Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 March	18 March >

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 Speedied by Bbb23(A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event). Sperril (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miley Cyrus International

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

Speedy delete tag is being continuously removed so I'll take this to AfD. No indication of notability is given for this fan club. Eeekster (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Also, I think there may be some sock-puppetry waddling around this article. Sperril (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. No indication of importance or significance. —teb728 t c 23:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfair. I red all the rules. And I followed them. This is not a promotional article. I just want to tell the history of MCI. What did I do wrong? Tell me and I'll change it but please don't delete it. Loverdion17/03/2013 20:47
Speedy delete - Per A7. No indication of significance, not to mention poor spelling and grammar application. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are just being trivial. You aren't fair. This article don't like you and you want to make all possible to delete it. Please, what do you get doing it? Loverdion17/03/2013 20:56
Great, I'm not giving up. Do you know what? Delete it but I'm coming back in 2 month. I'm going to pay for this. You are going to see what a credit card can make. It's going to be a private article! Loverdion17/03/2013 20:59

What do you mean by that? 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources have been provided, just the organization's own web site, Facebook, and Twitter pages. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any independant sources online either. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"keep it" Yes you can find. Are you searching by the righ way? Loverdion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loverdion (talk • contribs) 00:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Do not delete~~ Vote by banned sock of user:Hernan 12 Sperril (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC) The organization is telling it's history. There's no other meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loverdion (talk • contribs) 00:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- "Wanting to tell it's [sic] history" doesn't make the organization notable. Eeekster (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it That's right. It's a object article. The organization want to tell it's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hernan 12 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 Article says it all by itself; not a club endorsed by Cyrus in any way. Nate • (chatter) 01:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article to say what makes this company notable --5 albert square (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I have tagged the article for speedy deletion under WP:A7 per the arguments above. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Salla

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

An ufologist. His views (that aliens have had secret meetings with politicians, etc.) appear to have gathered some followers and a bit of media attention a few years ago. But a Google News Archives search reveals no substantial coverage, and the references in the article are the usual potpourri of press releases, other self-published material, dead links (e.g., a Feb 19, 2004 Washington Post article that is no longer accessible), passing mentions, and media coverage of groups or movements with similar views but whose connection to this person is not apparent. The term "exopolitics" that he associates himself with has apparently a variety of uses. (It had an article once too; there was a no consensus AfD in 2009 and then it was merged with his biography.) In view of this, he and his "movement" may well fail WP:GNG. If kept, the article would need a substantial BLP cleanup, perhaps a stubbing. Sandstein 19:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not interested in defending this article, but as a general point, the Washington Post article does exist, and is accessible in various forms. I can email it to you, if you want. The fact that a link is dead doesn't mean it is invalid as a reference (especially if it comes from a major newspaper, which has surely been archived). Zagalejo^^^ 21:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but if it's offline, we can't check whether it contains substantial coverage of this person. If it's around online, could you post a link here? Sandstein 21:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a HighBeam account? It's available there [1], as well as similar sites. If you Google for any specific phrase you see at the HighBeam preview, you can also find the article in its entirety at various message boards and UFO websites, but most of those hits are probably copyright violations, so I won't link directly to them. But anyway, there are lots of ways of getting past the dead link issue. Zagalejo^^^ 02:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I found it, thanks. It's about the notion that Eisenhower met with aliens, and has something like four paragraphs about Salla by way of background as the person advancing that theory. I'm not sure whether this conveys notability for Salla rather than for that idea of his. Sandstein 07:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, even if it does, we'd need another piece from a reliable source for him to meet the WP:GNG. Pardon my cynicism, but reliable sources seem rather thin on the ground in the field of ufology! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gscholar h-index of 7, no other signs of passing WP:PROF. Coverage in reliable sources (which are thin on the ground indeed for the UFO movement) is scant to nonexistent, so fails WP:BIO as well - news mentions are fairly trivial. Ray^Talk 05:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He appears not to pass the other criteria of WP:PROF, so the best chances of notability are either criterion C7 (outside impact) or WP:GNG. But while the "Ike and the alien ambassadors" story (available through highbeam) has some depth of coverage of the subject, the other references listed here don't, nor does a Mother Jones 2007 story I found in highbeam. But I'm willing to change my mind if additional in-depth and reliably published sources turn up. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper | 76 02:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rachelle Walker

