Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 July	25 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Hardy (professional boxer)

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

Article is about a boxer with 1 professional fight and an amateur record with slightly more wins than losses. Not close to meeting WP:NBOX and lacks significant non-routine coverage. Probably could have been speedied, but I thought I'd bring it here.Mdtemp (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I see nothing that shows notability. He obviously fails to meet WP:NBOX and I don't see the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Concerns about conflict-of-interest editing are best handled at WP:COIN Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robb_Alvey

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

Robb Alvey isn't a notable figure. He created his own Wikipedia page. He edits it himself, as does others he knows from his website. Robb Alvey does not deserve to be on the website as he does not fit the criteria for a Wikipedia page. Please delete his page immediately. Knea2006 (talk) 23:27, 24 July 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 July 24. Snotbot t • c » 23:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has been the subject of at least two articles ([1], [2]), don't see any additional reasons to delete. CitiCat^♫ 04:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:BASIC. Source examples: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources show that the article meets the notability guidelines. The fact that he edits the article himself is also not a sufficient rational to delete the article. Finally, what has changed since the last AFDM, December of last year, where there was a consensus was reached that he was notable.--174.93.163.70 (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus was reached in the December 2012 discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrightwood Neighbors, Chicago

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

No assertion of nobility, no references, no profile on Google that isn't connected to this article. There is a community group with a similar name; their website states that they are located in the Lincoln Park neighborhood. Fitnr (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:N. Monterey Bay (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in the article to show the subject is of any interest to anyone beyond those directly involved with it. CitiCat^♫ 04:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I am not really seeing WP:RS supporting this neighborhood. Most importantly the Encyclopedia of Chicago does not include it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes Colon

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

Surely entirely non notable? Fiddle Faddle 22:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - starred in very minor roles and/or non-notable productions. I can't see anything online to convince me otherwise. Sionk (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Medium-sized roles in a couple of bad, but widely seen movies don't appear to have gotten her any press coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. When reviews come out for her newer films or TV shows, then we can re-create the article. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Maxey

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

Serious notability issues. Article makes no assertion of importance or significance of the subject and aside from one newspaper articles, all other sources come from websites of companies he is involved in. Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:N and WP:RS. Monterey Bay (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't get why this article was even written. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice towards speedy recreation if he plays in the NFL. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Braun (American football)

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

Prematurely created article about an undrafted free agent offensive lineman who was waived after only six days. Has not played at the professional level, therefore fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Armchair QB (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for now per WP:NGRIDIRON. Quite possible he'll be back some day. CitiCat^♫ 04:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with Citicat. I'm not finding really any coverage of the individual at this time. That is quite common for a college offensive linemen, who usually do not meet the threshold of Notability. However, playing professionally in the NFL during the regular season is widely accepted to meet that level. The catch is there are a large number of "free agents" during the NFL preseason that won't play professionally and don't have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. I believe this is one of those cases. Would agree to userfy if someone wants to take custody for now and find out if he becomes a professional athlete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Y not? 04:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kids-R

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

Non-notable film. Not-yet-released, no reliable sources. Deprodded and detagged by article creator (which is okay by policy), who appears (based on username and claims on article's image-file description) to be the writer of the film itself. COI was one of the tags removed and history of his userpage suggests he's mainly here to promote it (which is not okay). DMacks (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:DMacks, with all due respect I doubt you are an acknowledged film critic and that you have the right to judge. On top of that, claiming that this is a non-notable film is simply disrespectful and rude.

Regarding broken links - thank you very much for the note, you were right.

Regarding "no reliable sources" - I would dare to assume that IMDB, ABC News, etc. are the reliable sources indeed.

Regarding your quote "COI was one of the tags removed and history of his userpage suggests he's mainly here to promote it (which is not okay)" - you are wrong, this wikipedia article was created purely with informative goal. Also, history of my userpage does NOT suggest anything, unless an imagination is involved.

All in all, based on User:DMacks notes, I might assume that User:DMacks has personal pre-justice towards either the movie itself or its topic. I would like to ask Wikipedia community to protect this article from personal attacks by User:DMacks and I would be happy to see any criticism or suggestions from any Wikipedia contributor who didn't interact and has no connections with User:DMacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelDudko (talk • contribs) 18:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch the hositlity, MichaelDudko. Let's keep it civil. That being said, if it was mentioned by ABC News, I can't find it, and the movie isn't mentioned in any of the references on the article. IMDb is not a valid source because it's editable by anyone with a membership. Due to that, I vote for Delete. That being said, if there's more information out there, I'll happily change my vote. Grande (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Grande for your honest feedback. I would like to note though that Wikipedia is also editable by anyone, IMDB though has a commission (that works full time for a salary) that can disapprove and reject anything and anyone. But once again, thank you for your explanation. Also, I would be happy to share with you Grande a password protected link so you could watch the trailer - I'm sure it will help you to change your mind, as this project advocates for fundamental human rights and it might explain why such outstanding and huge people are involved with this project. Would you like to take a look at the video? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelDudko (talk • contribs) 15:32, July 24, 2013

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (films) is the relevant guideline. In that light (which is long-standing consensus for WP, regardless of my opinion),references are needed that have in-depth reporting about the film itself, not about the topics that the film discusses. Notability of a topic is not inherited by every work that is about that topic. DMacks (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DMacks (talk) with all due respect - I can't afford myself to waist my time to dispute with you about irrelevant things so you could get a sense of importance. However, I would be happy to give any feedback to all other contributors of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelDudko (talk • contribs) 15:32, July 24, 2013

