Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 January	1 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep. The three Wikipedia editors who advocated the retention of this article offered clear and concise explanations on why this article should not be deleted. And while the deletion request is sincere, it nonetheless fails to explain how this article strays from the basic WP:GNG requirements. I would welcome the nominating editor to become more familiar with this website's rules before rushing into an AfD. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Judaism

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

There is no singular Jewish culture or ethnicity to claim as a Jewish Culture. This is why I have submitted this article for deletion. It gives people who wish to confuse others as to Jewish identity, a sense of legitimacy to claim it since Wikipedia has an "entry" for the term. There is little support to claim this is a stream of Judaism since Judaism is a religion. Jewish identity is not dependent upon adherence to religion but to the criteria of membership of Jewish law.

If you don't have a religion, you don't have Judaism. You can have Jewish cultures (note: plurality )or Jewish languages or customs, but not Judaism without a religion. Cultural Jewish identity can be a reality, but Cultural Judaism implies a religious stream or movement. This article entry is extremely misleading and poorly referenced. Secular Jews often identify with the culture of their community, but they first had to qualify to be a Jew according to Jewish law or they are not Jews no matter if they speak Yiddish like former Secretary of State Colin Powell who grew up in a Jewish neighborhood, living and working for and with many Jews. I am very new to Wikipedia so I may have made mistakes in how I've done this, but I am not new to Jewish studies, both religious and secular. I see from a link on the deletion request that it was proposed for deletion and the consensus achieved was for deletion as far back as 2006. So, I fail to understand why it is still here, especially since the references given do not support that this is anything worthy of claiming a movement or stream of Judaism. Could I open a blog page titled Center for insert whatever you want to call it Judaism and have only one member and qualify for claiming a *stream* of Judaism? The Link to the Center for Cultural Judaism there states "Over thirty institutions in North America and Europe are associated with the Posen Project for the study of secular Jewish history and cultures." Note the use of the phrase Jewish cultures, the plurality. The studies of these cultures do not designate a stream of Judaism called Cultural Judaism. This entry needs to be deleted as it is being misused to claim there is a movement of Judaism accepted by Jews that permits anyone to be a Jew by simply claiming affinity to "the Jewish culture". I discovered this entry from a Christian missionary claiming to be a Cultural Jew and assuring his audience that it was an accepted movement within Judaism because of the studies at the Center for Cultural Judaism and the Wikipedia entry.I am familiar with the study of Jewish cultures and languages and I study them. I am not in Cultural Judaism. If I were secular and studied Jewish history and languages I would be a secular Jew. Chana Maven (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing a malformed deletion nomination on behalf of User:Chana Maven [1]. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whether or not it is recognized in some (particularly more religious) circles, the fact of the matter is that it's very clear in many places of the world that many people who, while no longer practicing Judaism, still self-identify as "nonobservant" or "cultural Jews". That is to say, independent of the religion, they still have a strong connection with the culture of Judaism, that perhaps is the result of the social and genetic isolation from other groups [2] throughout the many years of the diaspora. See, for example, another similar social phenomenon at Cultural Catholic. If anything, it seems a merge of Jewish atheism into it might be considered. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (first time I have made that kind of vote I believe for the following reasons:) Not a strong enough argument to delete. The nomination reads like a "thesis" and does cite needed WP:POLICY and guidelines, that if anything, would validate the topic. If anything a more logical request would have been a request for a "Merge and Redirect" to the article about the Center for Cultural Judaism that seems to have the most prominent links about Cultural Judaism direct to it on Google, such as this Cultural Judaism Opens the Door for Alienated Jews written by a member of "The Center for Cultural Judaism in Manhattan" or this ad for it as well Center for Cultural Judaism from Hillel or this report Center for Cultural Judaism Awards Grants to Six Universities for the Study of Secular Judaism or even this critique in a Jewish newspaper: Center for Cultural Judaism is detrimental to Judaism’s future. But there are some articles on Google that connect the topic of Cultural Judaism with other phenomena in Jewish life or the world that involves Judaism in its broadest scope. So for now, it would be advisable to Keep the article and improve it because there are plenty of WP:RS that meet WP:V and WP:NOTABLE that can be found and accessed via Google that can and should be incorporated into the article. IZAK (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Squirrel. We have lots of articles that offend somebody; see WP:NOTCENSORED. This article's subject is well documented. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Baguio

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

Not wikilinked; does not offer helpful navigation. Not notable. WP:NOTDIR. Same with lists like this one and this one. Xeltran (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. No wikilinks, and no reliable sources. Merge any relevant content to the Baguio article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:40, 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, MBisanz ^talk 23:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I keep seeing these shopping mall lists on the AfD page and I don't know why people think they belong on Wikipedia. Epzik8 (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reason to list non notable malls.--Charles (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Van K. Tharp

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

Do we think that this person meets Wikipedia's notability criteria? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This person does not seem to meet the basic criteria for biographies. While he has been interviewed in a couple of books on investing, the actual biographical information seems too superficial and lacks editorial oversight. I am also unconvinced that these interviews are intellectually independent of the topic - it seems more like a walled garden of a bunch of "investment gurus" writing books and interviewing each other. If the consensus is to delete, also salt since this has been repeatedly recreated with such a promotional tone. VQuakr (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN. Autobio. I was the original poster of the CSD. The original version he wrote was purely promotional, full of his classes, info on the curriculum and full or trademark symbols. He toned it down, but still not good enough. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nontrivial coverage of him in the Schwager reference, though I think not in the Covel one (from what I can see in Google books preview), so we don't have the multiple sources required by WP:GNG. Beyond that, though, I think the autobiography, self-promotion, and advertising issues here are too much of a problem to allow us to keep this. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:GNG. I found a few references of subject in the reliable sources (Futures, San Francisco Chronicle, etc), but almost all of them are trivial. WP:WRS also gives useless results. — Bill william compton^Talk 06:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of California, Los Angeles#Student life. Content can be merged from history with attribution as desired. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bruin Democrats

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

Single chapter college club. No substantiation of notability. The club's protests have generated some minor news coverage, but not substantial enough to satisfy WP:GNG's requirement of "Significant coverage" "address the subject directly in detail." GrapedApe (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, it can be verified that the subject exist using reliable news and book sources, but none appear to cover the subject in a manner that meets significant coverage. Therefore a redirect to the University of California, Los Angeles may be one alternative to outright deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to University of California, Los Angeles#Student life. Worth a mention, but not separately notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exosquad planets

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

Last AFD in 2008 failed to reach consensus. This seems to be completely in-universe fancruft, without a secondary source in sight. I see no reason to keep this around, nor do I see any sort of out-of-universe notability, or any sources to back up the info other than the show itself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 22:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I copied this page to Wikialpha for safe keeping. Mathewignash (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I transwikied the entire history to http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Exosquad_planets since the series says they were influenced by manga and anime in the style they created it in. Dream Focus 15:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete LACK OF RELIABLE THIRD PERSON SOURCES.Dwanyewest (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced, no notability outside of the show, no need for a redirect as not a likely search term. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hastings Rasani

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

Subject is a boxer who fails to meet WP:NBOX. Fighting someone who became a world champion does not show notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). With 22 wins in 95 fights, he's clearly never been ranked in the world top 10 or fought for a major promotion's world championship. Papaursa (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how someone who wins less than a quarter of his fights can be considered notable. He certainly doesn't meet WP:NBOX and the only source is a link to his fight record. Mdtemp (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't come close to meeting WP:NBOX or WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forte Research Systems

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

Advert-like, no major RS on a search, other than a single mention in Inc, and a whole bunch of press releases. notability is the concern. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is about a company that develops and markets specialized clinical trial management systems (CTMS). The chief claims to notability made in the article are that this business ranked as high as #1695 on a Top 5000 list, and that (t)he company was listed among the fastest growing firms from South-Central Wisconsin by the Wisconsin State Journal. They have a website, with social network connections. Their flagship product is enterprise-class. I don't see the claims to notability made in the article as amounting to significant coverage of the kind to get them into an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Inc. 500 rankings have only been in the 1,000s+ and although the second ranking was lower, the third and most recent rose again. Not only are nearly all of the references press releases, Google News found more here (two recent press releases, the second one, EHRIntelligence.com is republished) and here (archives), with this and this being the only non-press releases, and both only talk about opening a new office in India. The press releases go for three pages until it starts showing irrelevant results. To make sure I covered all areas, I searched Google Books (I found irrelevant results) and Google Scholar (found nothing either) and adding "Srini Kalluri" to all of my searches didn't help either. Additional searches also found press releases but no news coverage. It seems they have been receiving attention for their press releases since the name change in 2010 but no actual news coverage. In addition, Google News searches for "PercipEnz Technologies, Inc" show they used press releases even before the name change going as far as 2006 with non-press releases here (investment, payment required) and here (both for an investment in 2007), here (employee promotion in 2008) and here (third result from the top for a new director of finance, NEW FACES NEW PLACES PEOPLE IN BUSINESS). Additional searches for PerciPenz Technologies provided nothing else. In all the years they have existed, I would have expected at least one significant news article. SwisterTwister talk 20:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP per SwisterTwister's thorough research. --MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Forte’s core values include collaboration, pursuing excellence, fulfilling commitments, and celebrating success". Any article containing such rubbish deserves to be swiftly deleted . . .Mean as custard (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all comments above. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. The nominator withrew their nomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I have userfied the article to the creator's userspace per consensus below. It can now be found at User:Johnnyice213/BuzzTable. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BuzzTable

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

I am struggling to see how this company may be notable. I understand that the application they designed may have some potential to be notable in the future, but coverage about the company, and not the app, is missing. — ṘΛΧΣ²¹ 20:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination in favour of usefyinf the content. I agree with the voters that we should give time to the creator to properly work on its content and, as I know how it feels to get your work deleted without even having the time to finish it, I struck my original statement. Any administrator can close this now. Regards. — ṘΛΧΣ²¹ 23:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - Per the nom, coverage about the company itself is scarce, but the app itself has picked up some coverage that may warrant a keep. As the article was nominated not 1 hour after it was created, I think we should give the content to its creator so that he or she can work on it, with advice that the article should focus more on the app and not the company. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as per Michaelzeng7. I appreciate that the material is so egregiously bad as to warrant a deletion debate within an hour of being posted, but still.... There's no harm in letting the editor work on it a bit, is there? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised (and impressed) at how quick the community was to pick up my addition. I would be happy to work on the article's content and appreciate any tips you might have in terms of material and writing style. --Johnnyice213 (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Both Michaelzeng7 and UltraExactZZ make good arguments for allowing this article to incubate and the originator has indicated enthusiasm for improving the article. Userfy is preferable to deletion in this case. --Mark viking (talk) 23:52, 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. Consensus here is clearly to keep the article, and participants here are encouraged to further discuss matters regarding the article, such as moving it, on the article's talk page. A discussion is also occurring regarding macro-level matters regarding these types of articles at the recently created Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Writing systems#Devanagari letters, or Brahmic? discussion. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devanagari_ka

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

Article on a single character of the Devanagari script. I don't think any specific character in this script (other than ॐ, of course) is notable enough for its own article, and the content of the article essentially is a guidebook on the diacritics and conjuncts of the character (encyclopedic content on this is already adequately covered in the Devanagari article, anyway), as well as grammar for words in which the character is used as part of words in various languages. GSMR (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to Ka (Indic) or similar, on the example of Ka (kana). A treatment of the larger Indic consonants would be appropriately encyclopedic, even though the individual Devanagari consonant is probably too limited in scope - see Aleph for a Semitic corollary. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 18:26, 31 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 31. Snotbot t • c » 20:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep where it is, or maybe move to Ka (Devanagari). This is no different than Yi (Cyrillic), Ka (kana), etc. No reason to conflate Indic scripts just because they're "exotic", unless we're willing to conflate Latin, Cyrillic, and Greek. (Also, going by the petty edit wars we get over Indic scripts, making the letter articles about Brahmic scripts in general will end up being a headache to patrol.) I do wonder about the appropriateness of listing grammatical particles, but that's a content discussion. — kwami (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is almost a one-to-one correspondence between the letters of the Indic scripts, much more than in Greek and its descendants: it is not inappropriate to "conflate" them. But this discussion belongs on the talk page of this article which should be kept. Gorobay (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do, however, group the Canaanite/Phoenecian/Semitic letters together, precicely because there is probably no reason to ever have a full article on the Syriac letter Kaph. So the real question is whether limiting this article to only the Devanagari letter instead of the pan-Brahmi letter is bad engineering in terms of what is going to logically end up here anyway. I think that the only chance we have of actually getting any coverage of something like Kharoshthi Tttha is to have articles for the Brahmi archetypes, so this article will either incorporate that constelation of interrelated characters, or it's going to end up duplicating the article which does incorporate the larger Brahmi scripts, and will eventually get deleted on the basis of redundancy. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 05:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good argument. But for that talk page, I think. Or maybe better at project writing systems. Would be a good time to do it, with only two of the articles written. — kwami (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I see you already started the conversation at Writing Systems. So let's get a Speedy keep on this AfD while we work out the proper scope of articles like this. For the record, what is the second article? Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 18:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devanagari kha. Gorobay (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danke. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 22:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Note also the existence of A, B, C and so forth. The several letters of the Latin alphabet have complicated histories and easily support articles. I see no reason why the Indic letters cannot also support articles. My understanding is that most of the Indic scripts are essentially graphic variations on one another, though they've taken on hugely different appearances. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual agnosticism