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

Non notable HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• DJ8946 This does not need to be deleted because she is signed to WWE. She is not an active wrestler because of an injury. —Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

A WWE Contract don't make you notable. When she appear in the main roser, maybe she'll be notable. Now, she isn't. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- She isn't notable. She might be in the future, but Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. She could easily quit and disappear into obscurity. Until she does something of note in WWE, she doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Feedback ^☎ 15:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even close to notable. BerleT (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 01:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Tyson

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

Non notable HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A stub that relies heavily on an arrest which is hardly news outside of the main roster. BerleT (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the only sustantive content is on a brawl. Clearly NN, as yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur with the nominator. Feedback ^☎ 16:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Southampton

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

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Southampton, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Similar pages such as List of bus routes in Bury St. Edmunds & Newmarket have been deleted. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 17:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. This is not a suitable subject for a encyclopaedia, and whilst Wikipedia may have aspects of almanacs or gazetteers these should exist as a means to index encyclopaedic content and help readers find that content. Wikipedia is also not a directory (of routes) or a travel guide (explaining how to get to bus stop B from bus stop A) The list is currently unsourced and likely to only be sourceable to primary sources, even if some of these primary sources are independent - This does not provide evidence that the subject is notable and meet the GNG. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources have been provided, not even primary sources, much less secondary sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and impossible to maintain using reliable third party sources. An article on Buses in Hampshire would be entirely appropriate however. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no references or sources, not notable neither Davey2010 Talk 02:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melin Shikder

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

Fails WP:BIO. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice this, but interestingly enough, the creator of the article, M.shykder (talk · contribs), appears to be the actual person itself. Conflict of interest it seems. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More digging to discover that it's a hoax altogether. This 17 year old has too much time on their hands... — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Mr. Shikder also edits under an IP address, 216.239.76.217 (talk · contribs), and enjoys removing deletion templates. — Statυs (talk, contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it's genuine, there's not enough there to pass on notability. Discogs isn't a reliable independent source, and tweets are even less reliable. Peridon (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Llanos

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

Not notable Uberaccount (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: in 2013, if a footballer playing for a club as well known as Unión Temuco had made a first team appearance, there would be more that adequate coverage in reliable Spanish language sources to meet the general guidelines and/or the guidelines for soccer players.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Volken

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

Not notable Uberaccount (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league and has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 17:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Luckett (businessman)