Delete since the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines nor the notability guidelines for films. The general notability guidelines say, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This means that the documentary film itself must have received this coverage, not the subject matter of the film. If the film is released in September as planned, then coverage about the film, especially reviews, would mean we can then have a Wikipedia article about the film. It is too soon right now. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Erik I would still insist that IMDB is reliable source as it is business driven and is the paramount independent professional online film resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelDudko (talk • contribs) 20:30, July 24, 2013‎
Michael, IMDb is a database that lists films that are both notable and non-notable using Wikipedia's threshold. As a database, it does not put any emphasis on a film's notability for encyclopedic purposes. Wikipedia follows other sources' lead in covering a topic. It cannot lead the way. This film needs to receive significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. If the film gets enough attention upon release to be covered and reviewed, then we can revisit this topic. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:RS/IMDB: "IMDb content is user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation and rumor. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing is considered unacceptable and strongly discouraged. It should also be noted that its romanization of Chinese titles does not follow the standard. Reliable sourcing from established publications cannot be stressed enough. Anonymous or pseudonymous sources from online fansites are generally not acceptable." Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Erik and Michaelzeng7, IMDB is an independent and "professional" resource run by chosen professional industry insiders and it does NOT use Wikipedia's threshold.

Second of all, not only notable films are listed by Wikipedia, for example, I checked the list of Categories: Documentary films about child abuse and randomly picked The Harvest (2010 film).

This film does NOT meet your criteria yet it (as many others) is listed. Wikipedia - is an encyclopedia and therefore its mission is very much simple to register things that happen. This movie is something that happened.

And that's a fact. Regarding your link WP:RS/IMDB - the author of the article might have a very much superficial knowledge in general. For example, you can find [Box Office Mojo] amongst credible resource. The author of that article probably does NOT know that [Box Office Mojo] belongs to and run by IMDB (also it says IMDB is listed amongst questionable resource, not unacceptable - even though it is hilarious). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelDudko (talk • contribs) 17:15, July 24, 2013
You're right that IMDb does not use Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion. And Wikipedia does not use IMDb's threshold for inclusion. I looked at The Harvest (2010 film), and it is notable per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. See the reviews here. They should be added to the article, but that topic is notable in general. We can have articles about events themselves, but it is very different to have articles about documentaries about events. The documentaries themselves must be notable, not the event itself. It does not mean every film about adoption is automatically notable. Why can you not wait until the film's release to see if it will be covered then? If there is enough coverage, there can be an article permanently. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Erik I noticed that you have been writing articles about movies for a while. Just looked at some - nice job! If you would send me an email (you can find mine on IMDB) I would be happy to send you a link to watch our trailer and some excerpts. I hope you would be satisfied with what you will see, and hopefully you could write your review on us as well? comment added by MichaelDudko (talk)
I can't help you. I have "rescued" some articles from deletion because I am able to find significant coverage that demonstrates the topic's notability and to reference it in the Wikipedia article so others can also see that it is notable. I am not finding coverage here. Nor can I review the film; I am not an accredited film critic like one you would see at Metacritic. Can you please answer why you cannot wait till the film's release to see if it will be covered and reviewed? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well Erik (talk | contribs), this is a Catch 22... Even to review the film itself, they would need to have an access to a reliable source of information, and apparently Wikipedia is one of them. And you guys are in control here of this situation, in control of access to the information. Apparently an article on Wikipedia doesn't effect success of any movie, as Wikipedia is not neither a commercial nor advertisement media, but Wiki is important for those who seek to check facts. So what kind of facts we want to present here and for whom? For example, someone watched the movie and wants to double check some of the facts (so far we added only 7 references, but we will add more references and more facts) - he or she can just go to Wiki and click the references/the links. Another reason why do we need this information online is actually because the movie itself has never been a primarily goal of the project. The movie is just a tool - we have always planned to pursue changing the policies that negatively effect chances of orphaned children to find their loving families. So but to change the policies we need to draw people's attention to this problem. But the problem is that somehow this information is being ignored. Most people in the U.S. are simply unaware that in some countries like U.K. white people can NOT adopt black kids for example. There are so many problems with this system. So why don't I want to wait? Because I've been to these orphanages, and I've seen what's going on there... I can wait, but millions of children can't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelDudko (talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Film critics do not depend on Wikipedia articles to review films. In my experience, they review films if they are screened at relatively prominent festivals, if the film has a fairly significant distribution, or if it was successfully advertised to them. Films that have not been released have Wikipedia articles because there is already existing coverage. Trade papers like Variety or The Hollywood Reporter do this for Hollywood films, and there is even more coverage upon release. This particular film's notability has to be based on whether or not it is covered when it is released. We also have to separate the documentary from its subject matter here. We can write about the subject matter at adoption and its sub-articles (and even create new ones as necessary), but that is distinct from the film itself. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

INCUBATE as the film is not yet released and lacks coverage. Even though this may be considered a worthy topic, that subjective "worthiness" does not (yet) equate to notability. Certainly the topic of adoption problems is widely covered in multiple reliable sources, but this specfic film is not (yet). So we have a failure of WP:NFF. Toward WP:COI, the film article's author is User:MichaelDudko... the same name as film's writer/director/producer. Writing about a topic with which one has a too-close interest is discuoraged. So to Michael Dudko, and with respects, we have criteria which we use for determining if a film topic merits inclusion. And when it is too soon, it is too soon. However, and in considering the topic itself and the notables whose stories are attached, it is quite likely this will receive the requisite independent coverage in reliable sources either right before or certainly after its release... even if lacking it now. I believe the topic has potential for eventual improvement, and point out policy instructing, "articles which have potential, but which do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, should be moved to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator, where they can continue to be collaboratively edited before either "graduating" to mainspace or ultimately being deleted." It serves the project to have this incubated for collaborative editing as its release draws near. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} for your wise and argument-based reasoning, it seems to be impartial, balanced and fair. Kind regards — comment added by MichaelDudko (talk • contribs) 19:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I recognize the importance of the message you wish shared, but as a Wikipedia editor who has himself "rescued" a few articles, I need to fairly apply the rules we have here. If you send out screener copies to the major media (ie: New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, Variety, Washington Post, etc,) and they review the film and publish commentary and analysis, Wikipedia-style notability will be assured. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate or userfy. I can see this becoming notable in the future, when it is released, so having an article all ready to go would be a good choice. Sadly I can't support fully keeping it right now as notability still has yet to pop up. Beerest355 Talk 04:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for your understanding Beerest355 Talk - Incubate seems to be a fair compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelDudko (talk • contribs) 15:54, 29 July 2013
Delete for failure to meet the general notability guidelines and the notability guidelines for films. Feel free to userfy to MichaelDudko's sandbox. --Bejnar (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I had considered that as my first choice but instead opted for incubation because of the contributor's newness and obvious COI... so as to ensure we have neutral and more experienced eyes on the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I most sincerely appreciate your support Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}, and as you kindly advised, I will update the article as soon as we'll get the coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelDudko (talk • contribs) 15:59, 29 July 2013

