

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

Can not find any significant coverage in reliable sources for this DJ. Ridernyc (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The artist is notable. He is not a stage performer that you'll get lots of web sources for him. NickAang (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's wonderful please list coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Ridernyc (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note Article creator has admited to what appears to be paid promotional editing here. [24] Ridernyc (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Please, check paid editing and I never admitted that and never intended to create articles that do not meet the wikipedia policy for my own profit. The nominator didn't show any guidance and also received comments from other editors for nominating articles for deletion without researching in depth. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

once again stop talking about me, and provide sourcing please. Also this is the 2nd time now you say you get 4$ an article in one place then say you don't paid in another place. Sources please. Ridernyc (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, you should also stop talking about me! Thanks, NickAang (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note If you think the links given in reference section are not reliable then explain the reason on the debate. Please, share your views for proposing the deletion. Please, don't just comment that you didn't find any reliable sources etc. If the sources are found non-reliable or no reliable sources are added then admins will do the rightful for the article. Also, you'll not find me arguing with non-reliable sources. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is the burden of the person creating the article not me. I'm not here to educate you on WP:RS and WP:GNG Again please stop side stepping the issue. Ridernyc (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As much as the "weekend starter" show on internet hotbotradio is cool, there is no basis for notability. The more an article looks like a resume for "here's a good dentist in bury st. edmunds", the less likely it is to be appropriate for wikipedia.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Article has zero reliable independent sources. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:33, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bjoern Gantert

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

Searched and can find nothing but primary sources for this photographer. Ridernyc (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note Article creator has admited to what appears to be paid promotional editing here. [25] Ridernyc (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Please, read paid editing and I never admitted that and never intended to create articles that do not meet the wikipedia policy for my own profit. The nominator didn't show any guidance and also received comments from other editors for nominating articles for deletion without researching in depth. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again do you have sources? Ridernyc (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note If you think the links given in reference section are not reliable then explain the reason on the debate. Please, share your views for proposing the deletion. Please, don't just comment that you didn't find any reliable sources etc. If the sources are found non-reliable or no reliable sources are added then admins will do the rightful for the article. Also, you'll not find me arguing with non-reliable sources. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Researched Bjoern Gantert and Björn Gantert for German or English sources. Found some, but no secondary sources that could reach the criterias on WP:CREATIVE. The article itself has only one sentence about his work, all others are about his Bio. --Ben Ben (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and research by Rider and Ben. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LOWPROFILE. NickAang (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, WP:LOWPROFILE describes people, who have been covered in reliable sources, but should not get an own article: WP:NOTWHOSWHO or WP:BLP1E. --Ben Ben (talk) 19:24, 27 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, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moodoff Day

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)

Non-notable campaign started by an unknown group. Ridernyc (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please, google about "Moodoff Day" Thanks, NickAang (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did please provide use with with sources that show coverage in independent reliable sources. Ridernyc (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note Once you remove the self published websites, social networking, and a good portion of the internet forums where this was astroturfed you are left with this [26] a sad mixture of forums and self publsihed PR sites where this has been astroturfed. Someone has spent a lot of time and money trying to SEO this. Ridernyc (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note Article creator has admited to what appears to be paid promotional editing here. [27] Ridernyc (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please refer to the below independent news

http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2012/02/25/290685_ntnews.html (Australia News paper) http://www.livdigital.co.za/switch-off-your-phone-all-day-right/ (South Africa News paper) It's a community campaign (not a business or a company), the unique campaign is run by a registered nonprofit organization in sydney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.201.156 (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC) — 60.240.201.156 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please, stop lying without further research! Thanks, NickAang (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what that even means. Can you please stop with all the smoke screens and provide interdependent sources that establish notability. Other editors are welcome to see my reply here [28] for a a more thought out reply. Ridernyc (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Please, read paid editing and I never admitted that and never intended to create articles that do not meet the wikipedia policy for my own profit. The nominator didn't show any guidance and also received comments from other editors for nominating articles for deletion without researching in depth. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still no sources? Ridernyc (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plz Keep - Dear Ridernyc, not sure what resource you are looking for? So does it mean that you are not supporting a Community Awareness Program? Or do you think smartphone addiction is not a social issue anymore; it has got no impact on community??

This campaign is a new one and it’s on the 2nd year only and every new Awareness program needs some time to be accepted by our community and media. Independent newspaper covered us and we have got testimonial from different kind of people. Resources will be created slowly as we move on with your support. I can ask people to write you, how their kids died in car accident while texting and driving. There are hundreds of examples and this campaign is just a starting point for the awareness. FYI, this is not a business or profit making company and by putting few lines in wiki, we won’t make any money out of it. So please kindly help and consider us. I’m happy to call you and discuss. I hope wiki support community awareness program. Please allow us by keeping these 4/5 lines. If by next year you will see this event is not making any sense, then you can remove it. But a notice of deletion doesn’t look good and it demotivates us to run the campaign for our community. Thanks, Tapas senapati (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC) — Tapas senapati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Tapas senapati, one of the problems with the article is that Wikipedia articles should be for things that are already widely known about now. For campaigns that are, as you have stated, rather new, and haven't picked up much attention from the national media yet, it may be too soon to have an article. When you've got lots of newspaper coverage, had appearances on national television and radio, and recognised by public bodies, that's the time to create an article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bring on the SPA and Sockpuppetry. How did I know we would end up here. Ridernyc (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPI is thataway. Per WP:BWILKINS, file your case, or stop accusing editors of being socks for no reason. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please see WP:DUCK and stop lecturing me. Ridernyc (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Anyone remember this goodie from 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck The Earth Day? Even Jesusween hasn't passed muster. Seriously, now, its all well and good what this organization is doing, but its not near notable yet, and unlikely to become so.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep keep this page but please add some more details about it, it's an interesting issue/event, needs to be addressed by all of us, Thanks Pamy, NSW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.19.76 (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC) — 14.200.19.76 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only coverage is either self-published material or astroturf. Also, they used "aware" as a verb. Not notable yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete clear fail of guidelines in WP:EVENT. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sharad Pawar. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sharad Pawar slapping incident

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

Contested redirect. 95% of this article's content is already in the Sharad_Pawar biography, added to that is the fact that this whole episode appears very much to be a knee-jerk case of recentism, thus likely to be a severe distortion of the importance of the event in india and in the biography of the politician Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 07:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has already been a deletion discussion on the talk page. My view is that the section the main article can be trimmed and this page retained. If not, a proper merging of the content be done before making this page a redirect (there are some details on this page that aren't in the main article). The Discoverer (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sharad Pawar, as an event, although verified to reliable sources, does not appear to pass WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, therefore a merger would be in order to the biography article. Moreover, the biography article does not meet size requirements for a spinout in accordance with WP:LIMIT.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sharad Pawar per RightCowLeftCoast. Salih (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sharad Pawar this one does not qualify for a separate page on any encyclopedia.--GDibyendu (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: A separate article is too much! --Tito Dutta (talk) 03:38, 31 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Jeffers