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

I have looked and found no academic sources for "Spiritual Agnosticism". The current article has 5 sources, all of which are personal opinion blogs. One is by a "digital strategist managing large scale web projects for government" (I believe this is the creator of the page); another is by "an environmentalist and writer on sustainability and environmental topics"; the other is a link to a newly created website called "Spiritual but not Religious"; and there are two links to a guy with a blog who has no name or bio. And again, I have found no published sources that demonstrate that this is not just another unique personal philosophy phrase with no notable history or attribution. It should be deleted in my opinion unless it can be demonstrated that this is another phrase for "agnostic theism" (in which case it should be merged) - but I don't believe that can be demonstrated. Allisgod (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom unless decent sourcing is found. While the article makes good logical points about the difference between Agnostic theism and Spiritual agnosticism, these points seem to be original thoughts and are not sourced to Wikipedia's standards. (Nota bene; I have removed two of the sources as completely unacceptable to Wikipedia, being unknown and uncredited blog and website.) Killer Chihuahua 20:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOT DELETE You guys! This is a very new and growing sub-culture within agnosticism and, frankly, I'm very chilled to think it's being squelched simply because nobody with a degree has gotten around to exploring it. Particularly when the deletion is recommended by someone who is obviously biased toward religion. There's a Facebook community with 1500 followers discussing this topic. Also, someone at NYU has recently written a paper. This differs from agnosticism in a very specific way: The application of spiritual practices in the individual's life. Jakedimare (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)jakedimare[reply]
WIkipedia does not want to be "very new". We're an encyclopedia. We want to write the established stuff, not the cutting edge stuff. That's not my opinion, that's policy. Please see Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Good_research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability; NOR, V, and NPOV are three of the core content policies of Wikipedia. I assure you, it matters a great deal whether "nobody with a degree has gotten around to exploring it". Killer Chihuahua 20:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concur with KillerChihuahua's argument. It may be a "very new and growing sub-culture within agnosticism" but even so, I would note that sometimes an article about a topic that may potentially be notable in the future is just WP:TOOSOON at the present time. If in the future, "spiritual agnosticism" becomes the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, I would have no problem with the article being recreated on the basis of those sources once they become available. We have to base a decision on what is available right now, and at this point in time, I just don't see enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG and justify the need for a separate article about the topic. I would also add that the existence of a Facebook community about the topic with 1500 followers does not meet Wikipedia's standard of notability. (From personal experience, I can attest to the fact that even Facebook communities founded upon something very trivial can become the subject of a surprisingly large number of "likes.") An academic paper (especially one published in a peer-reviewed journal) would be a far more reliable source, but more than a single such source would be needed to clearly establish the notability of this topic as distinct from the several closely related articles that already exist on Wikipedia. Speaking of which, can anyone provide a reference for the NYU paper? --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to the NYU paper/essay was [Spiritual Agnosticism], but was deleted by Jakedimare. It is unclear if the essay was ever published. --Mark viking (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The author of that might be more traditionally talking about some kind of agnostic panpsychism. Allisgod (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GScholar shows 22 hits for the term, which is not a lot. Looking at some of the most likely hits shows passing references to "spiritual agnosticism" and most of the those use spiritual as an adjective to mean agnosticism about spiritual matters, as opposed to agnosticism with regard to schools of thought. One reference that seems to use the term is

Balmforth, Ramsden. Spiritual Agnosticism: And the Sermon on the Mount in Relation to Problems of Social Reconstruction. CW Daniel, 1921.

but it is not clear this has much to do with the type of spiritual agnosticism mentioned in the article. In short, I could find no reliable sources for the article and it is dubious whether the topic itself could be claimed as notable according to the general notability guidelines (see WP:GNG for details on notability and WP:RS for guidance on what constitutes a reliable source). Mark viking (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It does not seem that sufficient WP:RS exist to satisfy WP:GNG and warrant the topic's existence as a separate article. It was previously mentioned that "someone at NYU has recently written a paper" and a book entitledSpiritual Agnosticism was published in 1921. If encyclopedic material based upon these sources is to appear at all, it would be best placed in one of several existing articles which already exist and which have significant overlap in general subject matter, namely Agnosticism, Agnostic theism, and Spiritual but not religious. Indeed, one of the article's current sources ([3]) is really about Spiritual but not religious, which is not necessarily the same as "spiritual agnosticism" according to the article's definition. --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 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 merge to LAZYgunsBRISKY. J04n(talk page) 11:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy (Japanese singer)

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

Fails the notability guidelines for music, as I am not seeing any sources here that show anything other than a brief mention. She may have been part of a notable band, but I really am not seeing any outside notability other than her being a part of a band that she is no longer a part of. This material was also part of a declined AFC submission earlier this month. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to LAZYgunsBRISKY – Litte claim to notability, poor sources. Bensci54 (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

edit – changed opinion to merge per Narutolovehinata5 and In ictu oculi

Comment: I declined the prod earlier because it at least appeared from a quick check that her prior band may be notable. It may be possible she is not notable individually.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete for now~~ Merge to LAZYgunsBRISKY - ~~until~~ her band (~~which~~ is ~~probably notable)~~ has an article, ~~then~~ but she can't, as she lacks coverage in reliable sources. ~~Once an article for her band is created, then info about her can be merged there.~~ A mention in her old band's article should be enough. ~~Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)~~ Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Her band now has an article - with 3 albums on Amazon.fr and fr.wp article need to check for French sources for the singer before deleting her. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to LAZYgunsBRISKY. It is hard searching for anyone whose only name is "Lucy", but try as I did, I could not find any RS on her beyond her role in the band. Oricon does not seem to have an entry on her, which means her solo singles did not chart. Has not established enough of a solo career to warrant an article beyond the band. Michitaro (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Closed upon withdrawal by the nominator (non-admin closure). Poison Whiskey 20:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bec Hyatt

AfDs for this article:

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

MMA fighter that fails to meet WP:NMMA. She now has 1 of the 3 required top tier fights, compared to zero when the article was previously deleted. No objection to this being userfied and brought back once she meets the MMA notability criteria. Mdtemp (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Withdraw nomination My bad. I missed that she was a replacement for an Invicta title fight. Mdtemp (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fought for the strawweight title of Invicta (which is a top tier women's organization). That's enough to meet WP:NMMA even if she's had only 1 top tier fight. Papaursa (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia's guidelines say a MMA fighter is notable if they 'have fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization'. Invicta is undoubtedly THE world's top tier women's MMA organization and it's viewership and buzz easily rivals that of some top-tier men's organizations. Bec has fought for the highest title in Invicta. Even suggesting the removal of her article is an insult to women's MMA and female athletes in general. BA_Girls —Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia (WP). This is your first post, so you might want to familiarize yourself with WP policies, such as WP:AGF which means we assume people are acting in good faith. I'd also recommend WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS. Papaursa (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This criterion is met: Have fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization. My Thai28 (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Passes WP:NMMA. Different from the last discussion, she has fought for the highest title of a top-tier organization (Invicta FC) according to WP:MMATIER. I'm also sure that the article meets the WP:GNG criteria, with reliable sources that cover significantly the article: Sports Illustrated, MMAFighting (a subsidiary of SBNation) and searching i also found an interview with MMAJunkie radio (a subsidiary of USA Today) and Bleacherreport. Notability is clear for me. Poison Whiskey 16:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems like this could be closed as a speedy keep. Papaursa (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mary O'Connor (secretary)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mary O'Connor (secretary)

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

Delete: as non-notable by any stretch of the imagination. Possible merge with Hugh Hefner article. Quis separabit? 18:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merge to Hugh Hefner - Unsurprisingly, a Google News search provides links about her recent death and Google News archives also provided results with the oldest results from the late 1990s. 40 years is a significant time but she is not notable or known for anything aside from being Hugh Hefner's secretary. SwisterTwister talk 20:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and no merge to Hef. Her death is no reason to merge her into it now. His former secretary is mentioned only because she overdosed and Hef thought the government was out to get him. O'Connor made no other impact on the world, except for brief appearances on the TV show. — Wylie pedia 04:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 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. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of DOQ Priorat wineries

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

Lacks notability, is not necessary as main DOQ website is a more reliable source, and is also a conflict of interest as page was started by a winery employee. Primecoordinator (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a member of WP:WINE, I loathe these list of articles with a passion and tried to get several of several of them deleted in the past like List of wineries in Ohio, List of wineries in the Barossa Valley, List of wineries in Missouri, List of wineries and vineyards in Alabama, List of breweries, wineries, and distilleries in Utah, List of wineries in South Africa, List of Loudoun County wineries, etc because they're usually nothing but WP:DIRECTORY listing of redlink, non-notable wineries that serve very little informational or navigational purpose like what WP:LIST are suppose to. Essentially they are just free WP:ADVERT for these wineries. But, alas, those efforts were not in line with current consensus a couple years back. Perhaps consensus has changed and we can start get ridding of these eye sores. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 19:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As constituted, the article is a list of almost all redlinked wineries with only one entry having an article. That's not a viable list. -- Whpq (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Agne27 that this "attempt at listing each and every winery in a region" goes against WP:DIRECTORY, and that there are too many lists of this kind. Thus, far from every redlink in this list represents a winery notable enough for an article, which makes most of redlinks fairly pointless. Tomas e (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of the WP:OTHERSTUFF Agne27 mentions are appropriate lists based on geographical features. This, however, is based on a "wine region", not a state or province, and therefore it needs to go. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vitaly M. Golomb

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

Vanity page. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely promotional. The article appears to have been put together by copying bits and pieces of this Google+ profile. I can find no significant coverage about this person to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq and WP:BIO. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Bks

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

I've declined an A7 speedy on this because there are claims of collaboration with notable musicians, and a tiny amount of sourcing such as this cursory mention in the New Musical Express. Nevertheless, I don't think there's enough substantial coverage for him to be notable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 is right to decline the A7 (I tagged it as such when there were virtually no sources) as there are claims of notability. However, the sources are negligible and there is no evidence that this meet WP:MUSBIO. Hence: Delete. --Randykitty (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello here are some sources of the work mentionned:

http://www.allmusic.com/album/pil2-mw0002255328/credits http://illvibes.co/tag/james-bks/ http://www.youtube.com/user/truthhurtsofficial?feature=watch http://lescharts.com/showperson.asp?name=Lee+James+Edjouma http://www.allmusic.com/album/swagg-mw0002390068 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.230.201.185 (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are video sites, personal website and listing sites (such as allmusic) that go into no detail about him. Nothing to pass WP:GNG or WP:MUSBIO. Bgwhite (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like some kind of promotion, name dropping Rihanna, Chris Brown, Jay-Z, Dre... But did not work with them. Not a neutral article. WP:SPIP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.90.16.32 (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was defer pending the outcome of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology. J04n(talk page) 14:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gynandromorphophilia

AfDs for this article:

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

POV–FRINGE-fork of Attraction to transgender people, written in such a way that it appears benign. This article was brought up by me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/HebephiliaIncident into scrutiny of User:James Cantor's contributions, and I defer to SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)'s analysis:

James created Gynandromorphophilia in August 2012. We already had an article on that subject at, first, Transfan, then Attraction to transgender people, so Gynandromorphophilia is arguably a POV fork. According to MOSMED, we are supposed to use "the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources." I searched for this term on PubMed, and at that time found only two examples: a paper by the inventor of the term, Ray Blanchard, a close colleague of James at CAMH, and one other from Hungary. I asked James at the AfD for other examples of its use, but there was no response. The article was kept, but it seems to be a clear example of editing to promote a little-used term (and the perspective associated with it), with the result that Wikipedia is causing the spread of it, rather than merely (or also) reflecting that spread.

From looking at the article, this analysis seems to check out. The giveaway sentence to me is in the lead section, "Gynandromorphophilia and autogynephilia have been noted to be important considerations in the assessment of Gender Identity Disorder.": autogynephilia is only really important for its inclusion as part of Ray Blanchard's controversial fringe theory of transgender typology.