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

Non-notable local businessman; failed candidate and now a candidate again. This one just doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN or any other test of notability I can think of. Orange Mike | Talk 02:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — this subject fails WP:42 as to substantial coverage. I'm discounting the exceedingly and apparently non-print and local coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 03:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article got through WP:AFC at the end of 2010, which means that it would have needed to have got past policy then.--Laun chba ller 09:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - no, it means that one person doing review in the early days of AFC let it pass, in good faith. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mississippi gubernatorial election, 2011. Losing candidates generally do not pass WP:POLITICIAN and it makes sense to redirect to the election page. Enos733 (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mississippi gubernatorial election, 2011, subject appears to have received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources, therefore the subject passes WP:GNG; however, the vast majority of the significant coverage is related to one event, the subject of the article Mississippi gubernatorial election, 2011. As a candidate who lost and has not received significant coverage outside of the election the subject fails WP:POLITICIAN. Therefore, the subject of this AfD falls under WP:BLP1E, as such the common outcome when this is the case is to redirect the subject to the event, in this case an election.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Change from Redirect to Mississippi gubernatorial election, 2011, does not pass WP:POLITICIAN as per valid point made by DGG re: GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC) -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The GNG is always an option--saying that it is only with respect to an election makes it almost impossible for someone running for office to be notable, regardless of press coverage. WP:POLITICIAN has always had the exception that sufficient substantial sources overcomes any one-event considerations--as does sufficient coverage for anything. Running as a major party office for governor is significant, if there is enough RSs that cover it. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject did not win the Party's nomination for Governor in 2011. Enos733 (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. I knew I should have checked. But that does not affect the GNG argument. It still supersedes any restriction at WP:Politican when it can be found to apply DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A really obnoxious gutting done to this piece which is now a pretty worthless stub. THIS counts towards GNG, for sure, it is beyond typical politician coverage. With due respect to the nominator, I'm gonna weigh in tentatively on the Keep side here... Carrite (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THIS is campaign-related coverage, yes, but it includes good biographical material for a reexpansion of this piece if this ends a Keep. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THIS from the Jackson Free Press indicates that he owns his blues club in partnership with Mississippi Delta native Morgan Freeman. Carrite (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More, THIS from the Memphis Daily News (not campaign related) details then end of their 10 year partnership as owners of a Clarksdale eatery. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And HERE is more coverage from the Memphis Daily News with a photo of attorney Luckett and actor Freeman on the groundbreaking of their Clarksdale blues club. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yeah, this is a GNG keep. Subject is covered substantially in multiple pieces of independently published news coverage. Carrite (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oton