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

Non-notable minor league basketball player. Fails WP:NHOOPS Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - None of the professional clubs he has played for connote notability and his college career wasn't particularly remarkable. He is borderline notable via GNG - a couple of sources about him (such as this CNN travel piece), but not repeated coverage and not enough to push him over the top IMO. Rikster2 (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with Rikster's analysis immediately above. Subject is not presumed notable per WP:NCOLLATH (no major national awards), nor WP:NBASKETBALL (has never played in NBA or other top-level league). Google and Google News searches reveal multiple mentions of the subject, but not enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG with substantial coverage in multiple, idependent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:17, 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guanqiu Xun

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

Guanqiu Xun and Guanqiu Dian were probably the same person. The biography of Guanqiu Jian in volume 28 of Records of the Three Kingdoms mentioned that he had a son called "Guanqiu Dian", but nothing was mentioned about "Guanqiu Xun". I did an online search for "Guanqiu Xun" but there are no credible sources about the existence of this "Guanqiu Xun", even in Chinese-language sources, and most of the online results are linked to this Wikipedia page in one way or another. The Chinese characters for "Dian" (甸) and "Xun" (旬) are similar, so this could have resulted in the confusion. I created this article by mistake in 2007 so now I'm nominating it for deletion. It will be great if WP:CSD#G7 can be applied here. LDS _{contact me} 06:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or speedy delete per LDS. --Nlu (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect If this page was born out of a confusion over similar Chinese characters, then it makes sense for this page to exist as a redirect. _dk (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember the exact circumstances under which I created this article some years ago. However, I'm very sure it wasn't due to the confusion over the Chinese characters. It was probably due to my obsession with the Koei RTK games at that time because Guanqiu Xun does exist as a character in a few instalments. LDS _{contact me} 10:11, 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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 02:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Stella (footballer)

(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) 05:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he played for Borgo a Buggiano in the Lega Pro Seconda Divisione during the 2011–12 season, per Soccerway. That is a fully-professional league and therefore he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving to meet WP:GNG, not deleting. Giant Snowman 16:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject meets WP:NFOOTBALL as he has played a number of games in Lega Pro Seconda Divisione (and scored), which is listed as a fully professional league. There's very little in the way of third-party sources though. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 16:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stated above. Govvy (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As stated above.--Alza08 (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ananda Marga#Spiritual and Social Philosophy. MBisanz ^talk 23:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ananda Marga Elementary Philosophy

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

Unable to find any coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). Location (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; doesn't seem to be notable. Alternatively, redirect to Ananda Marga or a related article. There is a related AfD at Problems of the Day. bobrayner (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 25 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, 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 articles' deletion rather than in the more difficoult task of their 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) 01:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In my estimation, this book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books). From the Publisher's Note in the book, it appears that this 58 year old book has made a significant contribution to the Ananda Marga religious movement. Furthermore, this book is historically significant as, again according to the Publisher's Note, it was the "first-published of the more than two hundred books of Shrii Shrii Ánandamúrti". Regarding the article itself, it seems to be only a stub. But as this stub is barely a couple weeks old, it strikes me as premature to nominate the article for deletion. Let's give the article creator a couple months to develop the article. Certainly no harm is done to Wikipedia by exercising a little patience and restraint here. --Abhidevananda (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can locate an independent, reliable source discussing this work's "significant contribution tot he Ananda Marga religious movement" then I would change my !vote to "keep". Garamond Lethe 14:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Notability not established in article, single hit on google scholar does not discuss the book, no independent coverage elsewhere. Garamond Lethe 01:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete> No evidence of notability in independent sourcing. Yobol (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. The topic lacks significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. WP:NBOOK provides us with thumb rules for easily identifying books that have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. However, in absence of such coverage we cannot assume that the book meets Notability guideline for books. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 02:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close to meeting WP:SIGCOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge is getting to be the mantra on the series of Afds on pointless articles started by the same user. History2007 (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established. Note to the editor: rather than trying to create separate articles for all such books (you won't be able to prove notability for each of them), create one article such as List of books by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and you can have a table there, with one column for image, one for short notes on it, other than usual data such as title, year of publication, ISBN etc. For a particular book, it will be difficult to find reviews or discussions on it. But, together it may be OK and won't be a candidate for AFD.--GDibyendu (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: for the reasons above mentioned by me.--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: There are some independent secondary sources that I found, I'll add them to the site. Moreover, give the article a chance. Here, I see no assumption of good faith, this recent article, created by a recent WP editor could be easily tagged for better references and notability, but instead six articles are being proposed to be deleted at the same time. How do they expect a newbie to work on six articles in a period of a week. Personally, I find this behaviour to be quite biased. --Universal Life (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Universal Life, I really respect the fact that you've made an effort here to go out and find some independent sources in order to improve the article. However, the Deckhart cite you added is a wordpress blog. As such, while it is certainly an independent source, it is not considered to be a reliable one (see WP:RS for the full policy). Compounding the problem, Deckhart doesn't do anything other than classify the chapters in the book. Even if you had found this in a newspaper I don't think such brief mention and coverage would be sufficient to make a successful claim for notability.