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

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

Nexus 7 (2nd generation)

The result was Speedy keep. Original nomination moot. (non-admin closure). Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Adds nothing beyond what's said here. Citing WP:CRYSTAL, "While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable." This doesn't need a separate article. uKER (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Product has been officially announced and details of its specs/features/availability are all available from reliable sources. Admittedly the current references are fairly rumor-y but that will get fixed as the article develops. —dgies^t_c 20:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Specs and features are already in the article. Availability will probably not take more than one line. Does this really need to be a separate article? --uKER (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Product differs from linked article and what was speculation about release of a successor on 1st generation should be removed after 2nd generation article is complete. Agree that it is worded currently as rumor-y but official specs have just been released withing the past few hours and will be added/checked ASAP as article is completed. Also, for precedence, see iPad (3rd Generation)—bluebanzai^t_c 2032, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

What speculation are you talking about? The section on the new revision in the Nexus 7 article was written by myself, and while it's written in future tense (being an unreleased product), there's reliable sources cited for every single piece of information. Now, this attempted article presents that VERY SAME single paragraph of information, and an additional copy/pasted paragraph from the Google Nexus article, for the sake of puffing things up. As long as the available information isn't enough to be a bloat to the Nexus 7 article, this does not need to be more than a section there. --uKER (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me we should fix the duplication by moving your text into the new article. —dgies^t_c 21:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are numerous examples of precedence of every generation of technological devices receiving their own article. As information comes out, reviews come in, etc - the second generation article will expand significantly. Ultimately, using the iPad as precedence, it would seem prudent to create a Google Nexus page once more Nexus branded products are released, giving information on the entire line, such as the iPad article does (although in my opinion, the infobox on the iPad page is unnecessarily lengthy...listing the specs for every iteration of the iPad), and then have pages for each generation of the Nexus line, as the N10 is expected to receive a refresh as well. This would be something for the future, however. For now, this article segregates the information about the generations well enough to keep it. Alternatively (and maybe more reasonable - albeit against established precedence), you could create a single page and separate generations of the device in a manner similar to what the WikiProject Automobiles has established throughout their project - Chevrolet Malibu as an example with separate sections and info boxes for each iteration. Perhaps you'd be interested in spearheading this uKER, if you'd like, now that official information has been released on specs, etc. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 21:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the specs are already detailed and sourced. I did it myself. The thing is, other than reception information, I don't see what else could be said about the device, and I don't see this article growing anywhere over three paragraphs. Once AFD is resolved, if the article stays (which it seems it will), I'll just unsubscribe from the page, sit it out and see where things go. Let's just say I've been pleased with the results when doing this. :) --uKER (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lots of reliable sources. --Pmsyyz (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The device will be available to the public in five days. Why would this need to be deleted? It would make sense to have a general page for the Nexus 7 line. Then one page for the 1st generation, and one for the 2nd. Or else things become too confusing. An always up to date encyclopedia should not be confusing .Very similar to iPad and iPad (1st generation) and so on. The Nexus 7 (1st generation) has its own page. This should too.
Secret Agent Julio (My Talk Page)
05:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.42.85 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Drew Carey's Improv-A-Ganza episodes

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

List of improvisational comedy episodes. This is not a series with fictional plot-driven elements or story lines that are featured either in single episodes or across multiple episodes. This is merely a listing of guest stars who appeared on each episode, and non-defined games in which they participated. Episodes of this show do not meet guidelines set forth in WP:GNG. AldezD (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 9 July 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, L Faraone 00:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Completely useless list of episodes. Beerest355 Talk 22:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An episode list for a major television show is certainly encyclopedic. The series itself has significant coverage in independent reliable sources, thereby meeting WP:GNG. A notable TV series' episode list does not fail that policy. Will you be proposing to delete List of Saturday Night Live episodes or List of Whose Line Is It Anyway? episodes because they lack "plot-driven elements" as well? -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:21, 18 July 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) 16:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this kind of articles are an usual standard in WP, except the show itself is not notable. It could be ultimately merged with the parent article, but considering the size I would prefer keeping this spinout article. Cavarrone 04:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 01:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Public (indie band)

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

Cannot find any significant coverage in independent sources Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 9 July 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, L Faraone 00:10, 17 July 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) 16:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I took a look and was unable to find anything. Grande (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable band. Koala15 (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dinau

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

Non-existant place. I did not find place with such name in classifier of administrative units of Kyrgyzstan [7][8] (this classifier contains all administrative divisions and places of country). Anatoliy (Talk) 15:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

leaning keep Geonames shows a village with this name at N 39°41′52″ E 69°22′06″, which is a fair ways from the ___location in the article. Mangoe (talk) 00:35, 10 July 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, L Faraone 00:12, 17 July 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) 16:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kantsin