I do also notice that the primary contributor, Cantor, is a colleague of Blanchard at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and a noted advocate of Blanchard's typology. On the balance of this, I would assume that it was a FRINGE article created by someone with a similar FRINGE conflict of interest outside his normal line of work on sexology. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe or not, it has Google Scholar hits. Is there a reason why this shouldn't be merged to Attraction to transgender people or vice-versa? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Defer: There is currently a pending request for arbitration, which looks likely to be accepted, related to this topic and its major contributors - WP:A/R/C#Sexology. I would strongly recommend deferring this nomination until the outcome of this case. Thryduulf (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's wise to argue keep an article on the basis of (by design) non-article-space bureaucracy. I'd be very surprised if we've ever had a non-admin arbitrator, and in the case of them all being admins, as I'm assuming, they can access the article history under any circumstance from this AFD. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not recommending the article be kept, nor that it be deleted (I haven't formulated an opinion either way). I am merely recommending that the discussion is postponed until the relevant "non-article-space bureaucracy" as you put it is out of the way so that neither discussion prejudices the other. Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per Thryduulf, this is unnecessary and a bad idea considering the circumstances. And in any case, the rationale makes a case for merging or redirecting but not for deletion. - filelake shoe  18:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge back. POV forking is not an approved way of resolving content disputes. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content into Attraction to transgender people, and retain the title as a redirect. Attraction to transgender people was created in 2005 (under a different title). Gynandromorphophilia was created in 2009 as a redirect to one of the previous titles of Attraction to transgender people, then as a separate article in 2012, though it covers the same issue.
PubMed has only two entries for the term, one from 1993 written by the person who I believe coined it, Ray Blanchard. There are 26 entries on Google Books, including this one, so material about the use of the term can be added to Attraction to transgender people, but there's nothing to suggest that two articles about this issue are needed. If someone believes that Attraction to transgender people should be called Gynandromorphophilia, the way to do that is with a requested-move discussion, not by creating a fork. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Defer. If the argument for naming the topic is to be based on its use by scholarly sources I can only find one academic source that employs the term "Attraction to transgender people" [4]. I'd also note that there are significant concerns with the use of the gynandromorphophilia literature in the "Attraction" article, documented on its talk page, which raise the possibility of synthesis and original research. Besides which, it would be better to await the outcome of the arbcom case, as several editors above have already observed, as the outcome could possibly impact across a range of articles in this general field. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly salt, This is the tip of the iceberg. Insomesia (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Signetics. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signetics 2513

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

Non-notable integrated circuit. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added three secondary references to the article. The 2513 gets a mention in the TTL cookbook, a bit more prose in the Radio Electronics article and an in-depth treatment in the TV Typewriter Cookbook. The topic has multiple secondary sources, but only one is in depth. There are no doubt other paper sources out there, but those are all the sources I knew of. Mark viking (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, refs can be found but it is too specialised a topic for WP. We need to put a limit on articles of this type in the same way we do for bio articles, website articles etc. I think we should be using the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument as a means of determining notability by saying "there are no other articles on electronic components with this level of notability so it should be deleted." In that way a line is drawn in the sand and we only have the most notable items added rather than random things, such as a Signetics 2513. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is on the page Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, so it doesn't qualify as a solid basis for decision making in deletion discussions, although such comparisons could be made in support of the main argument. For topics like this without their own specialized guidelines, our line in the sand is in the form of the general notability guidelines, WP:GNG. The GNG allow us to avoid subjective judgments like "it is too specialised a topic for WP" or "But this is an essential part of computer history!" and just concentrate on notability of the article under consideration. Mark viking (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe merge it, or elements of it, into the main Signetics article, if it ends up being marked for deletion? --Deepred6502 (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it is one of maybe 1000s of components sold by Signetics. If we add just this one we get a WP:BALANCE problem. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signetics article already mentions specific integrated circuits; so does the Intel article. Mentioning particular products is not a problem if they are verifiable and given due weight (see WP:DUE). In fact, the 2513 is already mentioned and referenced in the Signetics article. Merging other verifiable information from this article to the Signetics article is a reasonable course of action, should this article be found to be below the notability threshold. Mark viking (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, a mention in the Signetics article of specific ic's is fine but the 2513 is not in the same league as the 555. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a list of significant devices in Signetics. Mangoe (talk) 15:54, 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. But can be restored for the purpose of merging to an appropriate list of such units. Sandstein 19:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pomoravlje partisan detachment

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

Does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, and does not meet WP:MILNG as it is a company-sized unit Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject, references can be found. It just suppose to be expanded. --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As I have actually looked for sources AND it does not meet the WP:MILNG criteria, could you identify what multiple reliable sources it has significant coverage in? Because my Google Books [5] and Google Scholar [6] searches turned up exactly zero references to this unit. If you are going to recommend "Keep" please provide a policy-based reason. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:MILNG does not really seem like a particularly good fit to the circumstances of guerilla warfare, where smallish units may well be fighting relatively autonomously. But whether it is or not, this simply brings us back to WP:GNG for which in cases like this, Google searches only on English translations of names may not be entirely adequate, partly because translations into English can vary but more because sources are often likely to be in local languages. In this case, GBooks searches on the titles of both the corresponding Serbo-Croat and Serbian Wikipedia articles bring up a few apparently reliable results, all unfortunately in snippet view so it is difficult to assess how substantial they are. They are also mostly over thirty years old (probably unsurprising when one remembers that the Partisans were far more important to Tito's Yugoslavia than to any of its successors), which suggests that a Serbian-spaking editor might well be able to find further sources of a similar age offline. Finally, the one reference currently given in the article is also used in some articles on Serbo-Croat Wikipedia and can presumably be regarded as reliable. On that basis, I think there is probably enough to justify a selective Merge to provide a mention of the detachment in Yugoslav Partisans or a similar article. PWilkinson (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- G'day PWilkinson. I disagree. There were dozens of detachments of this size in the Partisans and Chetniks during WWII. Many of them changed their names several times. You are not suggesting we would mention all of them in the respective articles? And I am still not seeing the "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" necessary for WP:NOTE. BTW, I would not make the assumption that a source used in sh or sr WP is reliable just because it is used on multiple articles. That is a very big step. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, you may disagree, but i do see significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Therefor, this passes NOTE, even more to neutral editors without ulterior motives. --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - So WW, you are not actually going to point to your alleged "significant coverage", you are just going to blithely state it's there and hope the closing admin trusts you on that. Is that right? You have got to be joking. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. If any of the content can be confirmed by offline sources, its few lines could be merged to one the Yugoslav corps articles.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no RS, no apparent notability. GregJackP Boomer! 13:52, 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 00:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gayleward's Tiger Woods

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gayleward's Tiger Woods

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

Seems that this dog is only being included because it shares a name with the golfer. WP:NOTINHERIT Individual showdogs aren't usually included in WP unless they were awarded best in show at a major show, not just chosen for winner's circle/best in group. This dog was a finalist at westminster, good for it, but was not BIS. TKK ^{bark !} 04:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG - There are multiple independent reliable sources articles about the dog in several media outlets (LA Times, Times Herald) and a passing mention on ESPN. Royal broil 13:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as nominator states WP:NOTINHERIT. There are literally hundreds of individual show dogs with show records that far outstrip this dogs career who you can get news hits for but it doesn't really make them properly meet the core policy of WP:GNG. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 11:01, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the dog was one of these it would be notable, but it isn't, so it's not. Notability is not inherited. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lieber

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. There happens to be a German politician of the same name, but after trawling through twenty pages of Google News Archive results I couldn't find a single article that mentions this Michael Lieber. Nothing in a general search either, apart from a few links to a web series he was in. I can't find the reviews mentioned in the article; and "Mirror Fest" itself seems to have received no coverage, apart from several blog posts and event listings. Alexrexpvt (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article itself is substanatially copied or paraphrasde from the subject's web site and has been tagged as a copyright violation. As for notability, I was unable to find any coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable.--Staberinde (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - Despite multiple detailed Google News searches, I haven't found one single piece of reliable third-party evidence aside from his website and a castingcallpro.com link here. There isn't an IMDb profile for him but this is probably due to his career consisting of only theatre productions. I should also mention that I didn't find anything else after searching with several of his productions including the most recent ones. I'm voting delete with no prejudice towards a future article when he is notable, SwisterTwister talk 20:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SwisterTwister's rationale. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:28, 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. J04n(talk page) 11:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Leonard, Jr.

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

Run of the mill non-notable businessman. I'm sure he is a nice guy, but there's nothing inherently notable about being a senior vice president for corporate affairs for Coca-cola. No third party sources, per WP:GNG; nothing to satisfy WP:BIO. The only provided sourceis just an now-offline alumni profile. GrapedApe (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A quick spin around the Google doesn't generate anything which would seem to count towards GNG. Carrite (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - i think he is notable. I've found some links Dishv80 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to share them?--GrapedApe (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if you look in the Google archives, there are tons of references, mostly behind paywall, to his time at Coke. See [7] and [8] and thanks to User:Fuhghettaboutit for his assistance in finding them at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are all tangential mentions, failing the "Significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:17, 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:57, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see anything to suggest he meets the notability guidelines. I agree with User:GrapedApe that the references listed by User:Gtwfan52 aren't sufficient to show the level of coverage needed as evidence of notability.--Kubigula (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Pasquale

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. The article only contains primary sources and I couldn't find anything online. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried searching a library database of newspaper and magazine articles for "DJ Pasquale" but found nothing. I also found no articles in some of the Montreal alternative newspapers such as Voir and the Montreal Mirror. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:25, 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} 00:43, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this person; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gong show 16:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks independent RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case there was some doubt, my comment above can be read as a delete recommendation. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. J04n(talk page) 11:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bromberg

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

Appears to fail WP:CREATIVE. Notwithstanding Bromberg's achievements and credited lead involvement in a number of projects, notability is not inherited. I found the following references, but they don't appear to confer notability, (possibly it's WP:TOOSOON).[9][10][11][12][13] The previous deletion of Category:Andrew Bromberg (architect) is noted for information. I wish you all the best in your endeavours, Mr Bromberg. -- Trevj (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. 13:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC) -- Trevj (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Under external links a couple of books are listed, which appear to be bona fide publications from independent publishers (at least, the Amazon listings look that way)[14][15], although under the aegis of Aedas (try saying that fast 3 times) [16] so maybe not really independent. There's also a few hits at GNews including this one[17]. He does seem to be a serious player. If kept, the article would certainly need to be edited drastically to remove the promotional tone. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Call me a cynic, but it looks as if his employers have an effective marketing/PR department. -- Trevj (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Designing a notable or widely written-about building would seem to meet WP:CREATIVE #4 (WP:CREATIVE explicitly includes architects). He seems to be the designer of Pentominium [18], which is a significant and widely-discussed building. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, in which case that leads to a couple of questions:

Is Pentominium (or any of the subject's other works) the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews? (The refs in that article look to be fairly routine news coverage.)
WP:BIO states People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Notability is not inherited, so how can an article about the creator of the work(s) be viable when its contents concerning the subject (rather than his works) seem not to be sourceable to independent reliable sources and are therefore not verifiable, per WP:BLP?