You also raise some valid concerns about fairness and bias. As those don't relate to this particular discussion I'll respond to them on your talk page.Garamond Lethe 20:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, there are several essay's that counter the point of WP:Give an article a chance such as Wikipedia:An unfinished house is a real problem or Wikipedia:Don't hope the house will build itself that suggest you should not create an article that does not have the appropriate materials ready. Lastly, the fact that the creator overwhelmed their workload and created a bunch of stubs instead of creating one article at a time are not grounds for keep if there are concerns against Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has numerous working alternatives such as sandboxes and WP:AfC. Also, an AfD is not a block from re-creating the article. If the creator does feel they can create a full length article that addresses all concerns, they can attempt to do so the next day after this AfD if they wish. Mkdw ^talk 21:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many unfinished houses in WP, such as this that for years stays non-sourced, there is no info on notability etc. If the one tagging this article really wanted improvement, s/he could tag it with for references etc. But this is not the purpose here. There is a huge amount of prejudice towards the writings of Sarkar, making equations in mind, equating Sarkar's works with no-notability. So, probably out of this prejudice, fix-ideas and not-so-constructive mind this and (these) article(s) is(are) being tagged for deletion, without giving them a fair time of development. You should not forget that works published in the third world and originally in another language than English, the reviews about them would also be majorily offline and non-English. We should not fall into this bias and try to demolish instead of constructing an article. If all of the people here voting for delete would work together, this article could be a very good one indeed.
Moreover, Garamond, I just started with Deckhart, there are more on the way. Not all sources are online. If you work in cooperation with me, we can literally thrive the WP. I'm an optimist and will always remain so. :) --Universal Life (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished houses are a problem on Wikipedia. The answer to solving that problem is not more unfinished houses. Using that as an argumentative point is not appropriate. We have other crap exists for this reason specifically and the fact that The Cretan Runner is poorly sourced makes it a candidate for AfD, and not Ananda Marga Elementary Philosophy as an AfD keep. I have no bias regarding Sarkar related topics and it's rather strange to suggest that this AfD is marred with a bias problem with out any substantiation. I regularly comment on AfD's and could largely be considered a neutral third party as with many other's who have voiced opinions here (based upon their edit histories). In regards to your English versus foreign language -- sources are sources no matter where they come from. They can have any language or be from anywhere. Sources are a pillar of wikipedia and frankly the argument that it has few sources because its from India is a bit ludicrous. India is not a third world country (nor does that term even apply anymore) and one of the most populated countries in the world. If this book was notable there would be plenty of reliable sources. Lastly, even if everyone in this AfD worked to improve the article, it's still likely the article would not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline and still be deleted which is what many people are saying. Editing hours does not supersede notability. Mkdw ^talk 22:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Ananda Marga#Spiritual and Social Philosophy Does not meet WP:NBOOK and most keep claims argue out of inherent notability to the author and Ananda Marga, and not on the merits of the book alone. Mkdw ^talk 21:46, 31 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. WP:SNOW. If a redirect is desired it can be WP:BOLDly created. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Mcdonnell

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

Brace yourselves. What we have here is a young child who is notable only as a victim in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting — with, as usual, no discernible reason why she would warrant special attention as a permanent standalone topic in an encyclopedia. As always, Wikipedia is not a place to memorialize the dead, no matter how tragic the circumstances, if they haven't actually met a notability guideline — we have, in fact, a longstanding policy against keeping articles about people who are "notable" only as victims of other people's actions, no matter how much media coverage they may garner in the first few days after the event, if there's no sustained notability for us to write about beyond the death itself. Especially when it presents potential privacy issues for her surviving family members. There's certainly a place for content of this type on the Internet on a site that's designed to memorialize the dead, but Wikipedia is not that place. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and create a Redirect to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The US Presdent mentioning this girl does not meet WP:GNG. WP:BIO1E and WP:VICTIM also apply and give no reason for this article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:BLP1E does not apply as this child is dead, but says about the same thing as WP:BIO1E which applies to bios of the living and the departed. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per Bearcat. This article is just an obituary, and given the subject it would need keeping an extremely close eye on for vandalism. Wikipedia is not the place for this. Martin451 (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious case of WP:BIO1E and WP:VICTIM.--Staberinde (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (we have no reason to keep this content) but not opposed to then making it a redirect to the Sandy Hook article as a replacement. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a redirect....but wanted to mention that the last time I posted a 'delete with redirect', it was regarded as an invalid option, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Leigh Soto. Shearonink (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting per WP:BIO1E and WP:VICTIM. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Bearcat's rationale. Dreambeaver(talk) 00:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Diverging diamond interchange. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 02:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Double Crossover Merging Interchange

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

This article should be deleted as its subject fails to meet the GNG. The only citation referring to DCMIs seems to be promotional and would probably fail RS. Furthermore, no interchanges of this type have been built. Above others (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is about a design for multilane freeway interchanges. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Diverging diamond interchange. Doesn't appear to be notable, this is a minor variation of the Diverging diamond interchange, could easily be covered as a section in that article, and we don't need an article on every single variation of a junction type. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Colapeninsula, for the same reasons - it's a variation on the DDI. (Not to be confused with Jack Ryan.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I could find no in-depth secondary references for this type of interchange, but the Brandon Sun reference from the article contains a brief mention. There are solid primary references in the article that are non-neutral but still provide plenty of verifiable and as far as I can tell, reliable detail on the topic. The topic falls below notability threshold for a standalone article. But there is enough sourcing for Colapeninsula's recommendation of merge to Diverging diamond interchange to be the best option here; indeed the DCMI is already mentioned there in the Similar interchanges section. Mark viking (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to DDI. When even not built, there's no chance in finding more references. But, the patent and HWA and similar organisations' documents are the valid secondary sources and more than one. --Hans Haase (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- I do not see the differnece between this and Diverging diamond interchange. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw Leadership Program

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

Non-notable academic program. Sources are exclusively WP:SELFPUB. GrapedApe (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – None of the current sources are independent, and Google doesn't reveal any possible reliable sources. The current sources do not indicate notability. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Agree with the above. I wasn't able to find any published, reliable sources either. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:32, 30 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meridian Health Systems

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

Non-notable health system. Tinton5 (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Currently unsourced. No reliable sources appear to be available for the subject (after a quick Google search). Fails WP:GNG. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dhel

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

I don't see any evidence that this group exists. Most clans/tribes in India have few RS to verify them, but a bunch of online non-RS sources that at least give us an indication the group exists...but I don't see anything useful in Google searches. One possibility is that the person has simply used a different transliteration from Dhull. In any event, without sources, this fails WP:GNG. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since I left a message on the writer's talk page, I've also been doing some searching, and I can't find anything online at all - not even a non-RS source that would hint at notability/existence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be WP:OR.--GDibyendu (talk) 18:32, 30 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 (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 19:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skateboarding dog

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

~~Delete~~ - Skateboarding dogs are not, as a whole, a notable subject. There are a couple specific examples, most importantly Tyson. Perhaps merge this content to his page. TKK ^{bark !} 00:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, Delete or Merge with Dog training. --TKK ^{bark !} 00:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There doesn't seem to be enough cohesive coverage of this subject to justify an encyclopedia article. - Mr X 00:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is easy to improve and I have made a start, adding an image and a source which confirms the notability of the topic. Warden (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand to all board sports Tillman and his Natural Balance Bulldog team ride a different kind of board every year Tournament_of_Roses_floats#Notable_recent_floats. CallawayRox (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:N. A plethora of sources exist about this overall topic. Examples include: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34] ,[35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of notable sources available. - cReep talk 08:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a basic news search reveals lots of hits Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:48, 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. ...with a fairly clear additional consesus that the content needs some fixin'. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado preparedness