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

This is a non notable, promotional/advertorial-style wikipedia entry, from a company with a history of delusions of grandeur, who has previously failed to deliver a similar product, has ginned up virtually no third-party coverage except PR's and Interviews, launched a deceptive fundraising campaign by using a page similarly themed to a Kickstarter one (while not actually being on Kickstarter), and of which there is no reason to believe they have either the financing or capability to deliver. Wikipedia is not for advertising. I propose a reversion of the article back to its original incarnation, a redirect to Oton,_Iloilo. Kai445 (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete current ad-like drivel. This thing doesn't exist yet and likely will never exist. The article has not demonstrated that the thing is notable, even if it never ends up existing, so that option is out as well. No prejudice against recreating it if it ever comes out. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My support of deletion was not based on the ad-like nature of the article, but rather the lack of demonstration of notability, which is still the case in the current form. Again, no prejudice against recreating if the thing ever comes out AND demonstrates notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like an advert and notability is dubious. Ducknish (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasoning above. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 20:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasoning above as well. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still Delete, even after G&C's comments; still not notable. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 19:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that a similarly named article called the OTON X Console was deleted as a G11 last December. Assuming, that the other article was for the same product it may be a good idea for someone who can look at the old deleted article to see if this article is similar enough that one to be deleted under that criteria as well.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of substantial, reliable, independent source text about this subject. --Jayron32 02:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was asked to comment again. Substantial, reliable, independent source text has not materialized. My comments remain unchanged. --Jayron32 00:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know the notation is rather weak, fair enough, hands up. but given what i had to work with on this page i don't think i did that badly! i asked for help from the user who has now instigated putting up a AfD notice but he seems more concerned with a personal crusade against the company. Tony flaxman (talk —Preceding undated comment added 07:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this user made this edit which removed most of the AFD proporsal and some of Axem Titanium's response. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: This user also has admitted he was "was asked to produce the Wikipage for (the company)", on the Oton talk page. Also that was a pretty ballsy edit. And for fun, you might want to check if his IP is from the Anniston, Alabama area, where the creator of the alleged device hails from. -Kai445 (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If and when the product is released, it may become notable enough for an article. Maproom (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of coverage in reliable, third party sources. WP:GNG is not met. (Additionally, as mentioned in nom, company has a history of non-notable vaporware... Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did see a link to a Kotaku article in there -- is that not reliable? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That source is useable, yes, but none of the rest of the 13 in the article are. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The Kotaku article is sceptical about the product: "Is Oton just another Phantom, or is there something tangible to its claims?", "As of writing, the project has one backer, who has supplied $US49", "If EnGeniux has been working on the tech for three years, surely it can muster up more than a video showing off the games of others?" Kotaku is a reputable source, but is not evidence for the product's existence, let alone notability. Maproom (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - per WP:ADMASQ - an advertisement masquerading as an article. ukexpat (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC); and WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON.--ukexpat (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ADMASQ PianoDan (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After G&C's edits, this still reads like an add - I reiterate my "Delete." PianoDan (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an egregious inconcordance with the papate! I would recommend re-reading Nehemiah 10:17 before you get yourselves extrudificated. --Lord Bromblemore 17:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Revert. The article was good and backed up by sources, but then two users (ARTHUR SCROGGINS and Tony flaxman) completely changed the article, adding lots of information and others which are not notable enough or not sourced. Also it is strongly represented as an advert. I believe this article should be reverted back to the revision edited by Wavelength at 22:14, 18 February 2013, and add any bits edited by these two users which are notable enough. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't delete. I've found a perfect solution. I will revert all the changes made by these two, because it's their heavy changes that have turned it into a bad article and made this a candidate for deletion. I believe before all these changes, there was no problem at all. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notice: I've finished reverting the article and adding the sourced bits in the article. I think it's okay now and does not need a deletion anymore. Still any problems? Let me know. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I strongly disagree. Both versions are equally bad. The sources are terrible in either version. It certainly doesn't change my !vote. Sergecross73 msg me 23:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree. I didn't notice that the info in the Motherboard section was also bad, and the ad-like info in the Design section. I've removed them. I believe it's okay now, right? --Gaming&Computing (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Can we get a sock check? Can an admin check to see if G&C / Arthur Scroggins and Tony Flaxman all hail from the same area or if they've ever shared an IP? Especially with G&C's history with the previous EVO articles, either this user really likes obscure consoles, or they may otherwise have some connection to the Alabama based company Envizions. Seems suspicious. Maybe nothing. Probably me being paranoid. -Kai445 (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still Delete. The time to establish notability is once it exists and is in the shops. Maproom (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the PlayStation 4 isn't notable then? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the PS4 isn't being started up by a kickstarter by someone with a history of vapor ware either... Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not even kickstarter, a kickstarter-themed page that whose layout was stolen from another company altogether, and they "raised" like $400-ish dollars. I still think the EVO 2 content should be deleted from the EVO page, since it is also non-notable and now officially cancelled. -Kai445 (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ADMASQ and WP:GNG. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, look at the second changes I've done. I believe it's now spam-free. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The blatant promo stuff may have even removed, but the fact that this article exists without proper coverage inherently gives the vibe that its here to create coverage rather than because its received coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 01:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We shouldn't be advertising vaporware. It is slightly better after G&C's edits (thanks) but is still non-notable until it actually comes out. (Which, as the nominator notes, is unlikely to happen - and most of the coverage is about just how unlikely that is.) – SJ + 01:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ^King Jakob _C2 22:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC) (Non-admin closure) [reply]

The Chinese Language Institute

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

This is a promotional article. It was marked as a starter, the references do not substantiate notability. Kanuk (talk) 08:18, 9 March 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 March 9. Snotbot t • c » 08:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per:

Vienna brothers start language institute in China. The Washington Post.
Let's learn Chinese. China Daily.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH:

meets Wikipedia's "Deep Coverage" guidelines as multiple independent sources are cited, clearly establishing notability.
article is fact-based (all statements well sourced) and non-promotional.
CLI is a legitimate educational institution and a relevant academic affiliate of Guangxi Normal University as is clear from major mainstream press coverage as cited.