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

Non-existant place. I did not find place with such name in classifier of administrative units of Kyrgyzstan [9][10] (this classifier contains all administrative divisions and places of country). Anatoliy (Talk) 15:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This batch of nominations seems ill considered. The nominator does not find this English language name in a Cyrillic alphabet listing of towns, so he wants it deleted as "does not exist." The article includes a link to a satellite map showing where the place is.It shows up on Google Map and Mapquest and weather and travel sites. Inhabited places which show up on maps have generally been considered notable and have been kept in AFDs. Clicking the search aid at the top of this nomination brings up thousands of search results which indicate the place exists. These comments likely apply to the whole batch of nominations. Edison (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know Russian and can transliterate it: it will be Канцин or Кантсин, but there is no such name in classifier.--Anatoliy (Talk) 19:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And ccordinates of this place shows the northern part of the city of Batken. --Anatoliy (Talk) 20:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete We have no sources here but maps, two of the three disagreeing and the third insufficiently detailed. The indicated spot is, depending on the map, a field on the edge of Batken or what appears to be a memorial and a park of some sort slightly further out of town. There's no sign of a village even on so small a scale as a crossroads with a store. This fails verification unless someone comes up with a much more definite source. Mangoe (talk) 23:45, 9 July 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, L Faraone 00:13, 17 July 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) 16:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mangoe; sourcing just isn't there. Stifle (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BEFORE has been followed; article subject is non-notable (and apparently non-existent). Miniapolis 14:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mangoe. No references, no evidence to indicate notability. — kikichugirl ^inquire 19:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iradan

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

Non-existant place. I did not find place with such name in classifier of administrative units of Kyrgyzstan [11][12] (this classifier contains all administrative divisions and places of country). Anatoliy (Talk) 15:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

possible keep I see several references of this as a suburb of Kyzyl-Kiya. Mangoe (talk) 23:59, 9 July 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, L Faraone 00:15, 17 July 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) 15:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beshburkhan

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

Non existant place. I did not find place with such name in classifier of administrative units of Kyrgyzstan [13][14] (this classifier contains all administrative divisions and places of country). Anatoliy (Talk) 14:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep and rename to Besh-Burkhan Geonames gives a definite hit on a distinct town at N 40°11′54″ E 72°15′02″ with this name (Беш-Буркан in Cyrillic). Mangoe (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found Беш-Буркан on Soviet topographic map too. There is also Беш-Буркан in classifier, but it is located in Nookat District of Osh Province.--Anatoliy (Talk) 12:56, 10 July 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, L Faraone 00:17, 17 July 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) 15:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Auliye

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

Non existant place. I did not find place with such name in classifier of administartive units of Kyrgyzstan [15][16] (this classifier contains all administrative dvisions and places of country). Anatoliy (Talk) 14:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

leaning keep There is a village at this ___location, and Geonames believes this is the right name for it. What's suspicious is the lack of a Cyrillic name. Possibly it is only a neighborhood of Tash-Bulak, Batken. Mangoe (talk) 00:30, 10 July 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, L Faraone 00:20, 17 July 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) 15:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bermans

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

Unsourced article about non-notable law firm. Andrew³²⁷ 13:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm fixing the nom, as this wasn't originally done correctly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 9 July 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, L Faraone 00:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Source searches are not yielding significant coverage in reliable sources. Passing mentions abound (e.g. [17], [18], [19]), but not finding WP:SIGCOV. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I feel sure that I have seen this firm in a context suggesting that it is involved in debt collecting on a large scale. This suggests that it is significant, and that those receiving its missives will find having a WP article on it useful. Nevertheless it is a poor article, lacking citations. Heavily tag for improvement. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 20 July 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) 15:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry, but there's nothing there right now. Peterkingiron, would you want it userfied? --BDD (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of coverage, place (userfy) in author's sandbox. The firm exists, it is not that there is no coverage, but that it is all incidental, no significant independent coverage. I would very much like to see, and have a citation to, the article that Peterkingiron thinks she/he might have seen. Surely if they are as large and innovative a firm as the article indicates then they ought to have picked up some decent coverage in the specialty publications (law, finance). --Bejnar (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Exposition Park (Los Angeles neighborhood). Mark Arsten (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King Estates, Los Angeles

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

Not Notable. Not listed in Mapping L.A. or in the Thomas Guide. Simply a real-estate development. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ The article shows a photo of an official city sign identifying the neighborhood. I couldn't find much in a search, but apparently the city thinks it is a real neighborhood, not "simply a real-estate development". --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Some City Council member succumbed to the blandishments of a group of homeowners, probably a small group. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:18, 24 July 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) 15:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A municipal sign installed by order of a City Council member is not a good source. We have to be aware that:

"Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. . . . Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include [materials] that are promotional in nature. . . Primary sources . . . must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find enough references to support notability. The LA Times "Mapping LA" says King Estates is part of Exposition Park (Los Angeles neighborhood) [20] so it could be Redirected there. I'd hate to see it completely deleted since it does get at least a little recognition. --MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as per MelanieN. Grande (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rati Tsiteladze

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

Non-notable athlete, actor and model. Claims of notability as an athlete (kickboxing world championship in Egypt, 2008 and Karate European Champion in Lithuania, 2009) cannot be verified as no indication is given as to what sanctioning bodies awarded such titles (nor can any indication be found that such championships were held by any of the major sanctioning bodies). It should be noted that the subject's photograph shows him wearing a championship belt inscribed with the date November 2007, but the rest of the belt cannot be read to ascertain what championship it was. As for the subject's acting and modeling career, it is limited to an appearance (win? loss? kicked out before he started? on the Georgian version of Dancing with the Stars, and a non-specific modeling career in Dubai. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Poorly sourced BLP (many blogs, non-notable sites). As a fighter, I could find no evidence of any significant titles being won (no google news hits). But as a model, he may pass WP:NMODEL for having "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." I base this on his 129,000 likes on Facebook, but this alone probably isn't enough for a keep. Luchuslu (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I couldn't find sources to show subject actually meets any notability criteria. Coverage and details about his championships could change my mind.Mdtemp (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Karpf