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

I think that a significant chunk of this article may violate WP:NOTGUIDE, mostly from the "Steps when expecting storms to arrive" section on. What content does not violate NOTGUIDE is mostly information that can be found in the tornado article. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 08:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reworded (from author): I have reworded many sentences because some of the text had repeated the U.S. FEMA preparation steps from August 2010, and it had fostered the illusion of current how-to steps, especially inside a table of preparations. Instead, all prior events have been reworded, now, using past-tense verbs, to emphasize, by historical tone, that the information applied to past events. Most of the article already used a factual or historical tone in describing the activities involved when making preparations for tornadoes. Since the sources used were specifically about preparations, then the article remains a subarticle of "Tornado" about the notable topic of "tornado preparedness" and what that term entails. Hence, I advise to keep as reworded, although it could be expanded for more global viewpoints. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the above summarised work has certainly improved the article but I just can't see how we can get past WP:NOTHOWTO. The problem is that most of the "sources" provided are the how-to guides and FAQ-type pages from the various emergency management agencies. There's no real analysis of how tornado preparedness measures (implemented in the past) have had an impact on sustained damage or death rates or repair bills. There's no historical analysis of what tornado preparedness looked like in, say, 1900, then 1950 and then today. There's no analysis of the measures implemented in different countries or a comparison to measures implemented during different natural disasters. Those are the sorts of things I would expect to see in an encyclopaedia article about this subject. Instead, we still have mostly how-to type stuff. If the lede could be expanded into a full article and the step-by-step stuff removed, I think we would be getting closer. But I think we need more analytical, historical stuff rather than the "this is recommended" type stuff, if that makes sense. Stalwart111 01:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cut out the cruft. Bearian (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's obvious that FEMA recommends these various actions etc. because they've been proven (or are thought to be true, at least) to be important elements of tornado preparedness. It doesn't seem particularly hard to rewrite it along the lines of "FEMA believes that [action] is an important component of tornado safety because [effect]". Nyttend (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But edit and trim.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:37, 28 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 festivals in Chicago. MBisanz ^talk 23:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Select Media Festival

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years. I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see support of WP:N.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:04, 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Culture of Chicago or List of festivals in Chicago. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 31 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) 02:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muriankari

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

Article about a non-notable family genealogy in violation of WP:NOTDIR. - Mr X 14:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: as per nom.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-noteworthy genealogy. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. People keep trying to add their families without understanding our criteria for inclusion. Dougweller (talk) 19:12, 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 merge to Indian tax forms. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 04:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Form 2E

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

Stumping this up for deletion. As previously discussed in Form 15CB's AfD, the form is a run-of-the-mill item with an article describing how to use it without stating its notability. Fails as non-encyclopedic content (WP:NOTHOWTO) Funny ^Pika! 02:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 15:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These articles are about tax forms in India. We have a page, IRS tax forms, that deals with a variety of well and lesser known US tax forms. Perhaps merging them all under an article, Indian tax forms or similar, would be appropriate. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The form is notable, perhaps the article is badly written if it reads like NOTHOWTO. Perhaps we ought merge them all into one article as suggested above. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with Smerdis of Tlön that these should be merged and put into one article. Ideally detail info on these forms should be in different sections; but the info should not be too detailed to duplicate webpages from Govt websites, rather they should contain links to Govt. websites for further details. Will check if already such a page exists or not.--GDibyendu (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to create an Indian tax forms article, as detailed above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3, blatant hoax. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The legend of Boughanem

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

Looks like hoax. PlanetEditor (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Appears to be a hoax per CSD criteria G3. Zappa O Mati 02:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just tagged it for speedy. --PlanetEditor (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete if it is indeed a hoax. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If by some chance this isn't speedied, it should be deleted for a lack of notability. I did a search and was unable to show any proof that this specific person existed. I also looked into the town that he was supposedly given and I couldn't find anything. I think that ultimately this is either someone's story that they made up as part of a novel or other short story, or it's an outright hoax.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:17, 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 I can't resist. Delete per WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian snowfall

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

Notability is unclear. Looks like an unencyclopedic entry created by a user with a history of nonconstructive edits. PlanetEditor (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see this page can possibly be speedy deleted per A1, since it provides little info, and why is Canadian snowfall so special? It's like any other heavy snowfall. Zappa O Mati 02:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete of course. Not quite A1 speedy deletion quality, but close. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a CSD case, as it is not gibberish - it is just of a poor quality. The information could be merged with Geography of Canada, if a reference was found, but is probably more hassle than it is worth at this stage. I don't think this is particularly controversial and I think could have been dealt with by WP:PROD. Jhfireboy Talk 02:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete, although I was beaten to it by Clarityfiend. Perhaps it could be a helpful topic if covered properly, but as of now, I see nothing worth saving. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing that distinguishes snow falling on Canada from snow falling on North Dakota or Siberia. Specific details about Canadian snowfall should be covered in the existing Climate section of Geography of Canada. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 20:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Romola Remus

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

The first actor to play Dorothy (of The Wizard of Oz) on film, but a single role hardly satisfies WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She did get obituaries in the Los Angeles Times, Orlando Sentinel and Chicago Sun-Times, something I didn't expect, but let's play it out and see what others think. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She clearly is notable if she appears in three different newspapers from different areas of the US. There is potential to merge into Dorothy Gale, as that is her only notable work. Perhaps use these obituaries to improve the article? At the very least put the links to the obituaries on the talk page, if the consensus is to keep the article. Finding a basis under WP:NACTOR, I would suggest that she "has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" by being the first on-screen Dorothy, which is recognised by various newspapers. Jhfireboy Talk 03:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion, this is a perfect example of "ignore all rules", or more specifically, ignore the notability guideline for actors in this particular case. Dorothy Gale is one of the best known characters in film and literary history. The version that Romola Remus appeared in, The Fairylogue and Radio-Plays is notable in the early history of "colorized" film, and of enormous historical importance. Our article about that production has a charming photo of Remus and other actors. The Orlando Sentinel article about the death of Remus mentions a 1970s article about Remus from the Chicago Tribune, which may not be readily available online but could be used to add biographical details.

