Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 June	24 June >

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 redirect to Ingleton, North Yorkshire#Education. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ingleton Primary School

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

Primary Schools are not seen as notable unless there is a particular reason - I cannot find one. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find anything notable either. No need to merge with Ingleton either per WP:WPSCH/AG#N, as it is there and not much more can be added from this article. Acabashi (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge with the town or other educational authority,as we always do. There is additional information merge, whic h is their website. Incany case, we would redirect. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ingleton, North Yorkshire#Education, where the school is mentioned, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There's no sourced information to merge, and anything that's verifiable and appropriate to the article's scope can be added there. Deor (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- another NN Primary School. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 18 June 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, SarahStierch (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect . I didn't think more discussion was necessary here, but this seems pretty cut and dry. Primary schools generally not notable. TheBlueCanoe 02:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A7) by DGG. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohr Publicity

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

Non-notable company lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Claims of notability are not supported by independent sources. Fails WP:COMPANY. reddogsix (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article was deleted via CSD A7 and then recreated by a different (newish) editor. I nominated it for CSD A7 again, but it was declined by the reviewing admin. The references in the article almost entirely emanate from press release. I was unable to find any reliable sources the cover the company in any depth. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 00:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the website toppublicitycompany.info on which one of the references is based, is administered by the owner of the company. reddogsix (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete I found absolutely no independent coverage at Google News Archive. Fails WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Marin Tvengsberg

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

As far as this is concerned, it is so appallingly written it would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic and also is sourced by WikiSource, which is user-updated data. I highly doubt notability, as well, but DGG disagrees and so does Svedjebruk, the author. Laun chba ller 23:33, 15 June 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 June 15. Snotbot t • c » 23:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that WP:AUTHOR or WP:BASIC are met, notability unproven. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 07:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm not at all sure he's notable, but I declined an a7; there was indication he might be important, which is a lesser standard. Probably I should I sent it here myself. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Subject is the Author of the work s:Slash and burn though the work is orginally written in Norwegian, a google book search {"Slash and burn" Tvengsberg} finds 9 distinct hits for the author and work. Appears to meet WP:N without difficulty. While the entry here could use some work, that is not cause for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I've tried to clean this page up a bit, as well as some of the associated pages at Wikisource, and I've certainly found many citations and papers listed on Google Scholar. A lot is in Norwegian, however, so I'm not sure how notable or how to use them in the article. Therefore, I'm leaning towards keep until proven otherwise. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:16, 17 June 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, SarahStierch (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I failed to verify notability, he is known locally, and has a work published in his language, his notability is weak, but it does not assert maintainability. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 23:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete—A quick Google search doesn't turn up any reliable sources, although he looks like he might be notable. If someone could find a news article on or mentioning him, I'd probably vote keep. --SamX‧☎‧✎ 04:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete. First, I think we should note that his real name is Per Martin Tvengsberg; this is important for the search. I still don't see him as notable neither per WP:ACADEMIC, WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. His main work Svedjebruk was published by Norwegian Forest Finns Museum; but I can't see that it has been a very notable or influential work. And his general career, as leader of Hedmark Museum etc. appears to be a bit below the standard for being notable on a national level. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 08:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could a soft redirect to Wikisource:Author:Per Martin Tvengsberg solve this? A variation on {{Wiktionary redirect}} could be created. I don't even think any information would be lost and it could be reverted to an article later if more information turns up. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clear consensus after relisting, and according to our usual practice for articles of this type DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 6517