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

This article has seemingly undergone many edits. However, sufficient information is given beyond the one sentence in the article at the Trapped! (TV series) page. Further elaboration does not seem necessary in an article as the article itself is so brief. KeithJMcA (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A few minor mentions right off the bat, but much of the career and citations are old and not online. Her work in Harry Potter video games adds another; IMDB has 45 different mentions, only three or four of "note", but together the Bill and Ben and Dennis the Menace and the video game credits add up to be worth something - and I am sure that IMDB does not have a full record. Outside works include numerous "books on tape" and characters in TV and movies. Now it is better than a minimal stub, but more than 10 minutes is needed to fill this out. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:36, 12 July 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) 01:37, 17 July 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) 15:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Deal or No Deal (UK) special episodes

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

Overly-detailed list of episodes for a game show. Single source present points to blog of television show. Episode descriptions read like fancruft. This is not a television series with fictional plot synopses that should be chronicled in an article, and the specific details of results from a television game show episode do not meet WP:GNG.

Related deletion discussions of episode listings for game shows:

AldezD (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:12, 17 July 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) 15:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Over-detailed fan-cruft of no encyclopedic use. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Lugnuts. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 14:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Game Theory Admiral

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

Appears to be a non-notable console clone, failing WP:GNG. Tagged as failing GNG for nearly 5 years now, and although plenty of unreliable sources cover it, nothing exists in any reliable source I can see. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found coverage in the book Retro Gaming Hacks, but I couldn't find any other significant coverage. Non-notable. SL93 (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 19 July 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) 15:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel Original Productions

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

Should likely be speedy deleted for G3 - obvious hoax. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney Channel Original Studios Article copy/pasted by likely sockpuppet of Pithcrystal / KuhnstylePro. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete created by a blocked sock G5 as well as G3.I am One of Many (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua Mania Remix

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

This is not a notable remix album. It only charted in like, two countries, and that's it. There's no independent sources or significant coverage cited on this article or what I could find. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 16:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well... It was certified gold in Norway too, but still. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 19:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While the band is notable, I couldn't find any significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 19 July 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) 15:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. But anyone wishing to merge the article should feel free to do so. Stifle (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Heroes: The Best of Aqua

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

This is not a notable ~~remix~~ compilmation album. It only charted in Japan, and that's it. There's no independent sources or significant coverage cited on this article or what I could find. The chart info could be included in the band's discography article Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 16:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Whet's the relevance of this "only charting in Japan"? Would you use "only charted in the United States" as a deletion argument? The chart info could be included in the band's discography, but wouldn't it make more sense to merge that information there and then leave this as a redirect rather than deleting it? --Michig (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 19 July 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) 15:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response from nominator. You could be right that we could also do a merge or redirect to the discog. However, since its unlikely a lot of people will look for this album, I am seeing whether there can be enough reliable sources for the article to be on its own, or if it is better to make it a redirect or delete. Thanks for asking, though. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 18:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and about your argument that it only charted in one country as a argument, that meant it was the only coverage, as a chart, of this album I could find. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 18:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Monty ₈₄₅ 14:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bhelatand sijua

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

Notability questionable.--Forward Unto Dawn 12:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forward Forward ManyVoxels (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 10 July 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) 01:43, 17 July 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) 15:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We already have an article on Sijua, which mentions the mining industry. Bhelatand appears to be a mining village a mile or two south of Sijua - describing it, as the article does, as a "region" seems rather overblown. It probably separately meets WP:NGEOG, though its notability does seem to be mainly in relation to the Bhelatand colliery. If kept, the article should probably be retitled Bhelatand - the two places, or rather their apparently separated but related collieries (which might just be notable in themselves), do sometimes get mentioned as Bhelatand-Sijua but they seem more often to get mentioned separately. PWilkinson (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to say Keep as g-satellite shows "BHELATAND" which seems to be a distinct community just south of Sijua and even has several businesses identifying themselves as "Bhelatand", ie "Bhelatand's Officers Club" or "Bhelatand Ground". --Oakshade (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator has withdrawn their nomination without dissent. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Peninsula, Los Angeles

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

Not Notable. Not listed in Mapping L.A. or The Thomas Guide. Simply a small part of a true neighborhood, Venice, Los Angeles. No sources. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Marina Peninsula is a distinct L.A. neighborhood and geographic feature: the long narrow oceanside spit, filled with expensive condos and even more expensive houses, that runs south from Washington Boulevard (Los Angeles) and the Venice Pier to the entrance channel of Marina del Rey. There are official city street signs marking the neighborhood, including this one on Pacific Avenue near Anchorage Street[21] Passes WP:NGEO and plenty of potential sources available at GNews[22] to verify its notability and to provide a basis for improving what is currently a very skimpy article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per evidence supplied by Axiloxos, and per my own experience that the Marina Peninsula is a real place and definitely not part of Venice. If the article is kept, I will undertake to improve it. (Watchlisting this discussion so I will know if it is kept.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:29, 23 July 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) 15:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. A municipal sign installed by order of a City Council member is not a good source. Also: Anything to be legitimately said about the Marina Peninsula can be said in the article on Venice, Los Angeles. We have to be aware that:

"Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. . . . Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include [materials] that are promotional in nature. . . Primary sources . . . must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

In reply: Google News Archive finds plenty of evidence the area is real, recognized and notable: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] Since these ittems are all behind paywalls it will be hard to use them to expand the article; somebody with an LA Times subscription could do it. But keep-or-delete decisions do not depend on the state of the article; the keep-or-delete decision depends on notability, and I think it is clear that this neighborhood is notable. (I also don't think this material belongs in the Venice article; the neighborhoods are so completely different in character and history that in effect it would have to be two unrelated articles under one title.)--MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. Sources have been found. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Letters to God. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibility Pictures