I see one of the purposes of the notability guideline for actors as helping prevent Wikipedia from being used as a promotional vehicle for marginal actors or these starting their careers. In this case, we have an actor who played a major role over 100 years ago in the earliest days of the film industry, a subject of serious research and study. This encyclopedia is better with this biography than without it, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've expanded the article, adding references discovered by Clarityfiend. Thanks! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Uncle." Withdraw nomination. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:37, 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 merge to Abigor#Albums. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Satanized

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

Unref and tagged for notability for 5 years. I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Abigor per WP:NALBUMS as non-notable album whose article is little more than a track listing. There is one review cited, but that's all the refs. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:44, 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Abigor#Albums - Billboard and Google News searches provided nothing and as usual with albums of this genre, metal-archives.com has a page for it with four reviews from users. It seems this album never received much attention and remained obscure. SwisterTwister talk 01:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Abigor per usual practice where a standalone article for an album isn't justified. --Michig (talk) 08:48, 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 speedy keep. This user is requesting a merger, not deletion, so please see proposed mergers. If deletion rationale was provided, then I would not object to another nomination being opened. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 19:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hattifattener

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

No reason for this to be its own article.

Upmerge to Moomin ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK as the nominator is proposing merger, not deletion. Warden (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep no prejudice to speedy renomination No argument for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Does the nominator want to delete the character articles and redirect them to List of Moomin characters? Or just this character article? Dream Focus 17:10, 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 based on existing and sources found during the 19-day discussion. Synthesis and cruft can be removed via the normal editing process. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colombia–Malaysia relations

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

fails WP:GNG. another random combination. no evidence of actual notable relations. wanting to cooperate about the Pacific Basin is hardly advancing notability. the article is based on one primary source. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pure WP:OR and WP:SYN. Holyfield1998 (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The topic has received enough significant coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:N, section WP:GNG. Examples include, but are not limited to (some are non-English): [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45] (the last one is a short article). Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

whilst sources found are welcome, most of this coverage is routine.this is a passing mention about helping countries "such as colombia", and a few of these sources are based on a 1994 visit by the Colombian deputy agriculture minister. coverage is sporadic and not about an indepth relationship. LibStar (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

also many countries have given Colombia to fight its war on drugs. A one off payment of USD$20,000 is really a drop in the ocean compared to say USD97 million in 1997 from USA [46]. LibStar (talk) 04:33, 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, Courcelles 00:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles on international relations are a staple of an encyclopedia and also fit the gazzeteer mandate of Wikipedia as covered in the WP:5P. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this is a recycled argument and [47] that does not address the specifics of this AfD. bilateral articles are not inherently notable over 100 have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this is a recycled rebuttal [48] [49] that does not address the specifics of The Bushranger's argument. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 09:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ok, there have been so many articles of this type on AFD recently. I think we need a consensus on what constitutes notability in bilateral relations. Howicus (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What I find most unusual about these series of AfD nominations are deletion arguments on the grounds of notability. Any country that keeps open diplomatic relations between the two countries including diplomatic missions is invariably notable. On that ground I would say there is a clear assertion to notability. On the grounds of being poorly sourced, that's a surmountable problem. The articles should be tagged for clean up than deleted. In many of these cases WP:BEFORE does not appear to be thorough as was the case at Embassy of Mali, Ottawa where there were plenty of sources but WP:GNG was cited. Mkdw ^talk 23:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bilateral relations are not inherently notable. Malaysia does not even have an embassy in Colombia so your argument here is not applicable on missions. LibStar (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, nothing is inherently notable, but something so large should be strongly looked at before declaring its not notable because the subject is massive and highly official. Furthermore, an embassy does not mark whether countries have open diplomatic relations. As stated in the article and cited, diplomatic relations between the two countries started in 1978. The fact that there's an embassy in Malaysia and an ambassador in Peru that looks after Colombia are fairly solid though. Not having a direct embassy in Colombia does not discount the fact they have a cited open relationship on many levels. Also, my argument had two other points based outside the embassy so I wouldn't call my argument 'not applicable' just yet. Mkdw ^talk 20:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after skim-reading the first three of NorthAmerica's links, I think the GNG is passed on this relationship. Think carefully about what constitutes WP:ROUTINE... Agricultural cooperation agreements (even planned) etc are not like "Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs". --99of9 (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think NA is right in that the article has plenty of potential to be improved if only the articles could survive long enough to do so. Again, a case of WP:BEFORE shows plenty of sources if properly researched in. I focused my search on the involvement of the two countries in the UN and found a number of references. I think any country that has had established international trade and diplomatic relations for as long will have sources. Mkdw ^talk 00:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG, as most such articles will IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments the article contains pure WP:SYNTH like this "In 2006, both countries applied to the United Nations Environmental Programme during the Montreal Protocol for International Strengthening (IS).[6] The committee's reviewed their applications together and approved $275,000 in funding for both countries.[6]". it is just coincidence they applies the same time for the same funding program. no evidence of actual bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 03:15, 29 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. Sandstein 20:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Huntington's Disease

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

Non-notable new journal. Indexed in PubMed, but not in MEDLINE (OA-or hybrid OA- journals get into PubMed through PubMed Central, which is not very selective in its inclusion criteria). Not indexed in any selective database. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NJournals's objection to Pubmed as evidence for notability is that "it includes medical news sources of various degrees of quality, including such items in peer-reviewed journals it does cover". However, since JHD's content is peer-reviewed, this objection does not apply here. Therefore I propose keeping the article on the basis of (1) Coverage in pubmed and (2) fully peer-reviewed content. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 16:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - As further evidence of the journal's notability, I submit these two citations of JHD as a reputable source from Reuters and Yahoo Finance. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 16:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those links are press releases. They add nothing to the journal's notability or reputation. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This interpretation is wrong. The remark indicates that PubMed is not enough to establish notability because PubMed (in contrast to MEDLINE) is not selective enough, because, for example, it includes non-peer-reviewed publications. Nowadays, PubMed also includes anything that goes into PubMed Central, which is even less selective. If PubMed coverage and being peer-reviewed would be enough for notability, then most new OA (or, as in this case, hybrid OA) journals would be notable almost automatically within a few months of publishing their first articles. As for the sources mentioned above, both are the same press release, not something written by those sources and never accepted on WP to establish notability for any subject. --Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, not notable, or at least not yet. The promoters of this journal really need to slow down. An article was created, and deleted, in 2011, before it had even started publication. The journal is still less than a year old. After some time has passed it may develop enough notability for inclusion, but it's not there yet. --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Huntington's disease. Neutrality^talk 11:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's feasible. Even though the journal is about the disease, that doesn't mean there's a sensible way of merging it into the article on the disease. --Randykitty (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, MelanieN's reading of the sources offered by Dubbin seems correct to me, and I don't see a reasonable case, editorially, for merging into the article on the disease. I wouldn't lose any sleep if it were listed at List of medical journals with a redirect, but I suspect that list is intended to be listed to notable journals, and this one doesn't seem to reach WP:GNG yet. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incruit