-- Trevj (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:39, 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) 00:40, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now listed at WT:BIO too. -- Trevj (talk) 13:45, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen Ross

(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) 09:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:32, 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} 00:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:36, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't see any particularly notable work. Rcsprinter (orate) @ 22:24, 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 Titmouse, Inc. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Prynoski

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

Non--notable per WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Redirect could redirect to article on her company Titmouse, Inc. (if that's notable which remains to be established). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: she's not notable in herself, since she has no independent coverage aside from a few mentions in articles about Titmouse; the company has an article and may be notable, although it's arguable either way. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:00, 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} 00:33, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:21, 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. Consensus is to retain the article per the sources presented herein relative to WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Rainbow

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

No reliable refs - all blogs, press releases and self publicity. BBC playlist is the only significant ref and that was for one play. No hits noted. Fails WP:BAND. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not seeing a ton of material, but there are write-ups at Allmusic [19][20], This Is Fake DIY [21], Drowned in Sound [22], and Brooklyn Vegan[23]]. These appear to be enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO #1. Gong show 16:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – In addition to what Gongshow was able to find, I found an article in the Evening Chronicle (convenience link). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The above sources satisfy GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While not massively famous the article does appear to meet WP:MUSBIO now that some reliable sources have been found. Mkdw ^talk 00:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus leans towards WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 00:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop moore vidyapith kayamkulam

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NCOMPANY applied to educational institutions. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a verifiable K–12 school. High school deletions have a snowball's chance in hell at AfD regardless of what WP:CORP says. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a verfiable school providing education to secondary school leaviing certificate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable secondary schools are invariably kept at AfD. Salih (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian schools because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. If kept, I will move the page to Bishop Moore Vidyapith, Kayamkulam. TerriersFan (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for my usual reasons. Verified secondary school. Needs renaming as per TerriersFan, of course. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Warren School District. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brunson Elementary School

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

Elementary school. Zero refs. One dead EL. Tagged as relying on (a now-dead) primary source since 2008. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards, though there is slight standard non-notable, run-of-the-mill, coverage and it certainly does exist. Delete of stand-alone article (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No external references and no claim made about notability. FurrySings (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with whatever redirect is required if it is required. It's non-notable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school district per longstanding treatment.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warren School District per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Deor (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warren School District Not enough content or WP:SIGCOV to warrant a standalone article. Redirect as directed at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Mkdw ^talk 00:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kumud Das

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

Notability has not been established, unsourced BLP -- Patchy1 23:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Notability not supported by google search, nothing in google news.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject of the BLP. J04n(talk page) 14:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see how this meets the notability guideline. Also, like J04n, I was unable to find relevant sources. — ṘΛΧΣ²¹ 02:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 11:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was initially a little unclear about the choice to relist this, but looking more deeply I guess I get it. I do note that nobody has noted this source, which refers to an award of the UN Population Fund the journalist received. The non-English ... there may or may not be non-English sources, I suspect, but I'm not 100% certain, that bn:সুহাসিনী_দাস isn't the same person, automated translation is not being my friend. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem notable. I don't think "Laadli Media award for Gender Sensitivity" is sufficient.--Staberinde (talk) 11:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable journalist. Conducting a WP:BEFORE search revealed a number of publications he wrote for newspapers but none where he was the subject of the publication. Mkdw ^talk 00:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield Sports and Athletic League

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

Extremely minor local football league, now defunct (not that that would affect its notability, assuming it had any), seemingly only on WP because of the claim that it was once at level 16 of the English football league system, however that claim is unsourced and the Football Association don't actually define any levels lower than 11, so the claim is almost certainly OR. No results on Google other than Wikimirrors, forums, etc. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's hard to see if it was in the tire system as there is little to no web based evidence I could find. Seems to fail WP:NSPORT. Govvy (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable league, now defunct so can't gain notability that way, or stand a chance of becoming notable. By my estimation, as the second tier of the Sheffield and Hallamshire County Senior Football League is in tier 13, this would have been a tier 14 league, but still wouldn't be notable. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By my reckoning there's no evidence that this league was a feeder to the County League...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - There isn't, I'm merely hypothesizing. :) Lukeno94 (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no evidence of notability. C 679 09:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Solid nomination against WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw ^talk 01:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Central Philippine University. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Central Philippine University College of Theology

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

No evidence that this college has individual notability as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Sub-articles. Xeltran (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Central Philippine University - No evidence to suggest that the individual colleges are notable in and of themselves - though feel free to provide sources proving me wrong. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Central Philippine University - not individually notable but has content that should be kept. Possibly a Colleges of Central Philippine University page should be created to avoid over loading the main page. TerriersFan (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as not separately notable. I like TerriersFan's suggestion of creating a separate page for the colleges, since there are nine colleges and they each have their own Wikipedia page. Most likely none of them are any more notable than this one (exception on traditional grounds for law and medicine). A couple of paragraphs each for the other seven, in a "colleges" article, would be about right. I'd title the new article Central Philippine University Colleges, a more likely search term than putting "colleges" first in the title. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Central Philippine University. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Central Philippine University College of Nursing and Allied Sciences

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

No evidence that this college has individual notability as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Sub-articles. Xeltran (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Central Philippine University - No evidence to suggest that the individual colleges are notable in and of themselves - though feel free to provide sources proving me wrong. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Central Philippine University - not individually notable but has content that should be kept. Possibly a Colleges of Central Philippine University page should be created to avoid over loading the main page. TerriersFan (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as not separately notable. I like TerriersFan's suggestion of creating a separate page for the colleges, since there are nine colleges and they each have their own Wikipedia page. Most likely none of them are any more notable than this one (which includes tons of extraneous information, including a list the names and scores of individual students on the licensing exam for heavens sake!). A couple of paragraphs in a "colleges" article would be about right. I'd title the new article Central Philippine University Colleges, a more likely search term than putting "colleges" first in the title. --MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd be very happy with a title of Central Philippine University Colleges. TerriersFan (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 00:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Central Philippine University High School

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

No evidence that this college has individual notability as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Sub-articles. Xeltran (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Usually, High Schools get a pass if there are sources, which this article lacks. Not sure about this one, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Filipino schools because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched. In addition, the link with the University is unusual, possibly, unique which adds notability. TerriersFan (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for my usual reasons. Verified secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as normal for high schools. AllyD (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - high schools are inherently notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can the other CPU AfDs be merged to a single AfD? The rationale's the same for most anyway. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Central Philippine University. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Central Philippine University School of Graduate Studies

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

No evidence that this college has individual notability as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Sub-articles. Xeltran (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Central Philippine University - No evidence to suggest that the individual colleges are notable in and of themselves - though feel free to provide sources proving me wrong. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Faculties_and_academic_colleges; no WP:RS evidence that this department is individually notable. AllyD (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Central Philippine University - not individually notable but has content that should be kept. Possibly a Colleges of Central Philippine University page should be created to avoid over loading the main page. TerriersFan (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as not separately notable. I like TerriersFan's suggestion of creating a separate page for the colleges, since there are nine colleges and they each have their own Wikipedia page. Most likely none of them are any more notable than this one (with an exception on traditional grounds for law and medicine). A couple of paragraphs each for the other seven, in a "colleges" article, would be about right. I'd title the new article Central Philippine University Colleges, a more likely search term than putting "colleges" first in the title. --MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Central Philippine University College of Law

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

No evidence that this college has individual notability as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Sub-articles. Xeltran (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Central Philippine University - No evidence to suggest that the individual colleges are notable in and of themselves - though feel free to provide sources proving me wrong. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - practice is to keep law and medical schools and this is a particularly notable one in view of its history and ground-breaking work on the Juris Doctor degree. TerriersFan (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The being the first to offer the Juris Doctor degree claim is actually dubious or downright false. A check at another Philippine law school article claims it offered JD as early as 1991, way earlier than 2012 (as stated in the nominated article). Xeltran (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I'm in agreement with TerriersFan that separate articles are justified for law/medical schools. Such colleges are special in that they are exclusively devoted to terminal graduate degrees. I don't care one way or another that the college was the first to confer a JD instead of bachelor in law. That's essentially nomenclature. For what it's worth, I'm not sure without further investigation that there's a conflict between this article and Atenoe's. This article says it's the first JD "approved by Philippine legal education board"; Ateneo says it is the "first law school in the Philippines to offer the J.D.", which may or may not be the same. To be sure, this article needs a whole lot of cleanup, but AFD is not for cleanup. TJRC (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with analysis that this sort of specialized graduate school educational institution should warrant its own separate independent article with accompanying secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Central Philippine University. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Central Philippine University Dr. Lucio C. Tan College of Hospitality Management

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

No evidence that this college has individual notability as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Sub-articles. Xeltran (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Central Philippine University - No evidence to suggest that the individual colleges are notable in and of themselves - though feel free to provide sources proving me wrong. On this article, some mention might worthwhile at Lucio Tan as well. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Central Philippine University - not individually notable but has content that should be kept. Possibly a Colleges of Central Philippine University page should be created to avoid over loading the main page. TerriersFan (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article previously carryied a link to the merge discussion on Talk:Central_Philippine_University#Merging but the link had been deleted along with other maintenance tags. AllyD (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Faculties_and_academic_colleges; no WP:RS evidence that this college is individually notable. (As User:Ultraexactzz said, a suitably referenced mention of the sponsorship may be appropriate at the biographical page on Lucio Tan.) AllyD (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as not separately notable. I like TerriersFan's suggestion of creating a separate page for the colleges, since there are nine colleges and they each have their own Wikipedia page. Most likely none of them are any more notable than this one (with an exception on traditional grounds for law and medicine). A couple of paragraphs each for the other seven, in a "colleges" article, would be about right. I'd title the new article Central Philippine University Colleges, a more likely search term than putting "colleges" first in the title. --MelanieN (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Central Philippine University. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Central Philippine University College of Engineering

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

No evidence that this college has individual notability as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Sub-articles. Xeltran (talk) 08:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Central Philippine University - No evidence to suggest that the individual colleges are notable in and of themselves - though feel free to provide sources proving me wrong. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was previously carrying a merge discussion link to Talk:Central_Philippine_University#Merging but the link had been deleted along with other maintenance tags. AllyD (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Faculties_and_academic_colleges; no WP:RS evidence that this college is individually notable. AllyD (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Central Philippine University - not individually notable but has content that should be kept. Possibly a Colleges of Central Philippine University page should be created to avoid over loading the main page. TerriersFan (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as not separately notable. I like TerriersFan's suggestion of creating a separate page for the colleges, since there are nine colleges and they each have their own Wikipedia page. Most likely none of them are any more notable than this one (exception on traditional grounds for law and medicine). A couple of paragraphs each for the other seven, in a "colleges" article, would be about right. I'd title the new article Central Philippine University Colleges, a more likely search term than putting "colleges" first in the title. --MelanieN (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Central Philippine University. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Central Philippine University College of Education

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

No evidence that this college has individual notability as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Sub-articles. Xeltran (talk) 08:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Central Philippine University - No evidence to suggest that the individual colleges are notable in and of themselves - though feel free to provide sources proving me wrong. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Central Philippine University - not individually notable but has content that should be kept. Possibly a Colleges of Central Philippine University page should be created to avoid over loading the main page. TerriersFan (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as not separately notable. I like TerriersFan's suggestion of creating a separate page for the colleges, since there are nine colleges and they each have their own Wikipedia page. Most likely none of them are any more notable than this one (exception on traditional grounds for law and medicine). A couple of paragraphs each for the other seven, in a "colleges" article, would be about right. I'd title the new article Central Philippine University Colleges, a more likely search term than putting "colleges" first in the title. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Central Philippine University. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

College of Computer Studies – Central Philippine University

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

No evidence that this college has individual notability as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Sub-articles. Xeltran (talk) 08:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Central Philippine University - No evidence to suggest that the individual colleges are notable in and of themselves - though feel free to provide sources proving me wrong. Here, we have some sourcing but it is all primary, a common problem across all of these articles. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Central Philippine University - not individually notable but has content that should be kept. Possibly a Colleges of Central Philippine University page should be created to avoid over loading the main page. TerriersFan (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as not separately notable. I like TerriersFan's suggestion of creating a separate page for the colleges, since there are nine colleges and they each have their own Wikipedia page. Most likely none of them are any more notable than this one (exception on traditional grounds for law and medicine). A couple of paragraphs each for the other seven, in a "colleges" article, would be about right. I'd title the new article Central Philippine University Colleges, a more likely search term than putting "colleges" first in the title. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Central Philippine University. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Central Philippine University College of Business and Accountancy

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

No evidence that this college has individual notability as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Sub-articles. Xeltran (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Central Philippine University - No evidence to suggest that the individual colleges are notable in and of themselves - though feel free to provide sources proving me wrong. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Central Philippine University - not individually notable but has content that should be kept. Possibly a Colleges of Central Philippine University page should be created to avoid over loading the main page. TerriersFan (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as not separately notable. I like TerriersFan's suggestion of creating a separate page for the colleges, since there are nine colleges and they each have their own Wikipedia page. Most likely none of them are any more notable than this one (exception on traditional grounds for law and medicine). A couple of paragraphs each for the other seven, in a "colleges" article, would be about right. I'd title the new article Central Philippine University Colleges, a more likely search term than putting "colleges" first in the title. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Central Philippine University. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Central Philippine University College of Arts and Sciences

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

No evidence that this college has individual notability as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Sub-articles. Xeltran (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Central Philippine University - No evidence to suggest that the individual colleges are notable in and of themselves - though feel free to provide sources proving me wrong. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Faculties_and_academic_colleges. Previously part of the merge discussion at Talk:Central_Philippine_University#Merging; no WP:RS evidence has been forthcoming that this college is individually notable. AllyD (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Central Philippine University - not individually notable but has content that should be kept. Possibly a Colleges of Central Philippine University page should be created to avoid over loading the main page. TerriersFan (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as not separately notable. I like TerriersFan's suggestion of creating a separate page for the colleges, since there are nine colleges and they each have their own Wikipedia page. Most likely none of them are any more notable than this one (exception on traditional grounds for law and medicine). A couple of paragraphs each for the other seven, in a "colleges" article, would be about right. I'd title the new article Central Philippine University Colleges, a more likely search term than putting "colleges" first in the title. --MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Central Philippine University. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Central Philippine University College of Agriculture, Resources and Environmental Sciences