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

Can't find evidence this meets WP:ORG although it isn't a new article and has been edited for several years. Dougweller (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: more sourcing is available here: [30], [31]. Most of it is blurbs. I don't have a strong opinion on keeping or deleting. American Eagle (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Letters to God. Their film Letters to God is certainly notable, but that seems to their only film. Searching suggests no independent notability for the company (if indeed it is still going). On the other hand, the two sentences in this article would probably add usefully to the article on the film. -- 202.124.73.19 (talk) 05:41, 11 July 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) 16:55, 17 July 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) 15:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested above. Not yet notable for stand-alone article. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fright Night Film Fest

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

This was originally tagged with a speedy for having no claim to notability, but there was just enough out there to suggest that this might pass notability guidelines. I can find some mentions of this, but not enough to where I think this absolutely passes notability guidelines. I'm bringing it here in case there are more sources out there that aren't easily found. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep somewhat notable horror film fest that has received some coverage in the major local papers. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though it sounds like a lot of fun, it's clearly not notable in any reasonable encyclopedic sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per independent reliable coverage over a many-years period in, about and notable to Lexington, Kentucky. For exapmple... WAVE News Courier - Journal Times-West Virginian Courier - Journal Guideline specifically tells us that a topic being discussed need not be the main topic of the source material, nor must all articles be available online. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:52, 14 July 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) 17:00, 17 July 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) 15:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schmidt's sources and analysis. Cavarrone 19:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The coverage shown by Schmidt easily demonstrates notability. --Oakshade (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Come Out and Play (Twisted Sister album). postdlf (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be Chrool to Your Scuel

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

Song/single that fails requirements of WP:N and WP:NSONGS. Had been a redirect for nearly 2 1/2 years until recently, but it just looks like unsourced fluff. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Come Out and Play (Twisted Sister album), the song's parent album. As far as I can tell (from online sources, at least), the song's strongest claim to notability is that the music video was banned from MTV's playlist. The other brief mentions I found are within the context of an album article/review; I'm unable to find in-depth coverage or other evidence to get this song to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. Gong show 08:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 19 July 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) 14:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect title per Gongshow and nom as of no particular notability, i.e. lack of coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Monty ₈₄₅ 14:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Lyacos

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

I'm nominating this page because ultimately there aren't any actual reliable sources to back up any claim of notability. It doesn't help that the article seems to have been written by a fan of his work and is at best, written with a ton of WP:OR and at the worst, reads somewhat promotional. A search for his name doesn't bring up much at all- some primary sources and some unusable hits, but nothing I could say gives notability. I used Google Translate to search for his name in Greek since it was in the article, but I didn't find much with that either. Since I know GT has its limits, I'm bringing it here rather than PRODing it. This just doesn't seem like this guy passes WP:GNG. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, there was a LOT of links in the EL section at first and I removed all but one of them because they were pretty much linkspam when you got down to it. None of the links looked to be usable as a reliable source, but here is the original version. That's the only part of the article I changed. I think that this translation of his work in a literary journal that republished two of his poems and interviewed him is the only one that looks remotely usable. The problem here is that since they have translated and published his work, this would make them a WP:PRIMARY source when you get down to it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one, but I'm going to say Keep. There likely are many sources in Greek but sifting through every page in Greek and using a translator is cumbersome and takes an exorbitant amount of time to find appropriate sources. However, in English sources the Galway Independent refers to Lyacos as a "Renowned Greek poet" [32] and the publication Verse Wisconsin has given an extensive review of some of his work.[33] The very varied world locations of these sources outside of Greece does indicate international notability. --Oakshade (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article should be kept. I am a wikipedia reader as well as a reader of this author's work and i believe the article meets the notability criteria. I am citing underneath some of the international reviews on the author's work that i am aware of including the verse wisconsin one mentioned by oakshade:

http://www.asiancha.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=778&Itemid=280

<http://www.theadirondackreview.com/book122.html

<http://versewisconsin.org/Issue106/reviews106/lyacos.html

<http://dougholder.blogspot.gr/2010/12/poena-damni-by-dimitris-lyacos.html

<http://bigother.com/2011/01/17/i-know-nothing-about-translatingion-a-review-of-z213-exit-by-dimitirs-lyacos-translated-by-shorsha-sullivan/

<http://decompmagazine.com/blog/?p=378

<http://www.thewritingdisorder.com/nonfictionsullivan.html

<http://www.negativesuck.moonfruit.com/#/nov-2010-archive-8/4545252320

As i am no wikipedia expert i am reluctant to edit the article directly and upload the above sources there; I hope one of your editors can do it. --62.1.170.116 (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)--62.1.170.116 (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.170.116 (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'. I see that this article is now adequately referenced. To my knowledge Dimitris Lyacos is one of the most internationally renowned greek poets, his works ranking higher in sales of different amazon sites compared to most other living greek poets that have been translated in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.58.167.217 (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Monty ₈₄₅ 14:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Dew Memorial Airpark

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

Does not appear to be a substantially notable airfield. PROD contested. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it is notability perhaps a retag of adding to the article or making it a stub is more appropriate than a deletion of an actual airfield. I will do my part by seeing if we can add WP:RS and notability to the article. WP:COMMONSENSE (a pillar above policies) would seem to make a deletion request unreasonable for an airfield that has been around for 70+ years. ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – While it's not especially notable, it is covered in thousands of airport-related publications. My impression is that we regard airports as inherently notable enough to include, but if there's specific info about what we do about airport notability, please fill me in. Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But this is an airfield, not an airport. It doesn't have an IATA code. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - IATA codes and nitpicking on terminology are irrelvant; see below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While this is a privately-owned airfield that lacks an IATA code, it is open to the public. Long-term WP:CONSENSUS (bringing in WP:OUTCOMES) is that notability is established for an airport by way of its being a public airport; this falls under the Five Pillars as part of Wikipedia's remit as a gazetteer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of films that won the Academy, BAFTA, Golden Globe, DGA, PGA, SAG, WGA, and Broadcast Film Critics Association Award