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

Fails WP:Aircrsh and notability guidelines - just another undershoot with no fatalities and no notable effects Petebutt (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Serious damage was done to the plane and thus meets WP:AIRCRASH. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per YSSYguy. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 17:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Merpati Nusantara Airlines article. The Aircrash essay does not mandate a stand-alone article for every airline crash but states the WP:GNG must also be met; there has been no significant coverage, just news reports of the "it happened" variety. The accident hasn't enough impact for this to be documented on WP other than having a paragraph in the airline article. YSSYguy (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because the WP:EVENT guideline is not met. There has been no continuous coverage; all references of this article are news items published on 10 June, the day of the accident.--FoxyOrange (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No fatalities. No apparent ongoing coverage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The aircraft was written off. Complaints of no ongoing coverage are invalid as the accident only happened in the last week and it takes time for investigations to be carried out, reports written and published. Coverage is not just local to Indonesia, but worldwide. Mjroots (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you seriously saying want to keep the article because it might possibly maybe one day prove to be notable? My grandma's toenail might possibly one day turn out to be maybe notable, but I won't be creating a Wikipedia article about it just yet. 86.5.176.168 (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I'm saying. IMHO, the accident is notable already. The "lack of ongoing coverage" argument is, IMHO, invalid because of the fact that there will be a report released into the accident in due course. Hopefully it wont take as long as the Crossair Flight 850 accident (over 8 years) before the report is published. Mjroots (talk) 09:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the accident report cannot confer notablility. Consensus has developed over time on WP that not all accidents are notable, but all accidents are investigated and thus all accidents result in an accident report. YSSYguy (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YSSY, I take it you've seen the photographs of the accident aircraft? That there were no fatalities given the amount of damage add weight to the case for notability here. Mjroots (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we take it then that you have abandoned your "It's notable because there will be a report one day" argument in favour of an "it's notable because nobody died" argument? Is there any reason this crash warrants more than a paragraph in the article about the airline? Take away the lead from the article and what remains is a sentence about the aircraft and its age; and a paragraph about the accident itself. What more can be said about it? If there is significant coverage in the future, undo the redirect and expand the article. YSSYguy (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Serious damage was done to the airplane, and some people were injured. The airplane will not be used again. One Of Seven Billion (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll start writing an article on every single plane shot down in World War II immediately. Most of them were never used again either and sometimes crew members were even killed. Oh sorry, is that somehow different? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Serious enough for the aircraft to be written off. Easily passes WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The incident has received sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG. One reason is that this particular airframe has had multiple mishaps and its safety has been called into question, which adds notability to the crash. See this article, for example. Andrew³²⁷ 15:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't an article, that's a readers' forum allowing readers of the Jakarta Post to discuss an earlier news report. It of itself doesn't qualify as a suitable source and I have removed its two uses from the article. It certainly does not add any weight to the "it passes the GNG" argument. As there is no ongoing significant coverage, it does not pass the GNG. There was a flurry of news reports the day after the crash, that's all. There's a story in my local newspaper today - a capital city daily - about a bus crash in South America; the story is two paragraphs. Media outlets worldwide report accidents of all types on a daily basis because they have space to fill, then they move on to the next story. YSSYguy (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect. Nothing notable about this at this stage. — Lfdder (talk) 12:43, 23 June 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, SarahStierch (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Xian MA60#Accidents and incidents. The accident passes muster sufficiently to be mentioned in the type, airline and/or aircraft articles, but does not rise to the standard of needing its own, standalone article. WP:TOOSOON but not the sort of major accident that generates WP:PERSISTENCE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, wait and see if there's any more coverage, maybe after there has been an investigation. Peter James (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable about this incident. Let me point out to those who think a hull loss equals an article. It doesn't. There are 40 WP articles on DC-9 incidents and almost 100 hull losses for that type of aircraft according to ASN....William 22:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Knight of Cups (film)

The result was SPEEDY KEEP

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

Cites no reliable sources that confirm commenced principal photography has started; WP:NFF. Merge into Terrence Malick. Oneiros (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Sources have been provided.--Oneiros (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since the film has been completed. Just Googling "knight of cups" "terrence malick" shows this among others. Oneiros, I recommend searching for results before posting an article at AfD. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 04:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional wrestlers billed as "World's Strongest Man"

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

List of half a dozen wrestlers who happened to be billed in a similar way by promoters. No indication of any particular significance to this. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 20:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 21:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and is a great example of WP:LISTCRUFT. STATic message me! 22:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a reliable source for each entry to demonstrate notability. I think the Mooneyham article is a great place to look for an assertion of notability. The article was published two weeks ago and begins by discussing two of the uses from this list. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:18, 18 June 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) 22:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and as per StaticVerseatide, it is a pure List fan-cruft, it also does not meet WP:LISTS. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The whole "World's Strongest Man" thing doesn't seem to be a particularly notable gimmick; the fact that these wrestlers have been attributed this title seems to have less to do with wrestling and more to do with the fact that they were all once "strongmen". Perhaps creating Category:Professional wrestlers who are strongmen or sometime to that effect would be a better substitute. However, Static is right when he says that such a list is total cruft. — Richard BB 13:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 04:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Pérez (baseball)

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

Non-notable minor league ballplayer, didn't make it all that far in the minors and no strong sources that would help it pass GNG. Wizardman 21:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable sportsplayer, it also fails to meet general criteria for having an article within WP and also does not meet specific WP:SPORT guideline. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 00:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Spanneraol (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - would have met the old notability guidelines by virtue of being a minor league all star. But that criterion has been eliminated and I don't see any supprt for notability under the current guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per neutered baseball notability guidelines. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 02:16, 1 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. L Faraone 04:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of After War Gundam X mobile weapons

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

Wikipedia is not a fan site, list also fails per WP:LISTN and WP:PLOT. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of list deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge relevant content into parent article, this violates both PLOT and LISTN criteria. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as unsourced trivia that goes into way too much detail, and in an in-universe way. Reyk _YO! 11:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obliterate - This article is nothing more than unsourced fancruft. It belongs in a Gundam wiki, not a serious project like Wikipedia. At most, maybe a brief summary should be merged into a relevant article, but in a non-fancrufty way. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Freddy Moore. L Faraone 04:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Nu Kats

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

No reliable sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—All relevant news hits seem to be ads. Enough said. --SamX‧☎‧✎ 04:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Freddy Moore, doesn't seem notable but is a likely enough search term. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 04:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blushing Books

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

Unreferenced article about a book publisher. I am unable to find any reliable sources that discuss the subject in any depth. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 20:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I too am unable to find substantive coverage in reliable, independent sources. This is borderline A7 as lacking a credible assertion of significance, and the linkfarm of writers' websites certainly doesn't help. Deor (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I can't find anything to show that this publisher is notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 04:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Denholm