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

Non-notable company. Cannot find independent references. The only ref currently in the article is trivial and defunct. Alfy32 (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Alfy32 (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is way below the bar for inclusion in WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:12, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other Worlds: Notions of Self and Emotion among the Lohorung Rai

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

Unremarkable book per WP:NBOOK created alongside the author. Dengero (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Denero. I can't find any secondary sources for this. The book is given as a citation for Lohorung people, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Funny ^Pika 02:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aside from it being listed in multiple books as a reference, I was able to find three journal reviews and one somewhat lengthy mention in an Oxford textbook. This isn't the most visible book out there, but it does seem to squeak by notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:36, 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG. There are reviews, in notable publications, presented in a NPOV manner. I don't see the problem. Bearian (talk) 00:05, 30 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 is that the article should be improved (which in fact the FDIC are welcome to do themselves) rather than deleted. Sandstein 20:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FDIC Enterprise Architecture Framework

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

Per this OTRS ticket, an executive with the FDIC is requesting that this article be deleted. Their nomination statement is as follows: "We would like to ask you to nominate the article for deletion on our behalf. The information is greatly out dated and some of the information was never correct. It is not just a matter of updating a few sentences - the entire entry is invalid.

Thank you, <redacted>"

Please note this request is being made as a courtesy, and the fact that it is made by an OTRS respondent should have no bearing on whether or not to delete the article. Tiptoety ^talk 04:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been earlier signals that some people are not satisfied with this article. In the past 2.5 years this article is (partly) blanked several times. Two years ago they already tried to make us believe the content is outdated [50], and last week they claimed: All information in this article is no longer relevant, the article should be deleted. [51]. Unfortunetally attempts to start a discussion [52], [53] about this have been unsuccessfull so far.

Now this article is created end 2008 largely by following two documents:

Implementation of E-Government Principles AUDIT REPORT, Report No. 05-018, May 2005
CIO Council (2008) Information Technology Strategic Plan 2008–2013, January 23, 2008.

Now I suppose this is the case:

In the mean time the FDIC has moved on, and probably considers these sources invalid. In their perspective the whole article is invalid.
Now this article is created in 2008 to give an illustrative example of how a notable Enterprise Architecture Framework is constructed and under development. From an encyclopedic point of view this is still an interesting example, describing notable events of the new millennium

I admit there is one mayor problem here, that the articles title suggesting the article is giving a description of the current state of the FDIC EA. An alternative solution here is rename the article to something like FDIC Enterprise Architecture Framework (1997-2012), FDIC Enterprise Architecture Framework (2002-08), or FDIC Enterprise Architecture Framework (2008).

-- Mdd (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:21, 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the information is outdated, by their own admission it means it is a matter worth having information about. They can read WP:OUTDATED and propose ameliorations to the article. Alfy32 (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, see above. -- Mdd (talk) 22:48, 27 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 23:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rockin the Rocks

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years and unref; I couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – I was able to find two articles (now added to the article) as well as a number of other brief mentions in Northern News Services about the 2007 festival. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:45, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Djernes

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

Notability of the family name "Djernes". The Facebook link doesn't work. The family tree page has no notable individuals in it nor anything notable about the family name. A Google search yielded no notable people name Djernes nor history connected to the name. The only claim in the article possibly supporting notability is four generations of Djernes living in Central Nebraska, but there are no sources explaining or illustrating why this is notable. I am One of Many (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:57, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a little more. I can't find anyone on Wikipedia with an article with the surname Djernes. There may be some notable Djernes out there, but we don't know if they are in the family line describe in this short article. I think the best thing to do would be to delete "Djernes" and that doesn't preclude the fact that someone may create an article on a notable person with the surname Djernes, which may or may not be related to these Djernes.

Delete No evidence of notability for this family. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be notable.--Staberinde (talk) 11:11, 27 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Havasu 95 Speedway

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

Procedural nomination of contested PROD. Original concern noted by הסרפד (t c) was "Searching does not find anything suggesting this racetrack is particularly noteworthy; this is also obviously promotional (see history)." —Darkwind (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When evaluating the PROD, I found several newspaper articles, implying that further research might turn up enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, so I contested the PROD on that basis. —Darkwind (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My search didn't show anything promising; if you find anything, present it here, please. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 23:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Certainly. There's this and this to start. Especially that second one, which mentions a (short) NASCAR race being held there, which certainly lends support for notability, even though isn't enough on its own. Those two aren't enough by themselves, but it is enough to merit a full discussion. —Darkwind (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:54, 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Darkwind: The coverage is rather local, no? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 00:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The articles I found were indeed in a local paper, but it looks like Bushranger found an example of national-level coverage. —Darkwind (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is a NASCAR touring series track. References. While there is quite a bit of local coverage, there is also national: [54] (note this is a Turner Sports property), and there is also certain to be significant coverage in pre-Internet dead-tree sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The references exist to my satisfaction. In other words, it meets our standards of notability via WP:RS. Jus da fax 05:45, 31 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, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paróquia Nossa Senhora do Bom Conselho