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

No evidence that this college has individual notability as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Sub-articles. Xeltran (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Central Philippine University - No evidence to suggest that the individual colleges are notable in and of themselves - though feel free to provide sources proving me wrong. Next time, please consider a combined debate so that I don't have to copy/paste this to multiple related articles. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Central Philippine University - not individually notable but has content that should be kept. Possibly a Colleges of Central Philippine University page should be created to avoid over loading the main page. TerriersFan (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as not separately notable. I like TerriersFan's suggestion of creating a separate page for the colleges, since there are nine colleges and they each have their own Wikipedia page. Most likely none of them are any more notable than this one (exception on traditional grounds for law and medicine). A couple of paragraphs each for the other seven, in a "colleges" article, would be about right. I'd title the new article Central Philippine University Colleges, a more likely search term than putting "colleges" first in the title. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Godin

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

Firstly: he's a mayor of a village of just 573 people, failing the WP:POLOUTCOMES requirement that a mayor has to lead a city of "regional prominence" to qualify for an article on Wikipedia (the common rule of thumb on AFD typically requiring a population of at least 50,000.) Secondly: the article's only source is an extremely brief blurb about him within a "five leaders to watch" human interest piece that fails to constitute sufficient coverage to get him past WP:GNG. And finally: the article was created by User:Godinpédia as their first-ever contribution to Wikipedia, raising the distinct possibility of WP:COI editing. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that being mayor of a small village does not connote notability, regardless of his age. PK T(alk) 15:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There is more coverage in French sources; these don't show up on GNews but the regular Google searches turns up results over the course of several months on Radio-Canada, CHAU-DT, and L'Acadie Nouvelle/CapAcadie.com (there are a number of these, but apparently paywalled, unfortunately). His adversarial relationship with the previous mayor and and his election got coverage in assorted sources. On the other hand, it is a rather small town--I note with interest that his opponent (a former mayor) shares his last name. The article may have been self-created but the current text seems neutral enough, and I added a couple of sources. On balance, the coverage of him as the youngest mayor in Canada (and in New Brunswick history) leaves me inclined to keep. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If anything, being the youngest mayor in the history of New Brunswick should be sufficient to keep. In the AfD discussion of Meir Lichtenstein there was some sympathy that he was the first Haredi mayor of a largely non-haredi community. Using that logic, then being the youngest mayor should lead to this article being kept.--Enos733 (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Arxiloxos has added further sourcing, I'm willing to accept that as a keep rationale — but given the quality of the article at the time of nomination, that wouldn't have been a sufficient claim of notability given the lack of reliable sourcing at the time. Bearcat (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4 - reason for previous deletion still applies, has not played in a fully pro league per WP:NFOOTY. JohnCD (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Varin Mehta

AfDs for this article:

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

Article that has been created and deleted before. The problem was that this article failed WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Both cases are still very valid. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per WP:CSD#G4. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. For some reason I cannot access the old article, to see how similar/different it is... Giant Snowman 10:37, 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. Hit 'relist' instead of 'close' the first time. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Natalja Abramova

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

Does not seem to satisfy general notability guideline nor WP:ARTIST. Only coverage seems to be few minor descriptions of her exhibitions. Staberinde (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article text just describes a normal working artist, without a claim to notability. Fails to meet WP:ARTIST criteria. AllyD (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation Advocate

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

Subject fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Promotional article does not show significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Google News search had a few more hits, mainly press releases and passing mentions. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite my best attempts at searching, nothing which can rescue this from non notability ---- _nonsense ferret 05:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same happened to me. This topic does not meet the correspondent notability guideline to be included on the encyclopedia. — ṘΛΧΣ²¹ 05:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated above. Andrew³²⁷ 17:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renata Akhunova

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

Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. A number of one line "references" exist, but nothing that appears to be of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More added. Please, help to change the title: the first letter of the surname should be the upper case. (User Irina Gabi) 08:24, 23 January 2013 (PST)

Keep ~~Delete – Still appears to fail WP:BIO even with the expansion. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)~~ Improvements are much better. Changing to Keep. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 06:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of mentions of this person in web, though most of them in Russian. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject."

Should I put those links as well? (User Irina Gabi) 03:01, 24 January 2013 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irina Gabi (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added some links to reliable sources: a long-running high-circulation daily broadsheet newspaper in Russia Izvestia and a mentioning of the person on the web site of President's Council on economic modernization and innovative development of Russia that proves the importance of appearing a Russian woman on American and international lists. Note: the person is the only Russian woman VC out of 200 mentioned on the list. It's not only another recognition of Russian VCs, but also a big step for Russian female community, which now has a role model of a woman venture capitalist.

Irina Gabi (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plentiful sources. No need for special pleading for being a woman, business notability anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Forevermore (album). MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forevermore World Tour

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

Fails WP:NCONCERT as there is not critical analysis from third party sources, merely a list of personnel and tour dates. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:08, 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:34, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to the album. It seems likely that a lot of these concerts received coverage, and even if enough can't be found to support a standalone article, it would be worth covering in the article on the associated album. --Michig (talk) 07:02, 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 Good to Be Bad. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good To Be Bad World Tour (2008-2009)

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

Fails WP:NCONCERT as there is not critical analysis from third party sources, merely a list of personnel and tour dates. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:42, 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) 00:34, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the album. There doesn't seem to be enough for a separate article on the tour, but better to cover this in the album article than delete it. --Michig (talk) 07:00, 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 redirect to Kerala Sasthra Sahithya Parishad. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sastrakeralam

(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) 13:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: out of 33,400,000 people of Kerala, only 10000 copied of this magazine gets sold. Though it exists, as per info on primary website http://www.kssp.in/content/publications, but almost no news coverage on it. Seems to be an advertisement.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could the nominator and/or the "strong delete" proponent please explain what is wrong with the sources found by the Google Books and Scholar searches linked by the nomination procedure? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an article on Kerala Sasthra Sahithya Parishad. Sastrakeralam is not notable enough on its own, to have a separate article on it, does not have sufficient coverage. WP:PAGEDECIDE.--GDibyendu (talk) 05:17, 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:35, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no one seems to be caring much about this AfD. A publication with a circulation of 10,000 copies could well be notable, that's really not dispositive. The fact that it appears to be a high school educational publication is less promising. There's no reason we couldn't redirect to the publisher, Kerala Sasthra Sahithya Parishad.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kerala Sasthra Sahithya Parishad per Milowent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Akirash

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

Fails WP:BIO. The sources in the article don't look suitable for proving notability (either primary sources, press releases, or sources that don't meet WP:RS), and I could only find a handful of passing mentions online. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:32, 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) 00:41, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:10, 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 List of Saini clans. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Girn

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

I can't find any sources that suggest this caste passes WP:GNG. Contested PROD. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:29, 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) 00:41, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to a list on Punjabi tribes (if it exists) Lyk4 (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Saini clans.--Staberinde (talk) 11:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geoscope Environmental Laboratories

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

Fails WP:CORP. The Ethiopian Review source in the article doesn't look reliable per WP:RS, and the only other source I could find online is this, which was written by the Program Manager for Geoscape. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:18, 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} 00:42, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:08, 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. J04n(talk page) 12:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Blood: The Musical

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

Utterly non-notable short film, which was a selection at four non-notable film festivals (five years apart), and with a cast and crew of thoroughly unknown individuals (the BLP for Kitty Brazelton notwithstanding). With a purported budget of $200 (!), it's unlikely that this work passes any threshold for notability. Horologium (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I did find two reviews that would be considered reliable, with a third that is somewhat debatable. (The Horror Talk review is done by a site editor, which makes it somewhat usable but the site itself is still relatively iffy.) It has shown at a film festival five years after its initial release, which might make it pass part two of WP:NFILM, but I can't really find any independent mention of this screening. I see it mentioned on IMDb, but I can't really find anything else. That makes me wonder exactly how big or notable this film festival really is and whether or not the local (and usually non-notable) film festivals really count as far as this criteria goes. I would imagine not, but this isn't really clearly stated on the criteria on that page. However, as this would have to be proven by something other than IMDb, I'm voting a "weak delete" unless someone can bring up some more sources.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to weak keep. I found one more review by Shock Cinema Magazine. It's not exactly as mainstream as Rue Morgue or Fangoria, but it's fairly respected in the horror world. This pushes it to where I'd say it just barely squeaks by notability standards. I might find more, as I'm still digging and playing around with various combinations of words. There do seem to be sources out there, but they're pretty deeply buried.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep. I've been researching and have just come up with a list of sources (located in the talkpage). While many of them are probably not notable, and some may even be Wikipedia-mirrors (I haven't had a chance to go through them all just yet), many of them look promising. That, plus the info already in the article leads me to believe that the topic is notable.--Coin945 (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage in sources acceptable for extreme low-budget indie films films... DVD Talk [24] and Film Threat [25] We do not expect that low-budget indies would get the same level of covaerage as their big-budget, big studio cousins, just so long as they DO get coverage acceptable enough for what they are. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per significant coverage. LenaLeonard (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to Death of Nataline Sarkisyan. If there is a desire to rename or merge into Cigna please discuss on the article's talk page. J04n(talk page) 11:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nataline Sarkisyan

AfDs for this article:

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

This is not notable. There are no sources for the key information about this case. Pizzamancer (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice that there are a couple of dead links in the references, but have you checked the other 18 sources before you wrote that there are "no sources"? If not, what do you mean by "the key information"? --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically - When did the claim get denied? and what/who's insurance was she covered under? Kind of key details here.Pizzamancer (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those sound like article improvement issues, not arguments against notability. --Dweller (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. I've already discussed on the talk page why I don't see the young lady as notable. The case may be notable in the history of the company, but she was not notable as in individual. I believe WP:ONEEVENT applies here. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is a deletion argument. --Dweller (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's merit in citing ONEEVENT here, but the case seems to be notable in and of itself, so I don't think the article should be redirected (or deleted!), but rather renamed to a title that shows the article as a case, not a biography. --Dweller (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That suggestion was raised on the talk page. Again, I'd lean towards redirect to the company article and put it under the existing controversy section. Truthfully, I think the info will be found there (the Cigna article) more often than in a bio about her or about the case. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Beautiful girl, sad story but does not seem notable enough as it is. I am stuck between the above two users' ideas. I think it should be part of a general (or special) healthcare/insurance article or be presented as a "case" of shortcomings of the concerned system; but certainly not as an article on a personality. PBUH. --E4024 (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete However tragic, this is a punctual news item. WP:BIO1E Alfy32 (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a nationally televised issue and a very hot topic during the Medical Care reform and the Presidential campaigns of 2008 in the United States. Top news media outlets such as ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN (Youtube video), Fox News, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and many more. Famed politicians, human rights activists, and etc. such as Democratic Presidential nominee John Edwards talks about Nataline Sarkisyan during his campaign, film director and political activist Michael Moore has raised awareness on his website, and it was a hot topic during the Democratic Presidential campaign (you can read about it here). Google books alone yields 150+ results. Definitely notable and significant. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned at the article talk page, counting hits or saying "it's mentioned here" isn't helpful. The standard here is not if it has been covered. The standard for a bio is if the individual has had significant coverage hereself, normally for more than one event. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete　Wikipedia is not a tabloid.Pizzamancer (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're the nominator, you don't "vote" twice like this. BTW, your nomination is completely wrong in suggesting there are "no sources" for the key facts in the case. There are many sources, the article simply needs improvements.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I've seen some AfD's where people actually claimed that a nomination doesn't necessarily count as a delete !vote. Sounds silly to me, but it was actually asserted. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This doesn't have to do with the media and tabloids necessarily. This is concerning Medical Reform, a huge issue in America. This incident has been taken up by politicians and social activists voluntarily. This does not mean the issue was raised only for the sake of awareness. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a huge issue, but this article isn't about the issue. This article is about a single young woman. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You hit the nail on the head. The very reason this article should be deleted. The discussion about medical reform is under medical reform. There is one line about how her family spoke out about a senator, and that is as close to the discussion of medical reform as this article gets.Pizzamancer (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or redirect subject falls under WP:BLP1E, the event does not pass WP:PERSISTENCE. That being said the event can be seen as relating to multiple subjects, such as Health care in the United States or Cigna HealthCare.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve: I just did some quick and dirty work on this, but the article being discussed above me is an early 2008 BLP1E-ish article. Five years later, her case is still well-known and notable for being part of the impetus of health care reform in the United States. I've fixed the lede up a bit to start to make that point too. If we are hell bent on deletion on the current iteration, I will accept userification to me.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - outright deletion here is woefully incorrect, due to the sheer amount of news coverage, and the level of discussion about this case; I'm not sure if the article should be fully merged to Cigna#Ethics, renamed to Death of Nataline Sarkisyan, or kept as-is (the latter two pending further expansion, of course). I'd probably go for the middle option if pushed to make a choice. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
move to "death of Nataline Sarkisyan" Certainly a BLP1E, but also seems there are enough sources for an event article. Hobit (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample media coverage. If her death did help get a law passed on the national level about health care, then its certainly notable. Just rename it, as others have suggested, and its fine. Dream Focus 07:27, 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 00:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Carson