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

Contested PROD concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. He has never played above the Second Division, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT. The coverage he has received is the usual trivial stuff (match reports, player profiles, transfer news, etc.) meaning the article fails WP:GNG as well. PROD was contested by the articles creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G10 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Simpson

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

the two sources, which i added as a courtesy for this relatively inexperience editor (who de-prodded it twice w/o adding references), are simply not adequate to justify an article for this otherwise nonnotable child of a celebrity. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G10 as a flagrant BLP violation. This is not a biography, it is a coatrack for a fringe conspiracy theory that claims that O. J. Simpson didn't kill two people, but that his son Jason did it instead. Jason Simpson has been the victim of harassment for many years. Read Bill Dear is Full of It and I Can Prove It for more information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dive (Belgian band). L Faraone 04:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final Report

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

Article has been unsourced for four years. If someone will add reliable sources that establish notability, then this nomination can be closed as Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I looked for some time and found only download sites, discography sites and promotional sites. Tracks from the album seem to be sometimes combined and sold together with another album. It is a remix. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dive (Belgian band) as a possible search term. The page is getting about a dozen hits a day. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per above. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by withdrawal of nomination. (Non Admin Closure) Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SV Angel

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

primary source only, no indication given of notability. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I actually found coverage in some national sources including Fortune magazine and the New York Times. I added several references to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination and speedy keep, well done. I should have tried myself, 40 lashes with a wet noodle.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 04:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Jones (footballer)

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

PROD template removed by author, but the concern is still valid - Non-notable footballer who is yet to play in a fully professional league. JMHamo (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Premature -- He has just signed for a professional club, but I do not think he becomes notable until he has regualrly appeared in theri first team. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully professional league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 04:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cary LaScala

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

references and article do not support notability. session musician with a business, no significant notability to justify an article here. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cary has played on records, is endorsed by drum companies and works with really well known producers and musicians. I took out the part mentioning he is still hired to perform and the fact that he owns 2 clothing stores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastelcolored (talk • contribs) 05:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable musician. Has certainly been in the presence of people of have been in the presence of notable musicians, but certainly inherits none of that notability. Has not been a notable part of any notable band or album. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He has recorded on albums as the drummer on established labels and has been in bands as an official member that are here on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CEB0:EAD0:5844:C145:2879:AC0A (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO. FurrySings (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar · · 21:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twist (Harkaitz Cano)

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

This article should not exist, instead, create the novel's page Mat ty.007 13:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn-I originally thought Twist was a character in a book called 'Harkaitz Cano', but I now know that this is not the case. Mat ty.007 19:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Twist was a character in the book of Harkaitz Cano, apologies if I was wrong. Mat ty.007 20:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the name should be Twist (novel), as this gives a greater indication of the context of the name. An example is here. Mat ty.007 16:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Cleanup I don't get what you mean by your reasons. The article is extremely disorganized and needs cleanup, but it meets WP:NBOOKS as it has been covered by at least 3 sources (albeit reviews) and has its own article on the Basque Wikipedia (found here). Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 15:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 17 June 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, czar · · 17:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Matty, are you recommending deletion in any way? Your argument appears to recommended "move/rename" as the course of action, so I wanted to give you a heads up that AfD noms that don't have a deletion argument qualify for speedy keep #1. If this is the case, you may want to withdraw your nom. In the future, you can propose what may be a controversial move/rename via Wikipedia:Requested moves, the article talk page, or otherwise just do it yourself WP:BOLDly. Have a good one czar · · 17:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 04:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GoWrite App

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

Unsourced article about a new and non-notable software application. Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. - Mr X 17:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Easily fails Wikipedia:NN. buff bills 7701 17:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete Clearly does not meet any notability criteria. It was just released this month so it may just be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to fail WP:N at this time; not finding any coverage in reliable sources. Zero Google News archive and GBooks hits. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 18:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katoria

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable community development block in India. Poorly written, poorly sourced. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the references (such as they are) do not evidence the subject's notability. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment our article community development block in India says that CDB's are 3rd level administrative subdivisions in some states (equal to Tehsils). Is the nominator assuring us that CDB isn't such? For if it is; it's an automatic keep as an administrative structure of a nation state. What is the nominator's response? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:07, 21 June 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, czar · · 17:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article is not meaningfully about any administrative structure, but about a place which may happen to correspond to one. Or may not, given that only one of the sources does more than mention the place! Pinkbeast (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Explosions can be our friends, even for notable topics (if this one is such a topic). This isn't prose, there's not much (if anything) salvageable. Charmlet (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep well then, explosion happened without a deletion. Charmlet (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, nothing salvageable: even if the topic were notable, a meaningful article would have to be rewritten from scratch. Most of the sources provide only trivial coverage, and only the unreliable one has any connection to the article's content. Huon (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep stub by TheOriginalSoni. Huon (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article rewritten. A relatively simple WP:TNT compared to the other such articles from the subcontinent. It does happen to be a 3rd level administrative subdivision in Bihar, and so will make for a direct keep now. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For various reasons cited for "keep" above. It is a real place and its population should be at least 1000, even more, I presume, based on the population of similar places being administrative headquarters of a number of villages, etc. --Bhadani (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 04:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MEM Retail