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

Does not make any assertion of notability, nor does it cite any sources. ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Individual parishes are generally non-notable per WP:ORG, and this one has no sources cited in this article. As a remote second choice, redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of São Paulo. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I stuck in some information on the church and the parish from church sites. A search turns up a fair amount of other material about the appointments, festivals, fundraising events and so on that would be expected with a sizable and active parish organization. I suppose some of it could be added to demonstrate notability, although to me that would just be clutter. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Superb expansion which demonstrates notability. "this one has no sources cited" is not a criteria for deletion, "no sources exist" on the otherhand would be.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - Actually, the reason for my nomination was "Does not make any assertion of notability", the lack of cited sources was a follow up comment. Beyond that, the AfD process encourages interested parties to expand, which is exactly what happened. The article is now much better than it was, and properly sourced. Win/Win ReformedArsenal (talk)
  - The way that an article asserts notability under the general notability guideline is to cite sources, so they amount to the same thing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability though isn't decided with how many sources or how long the article as it stands is, but actual coverage in reliable sources and what sources actually exist outside of wikipedia which AFD nominators should check before AFDing. Notable subjects will always be notable, however short, if there is coverage in reliable sources then they're notable, sub stub or not. Yes, the article should have "asserted notability" and have been sourced, but it is up to the nominator to try to ensure that it isn't notable before nominating in the same way it should be up to the article nominator to ensure that it is sourced and asserts notability. Most churches in the UK meet content guidelines, don't know why a church in a major city in South America wouldn't. 99.5% of my articles end up being kept for a reason. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure from the indentation who the previous comment was addressed to. If it was to me, then I'd like to clarify that my comment was about the loose use of the phrase "assertion of notability" which I see bandied about in AfD discussions but has no real meaning in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We don't require an article to explicitly say "this topic is notable" or "this topic has been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources". As Dr. Blofeld says, notability-based AfD discussions are about whether the topic is notable, not about any "assertions" in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, and yes, the idea that every article should say "This church is notable because" is silly. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the article should make some explanation of why we care about it enough to include it in Wikipedia. "This building exists at this ___location" is simply not sufficient... ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'd all agree on that, but again you're confusing lack of content with lack of notability. Most articles taken to AFD are sourceable and can just be expanded, AFD isn't a demand service, evenif it's probably the most effective way to get people to expand an article!. As it turns out, this church gets some 1500 people in attendance, which puts it on par with some of the big churches in London.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 23:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have been well-expanded. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is a well-written article, but I am not convinced that the church described is still not WP:NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why, because it's Brazil not Worcestershire? Why wouldn't a church attended by 1500 people for mass be notable eh?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[North Heights Lutheran Church] has a Sunday attendance of nearly 6000 people... but it doesn't have an Article. It's former head pastor Morris George Cornell Vaagenes does. I wasn't aware that number of parishioners was a criteria for notability. That being said, I think that the expansion and sourcing of this article places it well within the bounds of WP:NN. It's weekly attendance, however, is not what put it there. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is sources which demonstrate notability, but one look at the building and its weekly attendance makes it common sense that it is well within requirements. Not sure why you haven't withdrawn this nomination, it doesn't stand a chance of being deleted.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You in one sentence agree with me that the number of parishioners is not what puts it in the realm of notability... but then appeal to its weekly attendance as your support. Logic Fail. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, there are a lot of things in life where logic is questionable... I don't go around insulting other editors for their beliefs and arguments though. IN this case not so much logic as common sense that it meets requirements. You've lost your case here anyway, you're wasting time with this. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequately supported by numerous reliable secondary sources: why is this still even being considered? - SchroCat (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage to merit notability under WP:GEOFEAT. Mkdw ^talk 07:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no good reason why individual parishes should be deemed to be notable. Its church is not an historic building (and even if the church is deemed notable there's no reason why the parish should be and the article should be renamed for the church). It's just a minor local organisation with no more notability than any other minor local organisation and all its coverage is what you'd expect of a minor local organisation from minor local sources. And despite the snide comments above, the fact it's in Brazil is irrelevant. Most English parishes aren't notable either and neither are most English churches built in the 1970s. Unless they have something really notable about them architecturally or otherwise, most churches built in modern times are non-notable. They might be in the future when they get acknowledged as historic buildings, but not yet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from a structural point of view. However, your arguments if looking at this under WP:ORG as a small local organization is quite misleading. The Roman Catholic Church is statistically the largest organized religion in the world, and not some small local organization. The church is legally the owner, operator, and executive of this parish. We're not talking about a smaller independent off-shoot religion. This is the Roman Catholic Church. Because it is part of a regional administration (diocese) does not mean it is not the Roman Catholic Church. It very much is so and any argument otherwise is not correct in any legal or common sense. Mkdw ^talk 06:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. The Roman Catholic Church is notable. Its dioceses are inherently notable. Its parishes, however, are not inherently notable. Your argument is like saying the U.S. Army is notable so all its units, even those as small as platoons and squads, are also inherently notable, or that the Royal British Legion is notable, so all its local branches are too. We long ago determined that this is not the case on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I was aware of WP:ORG#Local units of larger organizations. When you said, "just a minor local organisation" I took it to mean "only a minor local organization" (up to and nothing more) in which I wanted to simply point out that it was misleading -- and not that it was an argumentative point for notability or lack thereof. Mkdw ^talk 11:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that 'Paroquia' or parish should be taken out of the name. Furthermore, this may have confused some of the editors trying to find sources related to the building. While not historic or heritage, I do feel the building asserts a social notability outlined in WP:GEOFEAT. There are independent and reliable sources for the building: [55], [56], and [57] in addition to the ones already in the article. Mkdw ^talk 11:30, 30 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 SPI games. I'm not sure how well the script handles multi-article AfDs, but I'll manually fix it all afterwards. The close is: Redirect & Merge Dixie (game) and Armageddon: Tactical Combat, 3000-500 BC to List of SPI games; Keep To the Green Fields Beyond (game); Merge & Redirect Patrol (board game) to Sniper! (board game) :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 08:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got it all, feel free to ping me (or implement missing parts of this close) if I've accidentally overlooked anything. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 08:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armageddon: Tactical Combat, 3000-500 BC

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

Very brief, unreferenced article about a non-notable game. - Mr X 20:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because there are unreferenced and the subjects seem to be non-notable based on available independent sources:

- Mr X 20:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all 4. Nominated for deletion within 2 hours of creation by new editor (or, in the case of Patroll, a 5-year-old article edited by this new editor). No warnings or advice to him/her or chance for improvement by other editors. "To the Green Fields Beyond" won an award, and all seem to be products of a notable company. Given their age (1970s), sources may well be books and paper fanzines rather than online. Give the author, and the games community, a chance to expand these articles - I've upgraded them a little already, although it's not my territory. PamD 10:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point of procedure: have the original editors of all 4 articles been informed? It doesn't look like it. PamD 10:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize that Patrol (board game) was an old article when I nominated it, however I stand by the original reasoning which is that the articles are very short, unreferenced, original research and seem to be not notable based on my efforts to locate sources for each article. ILIKESPI was notified of these issues with three related articles and provided with links to address the issues. I have also notified the editor who created Patrol (board game). - Mr X 13:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:02, 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To the Green Fields Beyond. It won the Charles S. Roberts Award, the most prestigious award in wargaming as I recall. Undecided about Patrol, possibly merge and redirect to the more notable Sniper! Redirect the other two to List of SPI games. They were just so so. Aah, SPI ... those were the good old days. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best done one at a time....
- Boardgamegeek is generally reliable for things like awards, and it does confirm what our own article says--that To the Green Fields Beyond won a Charles S. Roberts Award. Keep.
- Dixie appears to have no real claim to fame. Merge to List of SPI games. Same with Armageddon: Tactical Combat.
- As Clarityfiend notes, there is a clear merge target for the otherwise not-notable game of Patrol. We should use it.