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

I don't think this list is necessary at all.There won't be too many films that win all these awards.It is orphaned,and it's unlikely many people will see this list. L smll 10:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like this may come from this, but it does not mention the Broadcast Film Critics Association Award, which appears tacked on. (That one is mentioned here but not with all the others.) Even so, this seems like very narrow trivia. It seems better to just reference Variety in each of the film's articles for all the organizations besides Broadcast Film Critics Association. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An overly-trivial piece of information that benefits no one, except a pub-quiz team. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a pretty arbitrary set of criteria (e.g. Golden Globe for Drama). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 03:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lingusamy's Untitled Project

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

Tentative/planned film that never came to be, nothing notable about this flash-in-the-pan (only have standard news report of it being planned and then it being dropped). DMacks (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly not significant enough to deserve an article; only very routine coverage. The vagueness of the article (e.g. lack of dates) means a merge wouldn't be a good idea. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muzhik

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

=A regular Russian-language word without any particular usage in English language, other than calque in translations of old russian literature, to add russian flavor. The article is a dicdef. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - Altenmann >t 15:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pre-revolutionary Russian categorization combining elements of peasant, proletarian and Lumpenproletariat. For english usage as such, see, e.g. Muzhik and Muscovite: Urbanization in Late Imperial Russia. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is still nothnig but a dictionary definition. Every language have words that cannot be 100% translated by a single English word. This does not make automatically it an encyclopedic concept. per WP:GNG, we need a significant coverage. So far there is no coverage beyound dicdef in any sources, included this book mentioned here. - Altenmann >t 15:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Muzhik" is not just a regular word, it is a cultural phenomenon, it is a key to understand Russian soul, Russian collective unconscious and Russian mass culture. Amidst people of traditional culture faith in Muzhik values is much stronger than faith in liberal values or any other. Article should be kept and developed.

Vadim Kiev (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I thought it was samovar, vodka and balalaika. Scholarly references, please. - Altenmann >t 15:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of the article is also proven by the fact that it exists in 11 other languages, including German, French, Italian, Spanish and others.Vadim Kiev (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other wikipedias have other rules about their content. - Altenmann >t 15:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:DICDEF that is not important/notable in the scheme of things. Its existence in other language projects does not confer any special status - especially since the notability requirements and other policies are much more strict on the English Wikipedia (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:31, 22 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:DICDEF is not a reason to delete. The point of that policy is to cover topics under a common title rather than having separate pages for each headword. That would indicate merger to serfdom in Russia and there is already a relevant merge tag on that article. But there seems to be more to the topic in that a muzhik is now stereotype of behaviour too - rather like redneck or yokel. See Ode to the Russian muzhik, for example. Warden (talk) 11:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Googling the word (links above) shows that it is sufficiently common in English language sources. Also agree with arguments by Vadim Kiev.My very best wishes (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 02:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rodger Krouse

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

no indication of WP:Notability. While the sources given do mention him they do not establish him as a notable person in his own right. The first reference is a small mention of political contributions, the second is about the company, the third is not independent, the fourth is a directory entry and the fifth is just a wedding notice. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: CEO of Sun Capital with 10 billion dollars make him notable. CNBC called him: "the head of the private equity powerhouse behind some of the nation's biggest brands". Not enough? Time and again hosted on economy related TV shows. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. The company can be notable without him being independently notable. noq (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the sources do not establish notability. They're close, but it just isn't quite there. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the way I look at the article is that 1) you have the co-founder of one of the largest private equity firms in the country; 2) he is a big Republican donor which is well documented (and separate from his role at Sun Capital); and 3) he is a frequent guest on business talk shows (of which I have posted several links to videos in external links). I can add more things like awards he received and more information on his campaign donations and relationship with Bain Capital. Patapsco913 (talk)

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) 17:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: rich ≠ notable; see Wikipedia:Articles for Improvement/Jordan Bratman. In fact, being rich just means having money, unless you agree that being rich means being perverse than the rest of us. The New York Times article barely mentions him; it's actually about somebody else who backed Mitt Romney, and oh, by the way, there's this guy named Rodger Somethingorother who also is backing him as well. This appears to be a run of the mill busienssperson. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep (Although I started the article I have not voted) There is nothing in the wiki about his wealth so that is not the basis for his notability. Anyhow, per wiki "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." There are four interviews with him which are linked as external links (including CNBC and Reuters):Patapsco913 (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CNBC interview with Rodger Krouse July 2, 2012
MandA.TV Interviews: Rodger Krouse - Sun Capital Partners May 28, 2013
ReutersVideo: Food services, construction to jumpstart US jobs - Interview with Rodger Krouse - Sun Capital Partners July 11, 2011
Reuters Business News: Interview with Rodger Krouse: "Is America ready for a 'private-equity president'?" July 8, 2011

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Krouse's firm owned companies with over 165,000 employees in 2008. Ford Motor has 161,000 employees today. I don't think he qualifies as a run of the mill businessman.Patapsco913 (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article about his firm and nobody is proposing to delete that.noq (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm seeing sufficient sourcing to get this past the GNG threshold, with substantial coverage inside the Creswell New York Times piece being particularly compelling. Co-founder of a company that is a major player in leveraged buyouts, which is to say, in modern American capitalism. Carrite (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE by Jimfbleak. NAC as AfD was left open. GregJackP Boomer! 21:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Blair