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

Apparently not notable--I have been unable to find any verifiable information other that that they went bankrupt in 2006, according to a UK local paper

The web site being used as an external link is not operating. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability; even the reference above is more about an individual who had been associated with the firm. The award that they co-won would be the only claim to notability, if it were a notable award in itself, which it doesn't appear to be. AllyD (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 04:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Home Loans

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

Completely non-notable mortgage/loan company TKK ^{bark !} 16:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:SIGCOV. Suspected COI as article creator has only contributed to this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most references are self published and the rest seem to fail WP:CORPDEPTH as they are mostly speculation at the time of reporting, and not actual confirmed news events. Also article seems to be written in an unduly promotional tone as per WP:SPIP. Ochiwar (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is mostly established upon primary sources. Adabow (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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? 02:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oļegs Baikovs

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

The last afd resulted in keep because the Macedonian First Division was incorrectly presumed to be fully pro at the time. It is currently listed and sourced as not fully pro at WP:FPL. Aside from his stint in Skopje and a brief stint in the Lithuanian A Lyga, which is also confirmed as not fully pro, he has never played outside of Latvia, which has no confirmed fully pro league, and has only ever represented Latvia on the youth level, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT. The coverage he's received is the usual trivial stuff, match reports, squad lists, transfer announcements, player profiles etc., which means the article also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 04:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alen Stepanjan

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

Restoration of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Apart from the usual player profiles, which are considered trivial per WP:NSPORT, the only coverage he has received seems to be transfer announcements, which does not amount to significant coverage. He has only ever played in Estonia and Latvia, and no league in either country is confirmed to be fully pro. Internationally, he has only ever represented Estonia on the youth level. Therefore, the article still fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails requirements under WP:NFOOTY - WP:TROUT to anyone claiming otherwise when they have been well-advised of the notability requirements (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Base26gps

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

Article was dePRODded by creator. Concern was: Essay or original research. Wikipedia is not a 'How to'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with proposer, essay with no references. Rankersbo (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G11 - Created by User:Avishaby, article appears to exist solely for hanging that ___domain name at the end, which is owned by Avi Shaby [1]. Having a COI isn't against the rules, but using that COI to promote your own website is. Any passing admin can view this as the equiv. of CSD tag. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 09:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage whatsoever. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Kill Order

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

Non-notable book. WP:NOTBOOK applies. reddogsix (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: References suggest otherwise.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thanks to Tokyogirl79 for adding the references. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources indicate significant coverage. L Faraone 04:41, 1 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. L Faraone 04:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karposh Rebellion Flag

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

Instead of nominating the article for CSD, as there is a credible assertion that the flag exists, I'm putting it up for deletion based on it being an original theory. There may also be other issues that deserve deletion, such as the flag being notable independently of the rebellion. w^L^{<speak·check>} 14:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a hoax. Such flag never existed. Jingiby (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Karposh's Rebellion. Andrew³²⁷ 19:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete completely or redirect -- If there was a flag, it has no separate notability from the rebellion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - non-admin closure. Beerest355 Talk 14:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The secrect and the Illuminati

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

Fails WP:GNG. It may be a hoax, but I'm not completely sure if it is. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 13:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New England Machine Learning Day

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

Not notable, new event. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:EVENT. The only stuff I could find was stuff promoting it. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 15:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 June 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, czar · · 13:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found only routine announcements. SL93 (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Early Years (Out of the Grey album)

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

Not a notable compilation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 June 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, czar · · 13:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luisa Marina Perdigó

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHtis and GNEWS of substance. The article references are her work and do not include anything written about her. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 9 June 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, czar · · 06:44, 16 June 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, czar · · 13:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability here. Beerest355 Talk 14:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SkateSlate

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

Recently founded magazine. Was dePRODed by creator. Promotional, and fails WP:NMAG and WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepArticle seems fine, I removed a bit so it is less promotional. Sure it needs work but so does every article on WP. I am happy to work on this for a while to bring it up to standard. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 12:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete messy article. No reliable sources at all:

This is just a FaceBook post.
This is just a page that links to SkateSlate's website.
This is an interview with a blog, which is just promotional fluff.
This is a screenshot, which again just links to SkateSlate's website.
This is a blog that congratulates someone for being on the cover.