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

TucsonDavidU.S.A. 03:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No basis is stated for the nomination. In any event, Hunter Carson was a highly notable child actor for a couple of years: his performance in Paris, Texas was widely acclaimed, as described in "A 9-Year-Old Handful Named Hunter Carson Scores a Stunning Acting Debut in Paris, Texas", People, March 25, 1985. He followed that up with another well-publicized starring role in Invaders from Mars (see, for example, the syndicated LA Daily News article "Mother, Son Work Happily Together In Invaders From Mars"). His career since then has not been at the same level, but he passes both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR#1. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Speedy keep as nominator "fails to advance an argument for deletion", or keep on its merits. As well as major roles in the 2 films mentioned (suggesting WP:NACTOR), he got press coverage including that cited and one in Houston Chronicle (Dansby, Andrew (December 10, 2004). "Life on a well-traveled road; Love it or hate it, 'Paris, Texas' still is talked about". Houston Chronicle. p. STAR 1.) which discusses his filmmaking and his relationship to his father (WP:GNG). He also has his feature film directorial debut out this summer, which isn't yet in itself grounds for notability, but may be if it's a success. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as the nom has given zero rationale as to why they think this article should be deleted. Regular keep due to the sources found by Colapeninsula and Arxiloxos about demonstrating satisfying WP:BIO. --Oakshade (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. No rationale. Clearly notable per sources found above. Mcewan (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found and offered and per WP:NTEMP or Speedy Keep per merits and lack of deletion rationale. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets our notability criteria.Epeefleche (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to Darkhorse Theater. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GroundWorks Theatre

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

Seems to be an advert. Tagged for notability for 5 years. Boleyn (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, web sources all local (& not recent) or routine listings.TheLongTone (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move/merge/repurpose/redirect. I don't believe this particular organization is notable, but my online research leaves me thinking that the Darkhorse Theater, where Groundworks' productions are staged, is notable. An article about the Darkhorse Theater, incorporating information about the various performing arts groups that perform there, would be a reasonable place for some of the content on this page. Unfortunately, there isn't an article about Darkhorse, but there actually is an article about the owner, Peter Kurland. I'm proposing to move this page to Darkhorse Theater and build it out as an article about Darkhorse. --Orlady (talk) 21:59, 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 03:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move and repurpose as Orlady proposes, for the reasons she states. And if more evidence of separate notability for GroundWorks turns up later, a separate article could always be spun out again. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:17, 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. J04n(talk page) 12:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Bokun

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

I can't find a source that says this person was convicted of anything - fails WP:CRIME and I think WP:BASIC too. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A news search turned up nothing, but a plain Google search for the last month shows that he was sentenced last week, so I've amended the article.Dougweller (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the sentence, I can't find any discussion resulting from it or anything more than the brief mentions of his arrest last year. Dougweller (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:01, 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) 20:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: RS from NY Post[26] and Daily Mail [27]. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:25, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage seems to go all into WP:NOTNEWS category, also fails WP:CRIMINAL. Very problematic for a BLP.--Staberinde (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete if the only sources are the tabloids of the post and daily mail clearly fails as having the quality of reliable sources that are required for someone who's only potential claim is one of clearly falls under BLP requiring the highest quality of sources. Particularly since the sources only indicate allegations, no actual conviction. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRIMINAL....William 12:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The reliability of the sources found have not been succesfully defended. J04n(talk page) 11:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Habilian Association

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

Fails to meet WP:Notability. Nearly all sourcing is self-published from the Habilian Association and the rest comes from Iranian government-controlled media. No luck in finding any mentions in broader media or in neutral Iran-related books. Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remark This is no longer valid. There are tons of sources, and Iranian government controlled media counts as a media source, since they are the only media sources in Iran. How can an organization that is mentioned thousands of times by Iran supporting sites, and called a front by the two leading Iranian resistance groups be called non-notable? The usual reason for using non-notability is to hide persons or groups with terrorist associations in the shadows where they will not be subject to scrutiny. Mark Dankof and Kourush Ziabari were also removed for "non notability" despite being featured by Iranian and pro-Iranian media, which are certainly RS for these authors, even if their information is pure obvious Iranian propoganda straight out of the ministry of disinformation. The only obvious reason would be to try to hide their obvious associations with the Iran regime as the mainstream media so far has not noticed them, primarily pro-Israel bloggers have spotted them. Redhanker (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is notable precisely because it is supported primarily by Iranian government-controlled media and appears to be a part of a larger disinformation campaign, like Veterans Today which appears to be an outlet for Iranian media at least as part of its content. Web searching shows it is heavily referenced by pro-Iran pro-Palestine media outlets. All press in Iran is heavily government controlled, so its mention by Press TV and Fars news agencies makes it notable. Just because it hasn't been noted by western media doesn't mean nobody is noting it, and just because a media outlet is viewed by the west as pro-Iranian and anti-semtic and promoting conspiracy theories doesn't mean hundreds of websites amount to "nobody." There is a mountain of media and dis/information which is not noted by western media. Wikipedia covers a lot of media and individuals such as Veterans Today, Alex Jones and Jim Fetzer who spout pro-Iranian disinformation and anti-semitic conspiracy theories precisely because people object to them. That Iran is using this association to deflect blame from their own agents to allegedly western backed rebels is very notable because it obviously looks like an attempt at disinformation. People use WP as a resource to assess organizations such as the HA, and what their motive and objectives are. Redhanker (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you are describing is a clear violation of WP:No original research. If you are seeking to do original research, Wikipedia is not the right outlet. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied this from the talk section establishing anti-regime sources in addition to the large number of Iranian government and pro-IRanian media promoting the Habilian Association. If you object to the agenda of the Habilian Association, it would be better to incorporate these sources which claim that the HA is a front for Iranian intelligence agencies than to delete the article. Redhanker (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"More notable sources" per Redhanker

These are pro-resistance pieces in addition to the plethora of Iranian media and pro-Iranian websites and organizations that promote the Habilian Association such as GlobalResearch which for some reason don't count towards the notability of an organization. Redhanker (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Policy Committee: Iran intelligence agencies use the Habilian Association to accuse MEK of Iran-sponsored terrorism against American in Iraq, and Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) sends Habilian members to pose as disaffected former members of the MEK. 5 December 2010 Public Data to Complement Classified Intelligence—Assessing the Credibility of Sources about Alleged Terrorist Activities of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK)/People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) Raymond Tanter, President Iran Policy Committee (IPC)

The Iranian regime used its so-called “Habilian Society ,” which is supposedly dedicated to families of martyrs of alleged terrorism practiced by the MEK. Tehran’s goal is to misconstrue the Court’s discussion about Karbala as declassified news from the State Department and as evidence the MEK is involved in terrorist activities and has the capability and intention to commit terrorist acts. 35 36 The regime’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) sends members of the Habilian to European countries posing as disaffected former members of the MEK who are now working within a nongovernmental organization, the Habilian Society. The aim is to contact European parliamentarians and other officials to tarnish the image of the MEK.

Raymond Tanter calls the HS a " regime-sponsored group posing as a human-rights organization" which carries false Iranian stories blaming MeK involvement in attacks in which evidence points to Iranian sponsored terrorism Tehran's Anti-MeK Propaganda Machine Raymond Tanter

The MOIS also targets the American intelligence community. The ministry plants false stories in the media; then they are used by U.S. intelligence to justify a false narrative against the MeK. On September 12, 2007, the Mehr News Agency, a MOIS news outlet, announced that before one of the bombings in Karbala, closed-circuit cameras around the Imam Hossein shrine caught a woman and a youngster gathering information from various entrances of the shrine: “After their arrest, it became clear that they had been sent by the Mojahedin Khalq Organization [MeK] to locate ways to sneak into the shrine for terrorist operations, ”states Mehr. Iran’s Habilian Society, a regime-sponsored group posing as a human-rights organization, published a U.S. Federal Appeals Court’s description of declassified American documents. One carried Iranian stories alleging MeK involvement in Karbala.

[http://ncr-iran.org/en/news/iran-resistance/5686-edalat-associationa-front-organization-for-the-mullahs-ministry-of-intelligence-part-one The National Council of Resistance of Iran] states "In reality Habilian is the Office of Legal Mobilization against the PMOI (MEK) at the MOIS intelligence agency.”

The public face of this legal section (of the MOIS) was a so-called NGO entitled Habilian. Its members are claimed to be the children of those who the regime alleges were killed during the 1980’s confrontations with the PMOI. In reality, Habilian is the “Office of Legal Mobilization against the [MeK] PMOI at the MOIS.”

Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of IRan http://ncr-iran.org/en/news/iran-resistance/5686-edalat-associationa-front-organization-for-the-mullahs-ministry-of-intelligence-part-one

According to siteglimpse http://www.siteglimpse.com/irandidban.com habilian.com is linked to iran-interlink and negaheno.net which are fronts for Iranian intelligence:

irandidban.com links to

 iran-interlink.org
 habilian.com
 negaheno.net - iranian website

Professor Daniel M. Zucker in 2007 identifies iran-interlink and negaheno as run by Iranian intelligence: September 3, 2007 Source: Global Politician By: Professor Daniel M. Zucker - 9/3/2007 Disinformation Campaign in Overdrive: Iran’s VEVAK in High-Gear

The materials disseminated on the Iran-Interlink site are all produced by VEVAK in Tehran.[xx] Iran-Interlink.org[xxi] is probably the most sophisticated of the regime's anti-resistance websites. Other sites include several that are disguised to look like resistance sites, such as www.mojahedin.ws[xxii], www.hambastegimeli.net[xxiii], www.iran-aawa.com[xxv], or neutral as www.perseetavenir.com[xxvi] and www.iranpeyvand.com, and those that clearly are anti-resistance, such as www.irandidban.com, www.theblackfile.com, www.pars-iran.com, www.nejatngo.org, and www.negaheno.net. Anyone associated with these websites should be considered a VEVAK agent or loyal supporter of the IRI regime.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NGO: "Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." As far as I can tell, the only reliable source on this subject is a trivial mention in The National Interest which states that it is a fake human rights organization.[28] The article cites self-published primary sources and the state-controlled Iranian press which, in my opinion, does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Perhaps others will disagree. Location (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

remark PressTV and Fars are absolutely reliable sources on the government's obvious propoganda and cover story that it is a victims organization. Similarly, anti-regime sources are reliable sources on their position that is an intelligence front. Deleting obviously notable subjects is a common tactic to keep intelligence disinformation operations and groups/individuals with ties to terrorist or terrorist states out of the light is a common tactic. Just because PressTV, Fars and Mehr and Veterans Today put out obviously unreliable information does not make them un-notable, or an unreliable source on their stated intentions. Otherwise, you would not be able to use official government news sources such as Tass, Pravda, or even pro-west outlets like Fox or CIA publicaions. Neutral Point of View means presenting both views (Iran says it is victim NGO, anti-regime says it is intelligence front), not removing both views. Redhanker (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Did you really just indicate that the nomination of this article is a "tactic to keep intelligence disinformation operations and groups/individuals with ties to terrorist or terrorist states out of the light"? Are you suggesting that the nominator is some sort of Iranian operative sent to remove information from Wikipedia? Are you nuts?! Location (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not fair to judge an organization as being used by Iranian Intelligence agencies only because it is referenced by pro Iran Media outlets such as FNA and also due to reports mostly coming from the Mujahedin e Khalq Organization(MEK) and its American friends such as Iran Policy Committee (IPC). Well, the HA claims to be the representative of Iranian terror victims' families and it also claims those victims are assassinated by the MEK. So it is all clear why the Mujahedin e khalq is mutually accusing the Habilian Association of being run by the Iranian Intelligence services.Sinapoor (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC) — Sinapoor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 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, MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question. So let's put aside the sources that are definitely or arguably propagandistic/fictional/tendentious. What reliable sources are there? I notice some promising footnotes, but when I click on them and look, they either mention this organization only fleetingly or don't mention it at all. However, I haven't clicked on all of them. -- Hoary (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The blurb in The National Interest is all I have found: "Iran’s Habilian Society, a regime-sponsored group posing as a human-rights organization, published a U.S. Federal Appeals Court’s description of declassified American documents. One carried Iranian stories alleging MeK involvement in Karbala. Several state-run media reproduced the report." [29] I also found very brief mentions in two articles linked to the National Council of Resistance of Iran (i.e. [30], [31]), but neutrality concerns have me wondering if that could be considered a reliable source. Other than the primary source material, all other sources I have found are linked with Iran's state-controlled media. Location (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The National Interest articles though is an opinion piece, and by WP:NEWSORG, doesn't really fulfill WP:RS. Additionally, Raymond Tanter is a member of the Iran Policy Committee, which seeks to elevate the MEK as the primary opposition to the regime, which makes this source even more questionable. Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know that. Thanks! Location (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was mentioned at WP:RSN, and I'll cross-post what I wrote there. There's no coverage at all of this organisation in the New York Times, BBC News or academic papers available via Google Scholar or my university's online multi-journal search. The university search engine also provides coverage of news archives, and only news sources which report this organisation's claims are the Iranian Fars news agency and the "Asia News Monitor" which appears to be an aggregation source (it may be repeating the Fars articles). A single BBC monitoring service report describes the association as "an organization formed to launch a campaign against the presence of the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization MKO - in Iraq" in parentheses as part of a summary of an Iranian news report. As such, I don't think that WP:ORG is met. Nick-D (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not because it's not notable, or because it's not really what it claims to be, or because it's nefarious (one or more of which might be true), but simply because virtually nothing yet said about it (one way or another) has a reliable source, even after a protracted AfD debate. If there's much reliably sourced information later, an article can then be created. -- Hoary (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move Habilian association may be largely ignored by western mainstream press, but it is a big issue for the Iranian government and resistance groups. Perhaps this should be moved to the People's Mujahedin of Iran article. Here is a list of western and official Iranian government news agencies and other widely published authors that have made note of the Habilian Association, with details in the collapsed section below. Even conspiracy theories get coverage in Wikipedia, but not a major Iranian NGO promoted heavily by every Iranian news outlet, and every Iranian-allied news outlet?