—Thorstan (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An analysis of the article's sources does not reveal the basis for Keep or Strong Keep

These are the Citations in the Article

• ^ a b "Vienna brothers start language institute in China". Washingtonpost.com. Retrieved 2012-09-02.
• ^ "Vienna brothers start company in China". fairfaxtimes.com. 2011-02-08. Retrieved 2012-09-02.
• ^ "Frommer's Travel Guides". Frommers.com. Retrieved 2012-09-02.
• ^ "Virginia Tech Magazine". Vtmagazine.vt.edu. 2011-01-09. Retrieved 2012-09-02.
• ^ "GSI China Project; Global Sustainability Initiative; Virginia Tech". Gsi.cnre.vt.edu. Retrieved 2012-09-02.
• ^ "Virginia Tech students embrace Chinese culture". CollegiateTimes.com. Retrieved 2012-09-02.
• ^ "CLI Chinese Programs". Studycli.org. Retrieved 2012-09-02.
• ^ "Dreaming in Chinese". connectionnewspapers.com. Retrieved 2012-12-29.
• ^ "Let's learn Chinese". chinadaily.com.cn. Retrieved 2012-12-29.

1. The Washington Post article is a promotional interview article there is no journalistic analysis applied. This is not an independent report. This is someone getting press.
2. The Fairfax article is practically a duplication of the Washington post article, it is an interview article with no journalistic analysis applied, ditto other comment
3. This is merely a link to the Frommer’s site no verifiable information
4. This is an alumni profile, there is no critical review, it is basically several articles about what graduates are doing.
5. It is 404
6. The College Times article is another interview type article that merely parrots the founders
7. This is the Subject’s own website, not independent.
8. Dreaming Chinese is 404
9. Yet another Promotional interview article in the China Daily.The reliability of any Chinese business reportage is questionable because many of the reporters work on a for pay (formal or informal) basis.

The reference in the article to the alleged fact that CLI is affiliatd with the Guangxi Normal University is an internal Wikipedia link The Centre for International Culture and Education of that University on its website http://www.cice.gxnu.edu.cn/cice/eng/xyjj.asp does not list any affiliations.

Item no. 5 is now unavailable 404, When I reviewed that site the article was still live. It only mentioned in passing that one of the CLI company owners was giving them some help or advice. At the time I was of the view that the article did not support the assertion that there was any partnership with Virginia Tech concerning Language Training. The site now says. "The China Sustainability Initiative was started in 2009 to work with partner organizations concerned about environmental conservation, natural resource management, and sustainable development in China. Partners include a growing number of public and private institutions (including CLI)" My recollection of the article previously posed was that CLI would help with student adjustment to the Chinese cultural environment and lend a helping hand where needed. There was nothing about partnering in Language Training, This article does not help the notability of this company.

In short, none of the information is verifiable by any source provided. The media sources are mere interview pieces of no value with regard to Notability of the subject.

Kanuk (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the individual may or may not be notable, the consensus is that this article would require a complete rewrite even if he were. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Malcolm