I tried doing a search, but the only mention that wasn't SkateSlate's own website was this fleeting mention here which can't really source anything. Beerest355 Talk 14:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per reasons given by Kudpung and Beerest355. Any slight notability seems to be the result of promotion, and therefore not reliable. - Mr X 17:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepHi, I am the author and once notified of concerns I immediately reached out to Kudpung with edits and asked if they addressed his/her concerns. I am surprised at how quickly deletion occurs since I am desiring to bring this article into conformance. I was surprised that it was already deleted despite our willingness to amend any objectionable material. The magazine publishes daily news on the longboarding/skateboarding scene. It is not a new magazine, rather it has existed for the past 4 years. It is common for news outlets to not have many references in the news since other news publications don't list or cite their competitors. SkateSlate has numerous citings and references by other manufacturers in the longboarding industry that can easily be found by searching past the first google page of results. This is my first time at adding an article to Wikipedia but it seems like a discouraging process if other users delete your content before you have a chance to bring it up to the level of more experienced authors. I would appreciate if the community would work with me to bring it into conformance rather than just try to delete the magazine from Wikipedia. If you are reading this and researching the topic, I encourage people to look at other skateboarding magazines as references. Thank you for your support. ★★User talk:Tacutting ★★ 12:04, 24 June 2013 (PST) — Tacutting (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The article has been previously Speedy Deleted twice. If you can provide substantial referenced sources to comply with WP:NMAG and WP:GNG notability criteria for periodicals before this AfD closes, then there is a chance it will be kept. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The wording in your comment seems to imply that you may be affiliated with this subject. If this is true, you may have a conflict of interest and I suggest you read the guidelines regarding COIs. I have posted a user warning template on your talk page with information about COIs. Respectfully, Michaelzeng7

Comment - Thank you Michaelzeng7, your post was helpful and I believe I have brought the article into compliance in terms of the guidelines. I really appreciate your help and tone. Tacutting (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 00:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article seems worth keeping. Granted, it does need citations, and it has inappropriate external link style, but it is notable enough Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 22:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I think about it, the editor who created this article has a WP:COI. Even his username shows that he is associated with the magazine! Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 22:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author and have read the WP:COI policy. I do not believe the post exhibits any violations of the WP:COI and if it does, please point out the specific violation so I can correct it promptly. As I understand it, it is allowable for someone to be closely associated with the subject matter as long as the article does not violate any of the tenants outlined in the WP:COI. Tacutting (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even as an active member of the Skateboarding Wikiproject, I can't support keeping this. None of the sources provided are reliable sources and this just doesn't meet our General Notability Guidelines. The obvious conflict of interest (that has plagued Longboarding and related articles) doesn't help. It breaches those guidelines because this is clearly an attempt to WP:PROMO this non-notable magazine using Wikipedia. Stalwart111 00:15, 1 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 Boldly redirected, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heartbroke and Busted

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

Just text article promoting artist. Not notable unless author can fix it. Tyros1972 Talk 07:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 9 June 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, czar · · 09:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect' to Goodnight L.A. or Magnum- Doesn't seem to meet WP:NSONG, I can't find any reliable sources to prove notability. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:28, 21 June 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, czar · · 12:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nourida Ateshi

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

Non-notable author; I couldn't find anything that looked like it was reliable and not self-published, but a lot of the results were in languages I don't speak so I was going by the shoddy google translate versions. TKK ^{bark !} 12:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The entire article is WP:OR. WorldCat shows 2 books authored, each of which is held by a single institution: here and here. Agricola44 (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I don't think the sources given in the article are enough for WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR and I couldn't find other good ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 housekeeping non-admin closure: 01:58, 30 June 2013 Secret (talk | contribs) deleted page Mykolas Natalevičius (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: http://www.mxl.lt/en/classical/persons/bio/natalevicius?PHPSESSID=4f7a0145e6e2b12c63503009b7bb44fa) czar · · 18:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mykolas Natalevičius

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

Appears to fail the policy on BLPs; and seems to be generally non-notable; i found this and this but since i speak about as much Lithuanian as a cat speaks dog I can't say if these are reliable sources. TKK ^{bark !} 12:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as flagrant copyvio of this web site. Ochiwar (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 18:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hayford Peirce