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

Appears to be a BLP autobiography. First glance looks like it fails basic notability. References look quite weak as well. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability, refs are mainly self-generated, Amazon spamlink doesn't even have a purchase price. I would have speedied this if it hadn't been afded Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have speedied it, but there's a claim of notability with the awards and such. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Jimfbleak. GregJackP Boomer! 16:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nominator that this individual lacks notability. Sources are self-published or autobiographical in nature. Heck, I have a better claim to notability than this individual. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. --kikichugirl ^inquire 03:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I thought about speedy deleting it when I first saw it, but decided to wait to see if it developed into something more substantial, but it did not. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tek022 | _Comments? 06:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted under CSD:G5. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos(album)

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

The article was placed under CSD:A7, however tag was removed. The article fits the criteria as the album page is created and significance not established, no artist page exists. TRL (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, since a transwiki move (rather than deletion) is proposed. Miniapolis 15:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sayward Forest Canoe Route

AfDs for this article:

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

This really needs to be nipped in the bud before 100s of these kinds of articles start to appear. WP is not a travel guide book, as per WP:NOTGUIDE. Move it to Wikivoyage, then delete here. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close per WP:SK1 as the nominator advocates an action (Transwiki) other than deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think the spirit of WP:NOTGUIDE must necessarily apply to this article; the policy seems focused mainly on the exclusion of minutiae useful only to travelers from articles about places. If this article contained a step-by-step guide to completing the route with minor details about resting places and such, then I think that content would fall afoul of the policy, but the article's existence in itself doesn't necessarily make it a guide. Meanwhile, there appears to be significant independent coverage of this route in reliable sources. See this book and this magazine story. While a lot of the material about it is guidebook-type stuff, there's enough to show that it's a popular route that's received some coverage, and there's enough to write an article with. It meets WP:GNG. The WP:SK1 argument is also a fair one. --Batard0 (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 03:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biodiesel America: How to Free America From Oil and Make Money with Alternative Fuel

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

Non-notable book: can't find reviews in Google News, references in Google Books. The only "references" that were in the article were fluffy spam links. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Josh Tickell. I can't find any coverage to show that this is ultimately notable apart from its author. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Wine and Spirit Competition

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

~~Delete.~~ [Edit: See my new vote, visible below in my comment added 00:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC).] My research indicates that the subject of this ~~(mediocre)~~ article seems to fail WP:INDEPTH. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning keep~~ ~~Merge to Wine competition~~ Leaning keep - per one source, the International Wine and Spirit Competition "is considered one of the top wine awards in the world,"(ONE News article) and another source describes it as one of the "big three" wine competitions (The Telegraph article). Another source refers to it as the largest wine competition (The Business of Wine: An Encyclopedia: An Encyclopedia). Predictably, much news coverage focuses upon award recipients, but a source search suggests that this topic meets WP:ORGDEPTH, albeit possibly weakly. Some source examples include: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40].

Sources:

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You've just convinced me that it's perhaps the biggest wine competition in the world. Fine, but that doesn't affect notability. OK; let's look at the sources.

You found seven sources. The Telegraph article you found is the best of the seven; it includes six or seven sentences about the competition. The others include even less: perhaps two or three sentences on average.

Please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. Expand the box labeled "Expand this box to learn about notability and verifiability". The box requires "references about the subject – at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more". How many references? "Several of them."

Dear all: do all these shallow-depth sources, taken together, prove that the competition is worthy of a Wikipedia article? If so, why?

Or should our article be merged into Wine competition? Would it be possible to do the merge without losing any of our article's lead section or its "Judging" section?

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Upon consideration, I've changed my !vote above to merge.~~ Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EVENT, changed back to leaning keep, particularly per WP:LASTING. Struck more above. The topic's notability is somewhat tricky, but per WP:PRESERVE, the content should remain somewhere. Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Encyclopedically significant wine competition. The additional sources ~~Gene93k~~Northamerica1000 identified should be sufficient to establish notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The first !vote above is mine; I mistakenly overlooked adding my signature to it (added it now). Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both Gene93k and Northamerica1000 deserve a note of thanks for their regular and ongoing contributions to AfD. Unscintillating (talk)
Aw, shucks. :) Actually I don't contribute to AFD much, but occasionally participate in discussions or close them. Wine-related ones like this tend to get my attention. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Wine competition. Despite this competition's renown, the secondary sources appear to provide almost zero in-depth coverage. —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your comment my talk page: The event meets all the notability criteria of lasting effect, geographical scope, duration of coverage, and diversity of sources (international coverage). I disagree that being weak in one area (depth of coverage) disqualifies this event as 'notable' considering everything else as a whole. Therefore, my view remains 'keep'. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP-- Seriously, a really bad AFD...this is the largest such competition in the wine and spirits industry, largest in the world. It's an event so important that a winery that wins a gold medal sees a monumental sales bump. This AFD is like saying the World Series isn't notable in baseball. A quick check IWSC in google and bing results, and at google books, show a multitude of sources that could be used per WP:RS for significant coverage. The results of this event are reported in magazines and international newspapers. WP:ORGDEPTH states that "a company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. ...Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." Sure the article needs improvement, but simply, WOW, this is a bad AFD.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is in rough shape but the Colonel is right in that this is one of the most notable wine competitions out there. I don't know if I would compare it to the World Series though :P but it would be fair to describe it as the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show of wine. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 19:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've found hundreds of references to it in the press, although the article itself could use rewriting to remove advertorial content. Andrew³²⁷ 15:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 03:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Central Prairie League

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

I found no significant coverage for this high school sports league. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources found, does not appear to be notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there are presently three Kansas High School sports leagues nominated for deletion. I recommend that we hold off here and lat them "cook through" to see how they pan out before moving forward on further nominations. There is no deadline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You just spoke my mind. I was planning to look at more once the first two closed. SL93 (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 03:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine Champagne (magazine)

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

I found no proof of notability. The article says that it was the first champagne magazine in the world, but that is sourced to a press release. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources, does not meet WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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