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOT advertising. Blatant promotion sourced primarily to press releases. CorporateM (Talk) 22:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep seems to have had a successful career as an entrepreneur, but it may be in USA, rather than UK. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Malcolm is an important figure in the computing industry, not only as an entrepreneur in both the US and Europe, but as a prolific inventor. The entry contains direct references to many of his patents, several of which will be found in both Windows and Linux, and thus very widely deployed. His address on the patents is always in the UK which suggests this remains appropriate.RogerDavis21 (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article look well written enough to be kept. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 19:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wp:pretty. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Overly promotional piece lacking independent coverage about Malcolm. This advert is more about the companies he is involved in and notability is not inherited from them. The sources are mostly promotional pieces and none are independent reliable sources that provide any depth of coverage about him. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (repeat): I created this page four plus years ago to recognize someone I met briefly who impressed me greatly. After researching his background, I concluded he was someone important in the industry who had not been widely recognized, which is why I created the page. At that time there was not much independent coverage of him, but a quick Google search reveals there is now a substantial amount more, including many third party interviews. I will update the page accordingly over the next few days. Meanwhile, I would contend that the fact that the entry gives more than 30 direct links to published patents invented by Malcolm over a 20+ year period is ample independent evidence to justify a WP entry. Respectfully, I don't understand the "inherited" comment. What is it you believe is missing here? RogerDavis21 (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (repeat): Extensively re-written to take account of previous comments. Changed main focus to Inventions, and added references to Articles, Presentations and Interviews.RogerDavis21 (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pete Malcolm is significant figure in the tech industry as a whole and a significant inventor as evidenced by the patents listed by the US Patent Office and highlighted in this article. One other item of note is that Pete was the first person listed as an Entrepreneur_in_residence in Europe by the Venture Capital firm Benchmark Capital. JohnNewton (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The question here is whether this article is so over-expansive and promotional that it should be kept and edited, or whether it is best removed and restarted by a NPOV editor. He may be notable : the most likely well-sourced notability is as founder of Orchestria,I am not willing to infer his creating these various computer techniques from having been given patents for them, or even their being cited in other patents--it can merely mean that being there and making these claims, it was though safe to cite it. Considering the generally disputed origin of much computer technology, I'd look for a very reliable outside source that actually discussed the claims and attributed the invention to him. If the article is kept, this section will need to be much reduced. The various positions are none of them notable, either individually or collectively, except possibly for Orchestria. . The awards are trivial As for the sources, the interviews seem either to quote him among other people, or to be the direct product of PR, and I am certainly willing to accept Corporate M's view for what is PR. A year ago I would have said, keep and rewrite; with the deluge of promotional articles we're now seeing, I say delete and start over. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (repeat): Wow, DGG that's quite an attack! Applying those "standards" would result in the deletion of vast numbers of biographies of very well-known people. Notability should be about what a person has actually done and achieved as much as what he or she is "famous" for. Malcolm's patents certainly exist, he more than meets the criteria for prolific inventor, I can find find no evidence to suggest any of his patents have been challenged, and there is no dispute that they have been very widely cited. The inclusion of his business career is to provide a complete biographical picture, it is does not imply that any of those positions was in itself notable, though some of the companies he worked for were clearly very successful in exploiting the technology he invented. Respectfully, I am a completely NPOV editor, this article was originally created in 2009, much earlier than "a year ago", and it is therefore not a product of any recent "deluge". I revised the article extensively based on earlier feedback, and am certainly willing to do so again if there is concensus as to what should be changed. I understand that many Wikipedia entries are "puff pieces" created by a PR agency, but can assure you this one is not. I believe Malcolm is both notable and worthy of a comprehensive Wikipedia entry, and that is what I set out to create. I am encouraged that others (to varying degrees, including yourself) seem to think so too. RogerDavis21 (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop !voting. It's nice to see that this person you happened to have met has made such an impact on you that you've dedicated so much time to him, to the total exclusion of anything else. We don't deny he has invented some some stuff, your spamlinks show that he has. It doesnt matter wether his "inventions" have been challenged or not. the question is Have they or him recieved any significant independent coverage? duffbeerforme (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, I was attempting to engage in reasoned debate, not 'vote' multiple times, which is why I marked my subsequent posts with 'repeat'. With respect, your 'spamlnks' comment is unworthy. I have made my case, and (some) others have agreed. Admins, in the absence of clear consensus to delete, is it not WP policy to keep the article? This has been going on for several weeks now ... RogerDavis21 (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Definite Keep~~ now following improvements to the article, assuming it is all true. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why keep? duffbeerforme (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per CorporateM, duffbeerforme, and DGG. I do not see the improvements referred to by Peterkingiron. The article is not a biography of Pete Malcolm. Rather, the article is so over-expansive and promotional that it should be removed and allowed to be restarted by a NPOV editor. The article has four main sections: 1 Software Inventions, 2 Business, 3 Media Articles, Interviews and Presentations, 4 Patents. The claims in the Software Inventions section that the three listed inventions are significant to their field are not supported by reliable sources. The Business section does not inter relates chronology and the information is promotional and about the companies, not life event of Malcolm. The 'Media Articles, Interviews and Presentations' section merely are further reading information that provides no life event information in the Wikipedia article and appear to be there to promote that Malcolm receives coverage. The list of patents lacks any evidence of interest independent of Malcolm and seem listed merely to promote Malcolm rather than convey information about his life events. The article merely is a disconnected compilation of information with little relationship to the ordered life events of Malcom. Wikipedia is doing a disservice to Pete Malcolm by maintaining this article and the article should be deleted. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No bias against a possible merge to a similar article, (specifically to Common chemicals), interested editors should discussion on the respective talkpages. Consider notifying a science/chemistry editor group? Keeper | 76 19:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of commonly available chemicals