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

Non-notable author. Lack of independent third-party reliable sources discussing this author. No independent reviews of his books. Article is essentially an advertisement to sell books. Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Author of multiple books with major genre publishers (Tor and Bantam). It is true that published reviews of his books appear to be hard to locate but I think the SF Encyclopedia is enough. There are also some reviews out there; here are a couple (in German): [2] [3]. This is no more an advertisement than any article on any author. However some unsourced material should probably be trimmed from our article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flash-zine is a reliable source?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are, it seems, two more (the parts relevant to Peirce not visible online but that's irrelevant for notability): A review of Peirce's Black Hole Planet in the Washington Post (see the actual review text here) and A review of Dinosaur Park in the Arizona Daily Star. I had been assuming in good faith that when you said there were no reviews you had thoroughly searched Google news archive, but apparently not. And here's another genre magazine review: [4]. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I'm notable or not is for others to decide. I will mention that over the years Locus_(magazine) has had many reviews (maybe 20 or 30) of my short stories that were published in Analog Science Fiction and Fact, probably the leading magazine in the field. There have been reviews of my novels in OtherRealms and, for that matter, Analog itself. I've never bothered to keep track of the ones in other countries. (May I also mention the fact that Mr. Sulcer was, for a while, a disgruntled contributor to Citizendium, where, at the time, I was a Constable (the equivalent of an administrator here) -- evidently Mr. Sulcer had issues with some of the other Constables at the time about his contributions and he left in a clearly unhappy frame of mind.) The fact that I have had many published stories in the leading science-fiction and mystery magazines seems to have escaped him also. As a matter fact, there is a new one called The Lethal Leeteg in the August 2013 issue of Ellery Queen Mystery Magazine -- I was paid, I believe, $400 for it, so it is clearly not "self-published".... Hayford Peirce (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Editor of EQMM has a blog site where she posts weekly articles by selected writers: you may check out what she wrote about me a few weeks ago at: http://somethingisgoingtohappen.net/2013/04/24/on-___location-in-paradise-by-hayford-peirce/ Hayford Peirce (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The EQMM is a Wordpress site.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's less relevant than whether the information there is under the editorial control of EQMM rather than being a personal blog. Institutional blogs (such as online columns associated with newspapers) can be reliable sources regardless of whether they're called blogs, but personal blogs are rarely reliable. In this case, most of the content at the link looks like a first-hand reminiscence, so it might be ok as a source for simple factual information (such as that the subject lived in Tahiti) but not much more. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When User:Hayford Peirce edits the article Hayford Peirce over 50 times, making major changes, it is a conflict of interest just like his participation in this discussion now.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @ David - "Author of multiple books with major genre publishers" is not sufficient to meet the notability criteria at WP:AUTHOR. The Science Fiction Encyclopedia is not sufficient, in terms of WP:V, to keep this article. This article has been around for several years and has been edited extensively by Mr. Peirce himself, so I can't help but think that if the appropriate verifiable references existed they would already have been added. Taroaldo ✉ 22:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per sources cited above and the subject's publication history discussed in the article itself. This is a weak nomination and should be withdrawn. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources cited. The WP:COI here is obvious but it has been openly declared as such since 2005. Contributing to this discussion isn't a conflict of interest, especially since he's not !voted and has determined that the decision should be made by consensus not including him. His editing the article is a conflict and he should refrain from doing do. I also think the fact that Mr Hayford hasn't filled the article with links to Amazon and his own websites in an effort sell his books is as valid as Taroaldo's point that he also hasn't added a lot of references. But if there are reviews and references to be added then that's a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problem, not an WP:AFD sort of problem. Stalwart111 22:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly a notable author. There is far too much unsourced material here and yes, Peirce's COI is obvious. Neither of these, though, is a reason for deletion. Unsourced material? Tag it for sources or chop it out. COI editing? Monitor the edits, assume good faith and edit as needed. Suppose a major world figure showed up and added to her article that she's simply gorgeous and the most gracious person on the planet. You'd note the COI and take the pruning shears to the article, not kill the article. Some of the edits are completely benign -- helpful even. This spelling correction is his only edit to the article in over 6 years. The "major edit" in 2006 does need some trimming. I encourage concerned individuals to do so. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here are links to the references so far:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Peirce

This is a bookstore

Blocked by paywall

Blog-website in German

Website

Wordpress article

Directory listing only

Here are Wikipedia's guidelines:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

— --Wikipedia

That's what I am saying. The references do not meet the requirements in my view. Wikipedia's rules make this encyclopedia great. It does not seem wise to bend them because an author happens to be a contributor here. It hurts all our other contributions when an insider gets favorable treatment--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but seriously trim The article is too long, filled with uncited material and opinion. The COI editing is noticeable. Suggest a serious trim. LK (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my view it is more than a problem of trimming. I argue the article is essentially misleading because it paints Peirce as an important sci-fi mystery writer with substantial readers. Clearly he wrote many books. But almost nobody reads them. An unofficial check at Amazon finds only ten (10) reader reviews for 14 books. Why so few? Lack of readership is consistent with lack of media attention and suggests a fringe author. Contrast with Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. 1731 reviews. See the problem?.--13:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Napoleon Disentimed 2 Amazon reviews

The Thirteenth Majestral 1 review

Phylum Monsters 3 reviews

Chap Foey Rider 0 reviews

Jonathan White 0 reviews

The Burr in the Garden of Eden 0 reviews

Sam Fearon 0 reviews

Flickerman 0 reviews

The Spark of Life 0 reviews

Black Hole Planet 0 reviews

Aliens 0 reviews

With a Bang... 0 reviews

The 13th Death of Yuri Gellaski 0 reviews

In the Flames of the Flickerman 0 reviews

Dinosaur Park 4 reviews

Well then, it's lucky we don't rely on Amazon reader comments when determining notability or this author might be in trouble. Besides which, you missed Dinosaur Park on the first page of results with 4 reviews. To be honest, at the moment I'm more concerned about the unaddressed suggestion that this AFD might have been raised as the result of an off-WP personal dispute between authors. Stalwart111 13:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The vehemence and repetition of the nominator's comments are raising that concern for me as well. Having been heavily involved in the Qworty mess, I find that prospect extremely distasteful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I will not add more rebuttals. I added Dinosaur Park totals above. For the record, I have no personal animus towards Mr. Peirce. I worked with him at Citizendium (we sometimes had disagreements but they were not major) but I left there, after much frustration, because the project had no readers. My concern here is entirely motivated by following Wikipedia's rules. My problem is when I tell people I contribute to Wikipedia, and many people doubt the veracity of the project, and it is article like Hayford Peirce which undermine our collective credibility. I will switch my vote to Keep if the solid references total is 3.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For those who don't happen to have The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction at hand, the article on Mr. Peirce in the (online) third edition can be found here. For some reason, this doesn't seem to show up on the first several pages of a Google search (unless I've overlooked it). Deor (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nomination for deltion is totally unwarranted and, as someone already mentioned, seems like part of some kind of personal off-wiki vendetta. Thomas.W (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rename Article clearly belongs on Wikipedia under WP:N and WP:V. However, it seems as if the last name "Pierce" is spelled incorrectly in the page title. DrPhen (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The current spelling is correct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough. Rothorpe (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was some question above about whether the WaPo link David Eppstein provided includes a review of "Black Hole Rising". Given the text provided for the article, and this Google search result, I believe it does, and that we're not seeing it because we're looking at a paywalled snippet. In any case, Google, which is independent enough, believes the Washington Post printed that review. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviews documented in the entries for the author's books at isfdb.org. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 04:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ezaban