National Council of Resistance of IRan, Iran Policy Committee, stopfundamentalism.com, accessmylibrary.com, BBC CNN, Federation of American Scientists, Islamic Republic News Agency, Mehr News Agency, Veterans Today Mark Dankof, UglyTruthPodcast, Fars News Agency, Tehran Times, wikileaks, Kourosh Ziabari, Franklin Lamb, Stephen Lendman, iran-interlink.org, Irandidban, uprootedpalestinian, OpedNews, terror-victims.com, irannewpearlharbor, themadjewess.com, shoah.org.uk Redhanker (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remark This is ridiculous. The organization is reported by an OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY and news outlets of MULTIPLE Iranian resistance organizations. The only reason editors are calling it non-notable is because they are ignoring BBC and CNN, even though PRESSTV is the Iranian equivalent to CNN. The Iranian media calls CNN and NYT a western disinformation outlet, does that mean they can't be used as RS? PressTV is certainly RS for the existence of the organization as well as its contributors. This is not NPOV which is neutral point of view. It is ironic that supporters of Iran do not allow the use of any Iranian government agencies or media to establish notability or RS for notability. Press TV is independent of Habilian even if both are controlled by the same Iranian government and disinformation department. Look at the list of sources above again. Habilian is used as the main source of charges that the MEK is a terrorist organization by the Iranian government. You can't say that because the Iranian government and Press TV promote unreliable conspiracy theories and propoganda that it is not notable. Nazi Germany and even Obama and Bush are said to promote unbelievable propoganda, but you can't say that they are not notable. iran-interlink.org and Irandidban are both operated by the Iranian government. Redhanker (talk)

"More notable sources" per Redhanker

Remark This is ridiculous. The organization is reported by an OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY and news outlets of MULTIPLE Iranian resistance organizations. The only reason editors are calling it non-notable is because they are ignoring BBC and CNN, even though PRESSTV is the Iranian equivalent to CNN. The Iranian media calls CNN and NYT a western disinformation outlet, does that mean they can't be used as RS? PressTV is certainly RS for the existence of the organization as well as its contributors. This is not NPOV which is neutral point of view. It is ironic that supporters of Iran do not allow the use of any Iranian government agencies or media to establish notability or RS for notability. Press TV is independent of Habilian even if both are controlled by the same Iranian government and disinformation department. Look at the list of sources above again. Habilian is used as the main source of charges that the MEK is a terrorist organization by the Iranian government. You can't say that because the Iranian government and Press TV promote unreliable conspiracy theories and propoganda that it is not notable. Nazi Germany and even Obama and Bush are said to promote unbelievable propoganda, but you can't say that they are not notable. iran-interlink.org and Irandidban are both operated by the Iranian government. For an organization that is not notable, it is being noted by a lot of important Iranian government news agencies and a lot of websites. Redhanker (talk)

Iran resistance groups

National Council of Resistance of IRan Foreign Affairs Committee of the
Iran Policy Committee (IPC) http://www.iranpolicy.org/uploadedFiles/5DEC10_Public_Data_to_Complement_Classified_Intelligence_with_tables.pdf 5 December 2010 Public Data to Complement Classified Intelligence—Assessing the Credibility of Sources about Alleged Terrorist Activities of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK)/People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) Raymond Tanter, President Iran Policy Committee (IPC)
stopfundamentalism.com Why does Iran Ache For Camp Ashraf Destruction? * › News › IraqShareApr 19, 2011 – In a letter to Nuri al-Maliki by an Iranian Habilian Association, Fars News Agency on 9 April 2011, described the attack as, “A brave action that ...

Mainstream media and organizations

[BBC] considers IRNA a reliable government international report: Delisting MKO from terror list part of US "Iran campaign" - NGO chief. BBC Monitoring International Reports Text of report in English by Iranian official government news agency IRNA website Secretary-General of the Habilian Association (families of Iranian terror victims) Mohammad Javad Hasheminezhad said on Tuesday [30 October] that the US decision to delist Mojahedin Khalq Organization from the global terrorists is in line with Washington's Iran campaign.
CNN [http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-698021 .. out by a Ministry of Intelligence (MOIS) branch called the Habilian Association, led by a known Iranian regime henchmen ...
Federation of American Scientists [www.fas.org/irp/world/iran/mois-loc.pdf Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security: A Profile ]

Official Iranian News Agencies and affliated, with links to agencies with wikipedia articles

[IRNA]
Mehr News Agency www.irandidban.com/master-e.asp?ID=13687ShareIn an interview with Mehr News in Mashhad, Habilian Association's Executive Director, Mohammed Sanavi said: "The convention was mainly aimed at ...
Mark Dankof ugly truth broadcast PressTV contributor
Veterans Today The menacing plots of MKO terrorists for Iran. VT is another outlet for Iran's news agencies
PressTV - Two MKO battalions fuelling unrest in Syria: Report Director of the Habilian Association Seyyed Mohammad Javad Hasheminejad told Fars News Agency on Sunday th
Mark Dankof's Conversation with Iran's Habilian Association: Latest ...
Fars News Agency: Victims of Terrorism Blast MKO Leader's ...
Tehran Times www.tehrantimes.com TEHRAN – Interpol has issued arrest warrants for 12 leaders of the terrorist Mojahedin Khalq Organization, the Habilian Association website ..
wikileaks http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/815300_irn-iran-middle-east-.html Right Group Urges Expulsion of MKO Members from IraqTEHRAN (FNA)-
Kourosh Ziabari (deleted as "not notable") Evidently spokesman for Ahmadinejad regime (PressTV, Veterans Today Iran) - The menacing plots of Mujahedin-e Khalq ...
Franklin Lamb (deleted as "not notable") Hezbollah spokesman, PressTV and counterpunch contributor The Menacing Plots of the MKO
Stephen Lendman (Veterans Today, PressTV contributor deleted and prevented from creation as not notable) evidently pro-Iran, Press TV reported that the Habilian Association human rights ...
iran-interlink.org (MOIS)
Irandidban site| (MOIS) Habilian S.G.: MKO members forced to start relocation

Note the pattern of deletion of people who are major contributors to Iranian (PressTV), Russian (RussiaToday) or pro-Iranian news agencies as "not notable"

pro-Iranian news sites with wikipedia articles

www.counterpunch.org The Menacing Plots of the MKO

pro-Iranian news sites already being used as RS references in Wikipedia or with articles

Israel–Pakistan relations References: http://uprootedpalestinians. blogspot. com/2012/08/pakistani-pilots-who-shot-down-10. html . http://www. paf. gov. pk/air_warriors. Press TV reported that the Habilian Association human rights
OpedNews Press TV reported that the Habilian Association human rights group said: "We have conclusive proof and documents showing that the MKO (Mujahedlin-e Organization) has a strong and significant presence in Syria."

pro-Iranian news sites that appear to be controlled by Iranian department of disinformation of MOIS

terror-victims.com
/almasakinnewsagency.wordpress.com
irannewpearlharbour.wordpress.com/.../mark-dankofs-convers...Mar 3, 2012 – The Iran-based Habilian Association renews its conversation with American populist Right commentatorMark Dankof on the ...

english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9107125214Dec 8, 2012 – The Habilian Association, a human rights group formed of the families of 17,000 Iranian terror victims, sent a letter of protest to the French ...

themadjewess.com/.../obama-starts-war-with-syria-china-russia...ShareJun 11, 2012 – Director of the Habilian Association Seyyed Mohammad Javad Hasheminejad told Fars News Agency on Sunday that MKO terrorists, grouped ..
SHOAH
www.iran-si.com/vdccaxqs82bqe.y-2.htmlBy Habilian Association. MEK conducting special ops inside Syria. nejatngo.org, August 09 2012. Story Code: 160. While the anti-Assad rebels in Syria are

How in the world can an organization get so much coverage on the internet by pro-IRan and anti-regime groups and be considered non-notable by WP???? How can any organization supported by the Iranian government and Iranian media and pro-Iranian media not be considered RS for the existence of an organization that is thought to be a clandestine operation of the Iranian government? Redhanker (talk) 12:48, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Anne Barber Dunlap

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

Can't see anything significant about this event, references heavily rely on 2 or 3 newspapers mostly. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Appears to have only local significance. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:VICTIM and WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. I've relisted this AFD as the primary author claims he was away for the New Year's holiday and that seems like a fair reason to give him a chance to say his peace. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep The federal.court ruling may make this local case a nationally relevant case because of the reasoning used. Is the Pillsbury ad policy really true? Bamler2 (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please see here: http://adage.com/article/news/pillsbury-evaluates-ads-viloent-shows-executive-s-murder-trigger-marketer-reaction/80561/ Bundlesofsticks (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That link appears to indicate that they were considering it but doesn't confirm that policy was changed in any lasting way. In fact, it even says, "A company spokesman denied formal policy changes are underway". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS and NOTMEMORIAL. My condolences to the family and friends of the victim. Carrite (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The case has national significance as it led Pillsbury Co. to stop advertising on violent TV programs; it was the first case in which the relatives of a missing person used the Internet to ferret out leads. A decision in this case by the US District Court led police departments to revise how they share case files with outside investigators (in this case those of an insurance company.) The case involved a world landmark, Mall of America. Other voters' reference of WP:NOTNEWS is not relevant since this murder is 17 years old. I will remove some of the bits in the article that make it seem like a memorial page. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite....William 12:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.--Staberinde (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. While very sad, it doesn't appear this case had much lasting impact aside from arguably influencing Pillsbury TV ad policies. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This case always attracts attention when it is mentioned on the news. It is a good thing that there is a WP article to consolidate the events and things that happened later. I have no doubt this case would be national news if charges are ever filed. Bellczar (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of youth orchestras in the United States . Without prejudice to something done at Music of North Carolina. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Piedmont Youth Orchestra

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

tagged for notability for 5 years and unref; I couldn't verify notability Boleyn (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. I'm finding some limited mentions in newspapers in NC but only in calendar type entries RadioFan (talk) 01:09, 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, Courcelles 01:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to List of youth orchestras in the United States This article has two unreferenced BLPs, so the edit history should be deleted. When the encyclopedia is finished, this topic might be covered in an article entitled Music Arts in Chapel Hill. Right now, the only place to target the redirect is List of youth orchestras in the United States. Unscintillating (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I saw this and thought Orchestra Sinfonica Giovanile del Piemonte www.orchestragiovanile.it, then I see it's North Carolina.... I have added 2 sources and deleted the 2x BLP sections (but that doesn't help with edit history). After that it doesn't seem much worse than anything else in Category:Youth organizations based in North Carolina‎ or indeed anything bluelinked in List of youth orchestras in the United States. Before Music Arts in Chapel Hill, what about Arts in North Carolina? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer a merge to Music of North Carolina - that article lacks any information on community music and youth orchestras, and this article (ruthlessly compressed) would become a useful short paragraph there. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a laudable idea (and good research finding the article), but can it wait until the edit history is deleted? P.S. What I meant is not to merge, but to rewrite any new material from scratch so as to avoid WP:MAD. Unscintillating (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I posted the sources and categories in the current article, minus a youtube link, on the talk page here, WT:Articles for deletion/Piedmont Youth Orchestra. Unscintillating (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why was this relisted, what resolution is the relister seeking? Unscintillating (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have loved for someone to assess the sources you listed> I see RadioFan has, but I was hoping for more discussion. I see that is unlikely, so I'll close now. MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No clear rationale for deletion has been given. J04n(talk page) 11:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob Kullberg