Hobit (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HotDocs

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

The sources for this article are almost all self published sources. Andrew³²⁷ 04:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a decent number of relevant Google News results in law industry publications, although most of the ones that seem more substantial are behind paywalls, like this one. Non-paywalled examples: 1995 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel short article, ABA Journal discussion, 2005 Law Society Gazette mention, LegalWeek mention. Some Google Books results: "HotDocs in one hour for lawyers", recommendation in "The 2010 Solo and Small Firm Legal Technology Guide", recommendation in "The Lawyer's Guide to Working Smarter With Knowledge Tools", recommendation in "How to Build & Manage a Personal Injury Practice". Google Scholar turns up short discussions in magazine articles. Seems enough to support a short article. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:28, 10 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 00:10, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dreamyshade's sources appear to reach WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mostly per Dreamyshade's investigation. — ṘΛΧΣ²¹ 05:40, 31 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 23:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anna utca

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

article about an individual street with no citations - doesn't seem notable. Bensci54 (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -This seems to be a translation of the same article on Hungarian Wikipedia. It does have references, but I have no idea whether they are reliable or if they cover the subject in any depth. A Google search suggest that the the street may be somewhat notable. Perhaps it's the Times Square or Champs-Élysées of Budapest? - Mr X 22:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is much more like Rue du Chat-qui-Pêche of Paris.--Ksanyi (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 23 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) 00:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, part of the World Heritage Sites in Budapest. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:43, 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 merge to Chenjerai Hunzvi. MBisanz ^talk 23:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiesława Hunzvi

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

Non-notable Polish author. Only reason for creation appears to be that she was the wife of Chenjerai "Hitler" Hunzvi. See Wikipedia:Notability (people), section Invalid criteria (spouse). Only basis for being an author is apparently that she wrote a book on her (estranged) husband, when he gained some notoriety. To the closing admin: pls delete also the undiacriticized redirect (if delete prevails). HandsomeFella (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:09, 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, Courcelles 00:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notability is not inherited. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chenjerai Hunzvi. Not independently notable as far as I can tell (I've not checked Polish sources), although there is press coverage about her in articles on him[58][59] and it's worth mentioning the marriage, her book, and her claims about his actions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:25, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Christian Reformed Church of Toronto

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

Only notable for being the first church in its denomination to ordain a woman. WP:ORG#No inherited notability. JFH (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the refs listed on the page, there is some pretty significant coverage: [60], [61], and [62]. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner is a denominational publication, so not independent. --JFH (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be the leading liberal church in a quarter million member, thousand congregation strong denomination. Not only famous for the first church to ordain a woman, but also to go against the congregation on same sex couples (see the Christianity Today article listed in references). JASpencer (talk) 15:28, 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough independent coverage for me. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The sources seem to show borderline notability. FurrySings (talk) 14:35, 31 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) 23:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Permissive federalism

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

tagged for notability for 5 years; unref one-sentence stub Boleyn (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or redirect, or merge the single sentence therein. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search produces no evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NOR. No objection to redirecting the single sentence if an appropriate target can be found.--JayJasper (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GBooks and GScholar produce quite a lot of hits from reliable sources - though most of them do seem only to mention it in passing, but in ways that suggest that it has been discussed in depth elsewhere. So far as I can make out, the term originated with a political scientist called Michael D. Reagan (presumably no relative of Ronald) sometime in the 1970s and, judging from GBooks snippets, it gets a chapter in a book called "The New Federalism" that he coauthored in 1981. It certainly looks as if other people discussed the concept - but probably 30 years or more ago and in journals or books that may well not be online. If anyone can find them, we can probably get a keepable article - otherwise, it isn't going to be a disaster to lose the present one. PWilkinson (talk) 18:08, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Federalism#Federalism_as_a_political_philosophy or Federalist. It seems an appropriate place to put it. Preferably with a reference to Michael D Reagan's book. Jhfireboy Talk 18:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary definition. This is not an expandable encyclopedic concept, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dicdefs are out of scope. I do think this could be turned into an encyclopedia article in the future, but what we have now is a dicdef, not an encyclopedic stub. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:28, 29 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Synod of the Northeast

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

A synod (ecclesiastical territory) of the PC(USA). Couldn't find any deep coverage. JFH (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This would seem to be the equivalent of a diocese in episcopalian churches, which we would certainly consider notable. The problem is that this is just a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think dioceses would be notable for the same reason as any other organization. There are many smaller Presby and Reformed denoms w/ synods and presbyteries. Do they all deserve articles? --JFH (talk) 19:58, 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peter. One could trace the history of this synod (and the others) with numerous published histories, seeing how much has been published about the PCUSA and its predecessors. Re Jfhutson: we need to distinguish between massive nationwide denominations and little ones like mine (which is about the only one with a synod in the USA; the rest of the smaller denominations have "general assemblies" or "general synods"). It would take far more effort to demonstrate the notability of Florida Presbytery of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (one of its first-level subdivisions) than it would to demonstrate the notability of a PCUSA synod, which is far larger in membership and influence than the entire ARPC. Nyttend (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not determined by membership numbers, which I can't find anyway for this synod. If your presbytery had been covered deeply by reliable sources, it could have an article even if it was the size of Westboro Baptist Church. I did not include the Synod of the Trinity (formerly the Synod of Philadelphia) because it does get significant coverage in histories of American Presbyterianism for historical reasons. --JFH (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since this a level of government about Presbytery level, it is definitely at least as notable as a diocese. St Anselm (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, WP:OTHERSTUFF. It is plausible to me that dioceses have significantly more power, and therefore notability, than presbyteries, but it's also possible that they are not notable either. --JFH (talk) 20:25, 29 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 agreement to keep amongst all people who have participated, including the nominator. Uncle G (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Music Remains the Same: A Tribute to Led Zeppelin

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years and unref; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What did the nominator do to attempt to check notability? Since this nomination was made only one minute after the editor's prior nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morrisonville Times, its hard to say. But some quick searching finds sufficient evidence to conclude this is a notable album.[63] (AP review), [64][65][66][67].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to be clear, I went through a month's backlog at CAT:NN and made a list of those where I couldn't confirm notability through a Google search. Those I could, I removed the tag. Those I couldn't, I nominated once I had completed the list. I understand that it looks like nominating so soon after each other was a sign of not checking at all, but that wasn't the case. Boleyn (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there's just enough coverage from a Google search, and it's usually the case that there is more coverage than Google finds. --Michig (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUMS with significant coverage in reliable sources per above links. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Thanks for your hard work, Boleyn (talk) 10:25, 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.