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article has been created by a SPA user to promote a non notable virtual institute. One of the source of the article just mentions it in passing. Nothing on the web in Persian rather than forums and blogs. Farhikht (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Farhikht (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - per nom, Its just an advert. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have expected the bit about the hacking to provide some sources and maybe even establish notability, but the lack of sources won't get it past WP:GNG. §everal⇒|Times 16:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although there is no reference for hacking at this time. (They maybe some political reasons) but there are enough references which proves this is a Language Institute cooperating with Alzahra University in Iran. --Parsbyte (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luo Meizhen

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

person only claimed to be oldest living person never verified dont see what makes them notable Redsky89 (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Longevity claims. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as the oldest Chinese supercentenarian claimant Old Time Music Fan (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per OTMF, above. Wikipeterproject (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Anyone can claim to be 127, but it would be really surprising if this isn't just another charlatan.Deb (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Chinese authorities recognize the claim so that adds a certain level of notability to it even if Guinness hasn't verified it. There are other articles here on disputed claims. BenW (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability isn't based on our subjective opinions on what is notable, but on guidelines. From that perspective, there's arguably concerns with WP:NOTNEWSPAPER (is there any enduring notability here? I don't see it), but overall this individual does not seem to meet the general guidelines of WP:N. Specifically, I do not see any evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent third-party sources. She seems to being having a brief burst of attention now that she has died, and she had one or two articles on each of her birthdays from the "125th" on. None of the coverage is particularly impressive to me and, of the four sources on the page, the first one doesn't qualify as a reliable source and the last two are just copies of her obituary. Most of the articles are "she's old", "she died", "here are some statistics about related topics", nothing that qualifies for the level of coverage that is expected on the subject. And that's what the key issue for me is: how much of an encyclopedic value will the sources allow us to say on the subject? Not much, from what I have seen. To me, this means she lacks the sustained coverage that would distinguish her from thousands of other individuals claiming (falsely or otherwise) to be very old. Redirect to longevity claims is probably fine, but probably also pointless. Canadian Paul 03:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My basis to keep the article is not based on opinion, but by literal interpretation of the guideline set out at WP:BASIC, namely: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." This is clearly the case, even if the sources (and there are many different ones) refer to her age or death, it is exactly this (her age) that makes her notable. Most notable people have articles about them that refer to the thing(s) that make them notable. This case is no different. Given the very high number of secondary sources, it is obviously notable to live 127 years! It is worth noting that not all the articles were published after her death. You may speculate about whether coverage will be ongoing, but it is not our place to speculate in these debates - we must, as you say, base the decision on application of the guideline. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per CanadianPaul. Trivial mentions ≠ Notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bah, much younger than me, but worth keeping, meeting WP:GNG. Needs cleanup though. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I really do not get the fascination with deleting articles. If one person thinks that something is notable, let it stay. Wikipedia needs to change the way it is run and stop deleting articles, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.130.28 (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think my dog is awesome but that doesn't mean he's notable. Wikipedia needs to keep some standards. --Jsderwin (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete no proof of age and no form of notability. this article should have been deleted right away. 68.192.139.179 (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely not notable. anyone can say that they are 127 years old but they are not notable unless it has been verified. this person wasn't notable before they died so I don't see what makes them notable now. just because someone dies doesn't make them notable. Dman41689 (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No current reliable sources. Can always be readded if reliable source appears in the future. --Jsderwin (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: I closed this as "delete" but am reconsidering this: with few exceptions, the "delete" and "keep" opinions above are poorly argued. Discussion should focus on whether this person meets the sourcing requirements of WP:V and WP:N. Sandstein 08:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks. I have set out my argument above and won't bludgeon by commenting on each contribution. I will ask, however, that the ultimate decision takes into account the serious discussion in the context of WP policy and disregards (or at least places much less emphasis on) personal opinions and discussion without policy backing. Wikipeterproject (talk) 07:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per Wikipeterproject. I have added other sources - articles in Xinhua which states that her status was reported in the China Gerontological Society report. More work on the article and getting sources should help more firmly establish notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

PS also covered in UK press - have added The Telegraph. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - multiple reliable sources establishes notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 04:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Lusty