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 16 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 16. Snotbot t • c » 16:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if he's notable or not (most sources are in Scandinavian languages) but if not, it might be a good idea to merge this to the page on his long-time collaborator the composer Per Nørgård. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:28, 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 02:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Several reliable sources have been added since the article was nominated. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For the time being, information about him could be included in the article on Per Nørgård. In due course, he may well merit an article of his own but, it seems, he has some way to go yet.--Zananiri (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michael Bednarek. It's not just Per Nørgård, Simon Holt has written pieces for him too. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (a bold non-admin closure)

Initial concerns over a lack of reliable sources were legitimate against WP:NFILM but after a few editors provided sources, and a subsequent relisting, the consensus was stable following the point in which the sources were found. Mkdw ^talk 00:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Apa Dengan Rina

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

No evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick google search reveals no reliable sources, or anything showing notability. Mdann52 (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NF. Brunei Times has a substantive article telling us that this is "Brunei's very first full-length movie to be shown in cinemas" Per WP:NF, THAT "first" is a decent assertion of notability. With Pelita Brunei, (Malay language) also writing about the film, we now have (so far) two sources in the article discussing the film and verifying that assertion. As it is due to debut on February 17, it serves the project that we cover this first-ever feature film... even if it is only notable in and to Brunei and in the Malay language. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Schmidt! Excellent rationale! --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:26, 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, MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per schmidt. LenaLeonard (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Schmidt's argument seems sufficient to me, but to add another argument: Another article at the Borneo Post [32] appears to be independent, and thus WP:GNG appears satisfied as well. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:28, 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} 02:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Saint

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

Does not appear to meet notability requirements of WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG as it is a single released by a minor artist which has not attracted any substantial mainstream press coverage. Both this article and Vato Gonzalez's main article are referenced mostly to chart websites and self-published sites such as youtube. Baldy Bill (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You may need to re-acquaint yourself with NMUSIC - Meets Criteria 2, on 3 separate charts, no less. Also, chart websites are considered reliable secondary sources. The Steve 06:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies TheSteve, I should have written WP:NALBUMS not NMUSIC. The article for deletion is about a single that doesn't appear to have any of its own notability, and single/album notability is not inherited from the singer. I was definitely not proposing deletion of the singer, he meets notability criteria having made multiple chart entries. Baldy Bill (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - Its not an album, its a single, and it reached number 1 on the UK Indie Charts. That's enough, although I wouldn't really have an objection to merging it somewhere. Has he made an album yet? The Steve 07:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I didn't want to cause any grief for anyone, and I have nothing against the artist or his work. I am aware that it is a single (as above "the article for deletion is about a single") and the guidance under WP:NSONG states that the song may be notable if it enters on a recognised chart, not that it is notable. I was flagging it for discussion as the main guideline just above under WP:NALBUMS is "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." All the references offered are: 1) youtube of the song's video; 2-4) just a list entry on a chart website (hardly significant coverage) and 5) a basic listing for download on iTunes with user-published comments. If the community consensus is that the song is notable, for example a full review of it in a published music mag is found, then I am more than happy to go with that. Tens of thousands of songs have appeared in the UK charts but not each one is notable for a standalone article; so I would support your proposal of a merge (and redirect) into Vato_Gonzalez#2010-present:_Badman_Riddim. Baldy Bill (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because of its chart performance it meets WP:NSONG, if it was a track from an album or even from a single performer I might agree to a redirect but since there is no obvious target would certainly keep. J04n(talk page) 15:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Charting at #1 on a chart listed at WP:CHARTS is a fairly notable achievement and would seem to meet WP:NSONG (even though chart placement is under discussion). Mkdw ^talk 00:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mashup (web application hybrid) . MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mashup (digital)

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

Despite the supposed references, this article is unreferenced, and it reads like a personal account and original research. RNealK (talk) 00:57, 16 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 16. Snotbot t • c » 01:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like original research and duplication of several existing topics. The article does not seem adequately supported by its references. - Mr X 02:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG - coverage by Berman et al. and IBM's study establish the term "digital mashup" as its usual meaning of a combination of third-party content. This use was widespread for a while at magazines and design websites. The article could be in better shape, but AfD is not for cleanup Screw that, merge as a section of Mashup (web application hybrid) that better covers the main concept. There may be a secondary topic meaning any digital mixture of content, but it can be kept with better context there per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Diego (talk) 23:29, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:05, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:51, 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. J04n(talk page) 12:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vakhtang Kvaratskelia

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

Article was PROD'ed two years ago on the basis that it need translation. While this has been addressed, Mr. Kvaratskelia has not played in a fully pro league or for the Georgian national team, and he has not received significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was struggling to vote delete but, although he seems to have a somewhat established career, he has not had a proper coverage to warrant a standalone article. — ṘΛΧΣ²¹ 02:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Innovative Language Learning

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

While one of their podcasts, Japanesepod101, is notable, this company doesn't seem to pass WP:CORP. The only discussion I can see in the article's references is of Japanesepod101, not about the company itself, and the company doesn't automatically inherit notability from the product. I didn't find any other sources online. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is a related deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanishpod101. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Company is not notable enough to have its own article within WP. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I disagree with you or anything, but you should probably have a look at WP:ITSNOTABLE, as arguments like the above aren't usually given too much weight by the closing admin. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, lemme rephrase it, I put the right argumentation under Englishpod101 (or whatsoever) - Delete - This company and its roost of softwares are not notable, with the sole exception of the Japanesepod101, there are few reviews from few unreliable or self-published sources, only mentions or whatsoever. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The websites this company controls may be notable by themselves, but notability is not inherited upwards or downwards. Only musical artists receive notability because of their singles or albums, as well as several other few things. The rest, and specially organizations, have to meet, by themselves, the notability guideline by being covered on a non-trivial fashion by third party independent sources, and I am not seeing that to be successfully met in this case. — ṘΛΧΣ²¹ 02:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not received enough coverage in reliable sources. Creating a notable product is not necessarily a claim to notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gay Chicago Magazine. MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grabby recipients

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

The Grabby Awards article was recently deleted - do we still need this list? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G8, essentially a subpage of the deleted awards page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G8. — ṘΛΧΣ²¹ 05:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't believe it qualified for a speedy. The "parent" page was deleted as a copyvio, not over issues related to the subject itself (eg, no claim that the subject was not notable). The "subpage" was not part of that copyvio (see the original copyvio at [33]. I'd be happy if this article were deleted over notability issues after community discussion -- but this wasn't really a subpage to begin with, but independent text, and deletion without considering the notability issues is also likely to spawn problems as the articles on individual recipients are reviewed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC) [copied from user talk:RHaworth][reply]
Comment I couldn't find anything on Google News for "Adult Erotic Gay Video Awards", and nothing of substance on "Grabby Awards", just a couple name-drops. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, but... the "Find sources" assigned by this AFD's template is quite unhelpful. In looking, I see that the "Grabby Awards" are not entirely unsourcable,[34][35] and an article that is NOT a G4 or copyvio is perhaps possible. IF and or when a new and properly constructed and sourced article is offered on THAT topic, this would then be a reasonable spinout list article, and THIS would then not be a G8 and merit an undeletion if sought. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gay Chicago Magazine. This article began as a subpage of List of gay pornography awards, not the copyvio page that was recently deleted, so it shouldn't be speedied or otherwise deleted because of assumed connections to that page. However, the awards really have no notability independent of the notable magazine that gave them for many years. On the scale of porn awards, these seem to fall below Urban X (award notable, but does not support notability for recipients) and above Nightmoves (neither award nor awarding magazine notable). A clear consensus on this point would be useful, since there are a lot of dubious articles out there with claimed notability only from these awards. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Delete without prejudice to a redirect to an article on checkemlads.com MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philly Morris

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

Notability has not been established. Possibly an autobiography. -- Patchy1 21:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I would be much happier if we had an article on the charity that he has set up. At present it all looks NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 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, Courcelles 01:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but start an article for checkemlads.com - He has a personal website, phillymorris.com, but it seems to mainly promote checkemlads.com. I didn't find anything useful for being the drummer of the Duncan Ross band or Deltarest (the article is vague on the time). I mainly found minor mentions for Morris himself, a Google news search provided a relevant result here. Another search with only "checkemlads" provided some more results here (brief, checkemlads received support from footballer Theo Walcott), here (briefly mentions him and the charity after a boxing match with Paul Smith) and here (charity fundraiser including support from Warwick University students), here and here (briefly talks about them but they partnered with a British soldier/cancer survivor), here and here (received support from footballer John Harston), here (in which Morris posed nude in a Cosmopolitan issue) and here (brief mention, not enough for notability). One of the results was also this, a detailed BBC News article with history about how and why he started the charity and that he received support from The Style Council, with a The Style Council article here relevant to checkemlads.com). Another result here which also mentions the charity received support from John Hartson and the Wales national football team and that they are the "largest independent testicular cancer awareness registered charity in Europe" and formed the John Hartson Foundation, BBC News and The Telegraph also briefly talk about checkemlads here and here (much of the same information though). I also found this which says he spoke with musician Paul Weller about cancer awareness. I think the charity may be notable with support from athletes and coverage, although local, through sources such as BBC News and The Telegraph. If other users agree, I can start an article for checkemlads and perhaps we can redirect Philly Morris to it. SwisterTwister talk 02:24, 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, KTC (talk) 00:04, 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. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 00:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endeavour Programme

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep #1 and #2 no argument for deletion and deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. The reason for nomination is that I have not been able to establish notability and neither has anyone else over the last 5 years. Boleyn (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stale notability tags do not explain 350 consecutive "delete" !votes in three days. Editors on your talk page have explained that your AfD selections have been indiscriminate. In response to the previous comment, how do you know that no one has established notability over the past five years? (You don't know.) Regarding the procedure that you used to determine that there was a problem with notability, how can other editors reproduce your results if you don't explain how you arrived at the conclusion? What are the alternatives to deletion for a non-notable topic sourced with reliable primary sources? This article is an example of an article for which even if non-notability is established, there is reliable material and it is unlikely that there is a theoretical case for deletion. Your AfDs have succeeded in attracting editors to some of the discussions. These editors nullify my speedy keep !votes far more than your reply. On the other hand, if more editors request a procedural close, such AfDs should be closed promptly. Speedy keeps are generally closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination, and one of the purposes of such a closure is to allow the nominator a chance to properly prepare or improve the deletion argument. Leaving such AfDs open for any longer than necessary poses a risk that subsequent editors will invest time in a substandard discussion that could already have been closed for improvement. Unscintillating (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I realise I made a mistake in giving my nomination here, and implied that I was nominating it simply because it has been tagged for notability for 5 years, which was not what I meant. It is unreferenced (except link to its own website). Google search turned up several results, but most were not for this particular programme but for other programmes called Endeavour, and the only one I found about this was its own page, which is worded extremely closely to this article. Boleyn (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep [36], [37], [38], [39] probably get this into the range of WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this programme actually is called Endeavour Awards which explains, at least in part, the difficulty in finding sources. This seems to be an important programme and the available sources, when added, would be sufficient to establish notability. TerriersFan (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and move to Endeavour Awards). Notability, without even looking hard: Indian newspaper, Jakarta Post, Australian Prime Minister, Canadian Embassy, Laos Embassy, International NGO funding alert website, 'Study in Australia' portal for international students, Melbourne University (also just about every other Australian university). Sportygeek (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Merging or redirecting can be WP:BOLDly done through the usual channels if desired. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform Distribution and Accreditation Centre

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

What could be less notable than a warehouse with changing rooms? — Kpalion^(talk) 23:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:GEOFEAT. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of GEOFEAT exactly? The article doesn't say anything about the building's "historic, social, economic, or architectural importance", let alone about it being "officially assigned the status of cultural or national heritage". What it does says is that it will soon be demolished to make room for something else. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have thought that being part of the Olympics was socio-economic enough to fulfill that, regardless it does fulfill WP:GNG as well. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's next? Are Olympic portable toilets notable too? — Kpalion^(talk) 10:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there are sufficiant reliable sources to make Olympic portable toilets notable. The UDAC does have sufficiant reliable sources. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Merge it somewhere. It was clearly significant in the organisation of the Olympics and Paralympics, but a NN warehouse before that, and is now expectd to be demolished. It is worth a short paragraph in something relating to LOCOG. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 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, Courcelles 00:50, 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, KTC (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Venues of the 2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympics#Transport and infrastructure, since it's already mentioned there. This should technically fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. I can understand there being articles on competition venues, but this is basically a staff room whose sole claim to notability is its use during the Olympics. Only the BBC source [40] covers the venue in any depth, the rest are either incidental or press releases . Funny ^Pika! 04:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AFD has been running since 16 January and since no two comments come to the same conclusion. I'd say that 20+ days is sufficient time. I move that this be closed as No Consensus. The C of E God save The Queen! (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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