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

Large sections of text seem to have been copied from here Mat ty.007 07:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be the same operation as Operation Sea Horse, which has multiple references, such as National Geographic and the Royal Navy. Perhaps a merge is in order... Mat ty.007 12:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article states it was a part of Operation Livery, which makes no sense, since Livery was a combat operation on the other side of the world in Malaya. Maybe Sea Horse was actually the transportation stage of Lusty. (The article I linked to below about HMS Reaper mentions them both.) The latter has better sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. I think the author of the Reaper article got the operations mixed up. After the sole mention of Livery, the next paragraph is devoted to Lusty, and Livery is never mentioned again. The National Museum factsheet states that the Lusty finds were shipped to the US on Reaper, and that ship was the transportation used in Seahorse. This forum comment, while not a reliable source, also backs up this connection: "All the above pictures relate directly to the so-called "Operation LUSTY" (from LUftwaffe Secret TechnologY) an effort run by the U.S. Army Air Forces Intelligence Service ... The time frame for the whole peration (sic) was from October 23 1944 to the 15th of December 1945, although the naval part ("Operation Sea Horse") only took from July 20 to July 28 1945." Clarityfiend (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even though most of that appears to be copied from this factsheet (which is in the public ___domain I might add) I think it would just need to be re-worded in order to "save" the article. — -dainomite 08:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge I have never seen an academic refernce to anything called LUSTY, I seem to recall it was mentioned in a video game. There is no doubt the USAAF had a program to loot Germany for all the good stuff, but I cannot say it was done under this name. I know there are better references for Operation Seahorse, although I somehow suspect this was only the sea movement of captured stuff. There may have been several operations along these lines, but to say it again, I have never encountered LUSTY in my reading. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. I know what I am thinking of, Operation Surgeon and Operation Paperclip, which seem to be related to all this. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The National Museum of the US Air Force and Air Force Magazine think it existed, plus there are books written about it: Watson's Whizzers: Operation Lusty and the Race for Nazi Aviation Technology and A History of the Development of Technical Intelligence in the Air Force, 1917-1947 Operation Lusty. There's an article in something called the Aerospace Power Journal. This article claims that HMS Reaper participated in the operation. That satisfies WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Clarityfriend. No offence to Paul but clearly more reading is needed as I knew about "Operation Lusty" when I was 12 (and no, I hadn't played any video game other than Microsoft Flight Simulator 3.0). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None taken. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

María Elena Holly

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

Lacks notability: Being the widow of a notable person doesn't make her automatically notable. Mercy11 (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course, being the widow of a notable person doesn't make her automatically notable. But it doesn't rule out notability either. If she had quietly gone on with her life, she wouldn't be notable. But instead she spent half a century visibly and somewhat aggressively protecting and profiting from Buddy Holly's legacy, fighting with people and sometimes suing them. She has had a longstanding and well-documented feud with Lubbock, Texas. All this has been well recorded in reliable sources, so there is plenty of coverage of her in Google Books and Google News Archive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen³²⁸. Buddy casts a long shadow. In addition to her business dealings, they're still interviewing[6], quoting[7] and mentioning/photographing her[8] to this day. That'll be the day when this article says goodbye. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep also per per Cullen. I was surprised to see the AfD in the first place. She has played an important role which is well documented in keeping the legend of Rock and Roll pioneer Buddy Holly alive. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Changed my mind - deserves to stay. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn (WP:NAC). JJ98 (Talk) 03:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Cheeks

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

No out of universe notability. Character does not pass WP:GNG like Brock Samson of The Venture Bros. Contains a lot of In-universe fancruft. JJ98 (Talk) 02:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 03:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 03:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 03:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g11, ad for selfpublished book. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guardmount

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

Non-notable book. Fails WP:NOTBOOK.

reddogsix (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rebel (movement). Consensus is to redirect as clear redundant content fork. Its proper title can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tamarud

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

A more complete article on subject already exists; see Rebel (movement) David O. Johnson (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rebel (movement). It is a plausible search term. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Cullen's comment; it is possible that some might try to search for Tamarud and some might search for Rebel. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for the reasons stated above. I wish I could give an eloquent argument for redirecting, however those before me did a good job at exhausting any argument that I can presently think of.--RPhilbrook (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article should maintain the Tamarud name, as thats the name that people know them. Naming it "Rebel" is ambiguous and people will not find what they are searching for.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Livery in law

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

Not quite sure whether this dab page should be deleted or possibly redirected to Livery of seisin. The second entry is related to the first~~, and in fact it has been proposed that they be merged~~. The other two alleged dab entries don't belong here at all. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it has the same problem and consists of the same two entries: Livery of seisin and Sasine:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is to merge Livery of seisin into Seisin, not Sasine. Peter James (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Close The nomination was unclear and the later addition of another article leaves matters even less clear. I don't know what is being proposed for Livery in deed. Anyway, this is a matter best dealt with by normal editing without AFD involvement. Go ahead with editing and redirecting involving talk page discussion when required. Thincat (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep livery in law is a legal concept and process explained in numerous sources and should therefore be a blue link. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Okay, I was thinking of it only in terms of a badly formed dab page. I'll tidy it up a bit, reclassify it, and tag it for an expert to deal with. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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