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

The quality of the list is low; some items are obsolete (does anywhere still use town gas, and does that count as commonly-available?), others are available as mixtures/alloys, other are things that are available only with post-processing. Many of the items address the reader in an unencylopaedic manner ("you will need" "be sure to read the labelling")
The inclusion criteria are subjective, and tend towards what's available in the United States.
It's not possible to imagine this list being complete. It could easily include every type of plastic and many biological molecules, for instance, but is based on what the contributing authors imagine will be of use to an amateur chemist. This puts it firmly into How-to territory. Pseudomonas_(talk) 14:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator explains the issues well. Wikipedia is not a virtual Chemistry set. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Impressive resource, and a lot of work invested, but not what an encyclopedia's about. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, it's not useless, but could do with being rehomed elsewhere on the web. Pseudomonas_(talk) 17:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Impressive resources, with a lot of work invested, should be handled outside of AfDs. WP is a varied project; no single person or group has a complete vision of what [this] encyclopedia's about. A small group can decide on some deletion questions (whether something is a neologism, or has no useful sources, or is a hoax) - AfD works for that. But a small group should not decide that a large chunk of work done by some other groups needs to be deleted because the two groups have different visions for what knowledge we are here to share. – SJ + 02:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A possible home for the content would be as an appendix for b:General_Chemistry.-gadfium 19:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have the similar article Common chemicals, which has previously been transwikied to b:Transwiki:Common chemicals. If this does get moved to the General Chemistry wikibook, that should be tagged for a merger with it.-gadfium 07:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep somewhere. It is a useful resource for somebody who doesn't know much about chemistry and comes across chemicals in the community or workplace. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Nice try FBI or Homeland Security for trying to delete this article, ok maybe its not them, but I wouldn't put it past them or some other similar group behind the effort. The only reason I noticed this request for deletion is that I put a WATCH on it because I thought it was a cool list and was curious what else might be added to the list. I've seen far more worthless lists on Wikipedia, so my vote is to keep it or merge into another article(s). • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First time I've been accused of being FBI :) Seriously, it's useful, I don't want to see it disappear from the web, but it would be much better on wikibooks or somewhere. Not everything that's useful should be on Wikipedia, and this seems to be the same category of useful as, say, recipes. Pseudomonas_(talk) 13:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I use this list as a convenient reference to articles about the substances that are used in household products and items. Other sites don't have the base of chemistry information as readily available to quickly access this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.130.194 (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As I say above: just because it's useful doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopaedia rather than, say, Wikibooks. Pseudomonas_(talk) 15:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge with Common chemicals (which is a much less useful and less detailed page on the same topic). To the nominator's arguments: the quality isn't that low - alloys or sources that need minimal post-processing are still quite useful. And inclusion criteria could be updated with flags or colors indicating the region of the world in which each source is easy to come by. – SJ + 02:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 17:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge as suggested. A perfectly appropriate list with a reasonable inclusion criterion. It's not exact, but it's meaningful. DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Common chemicals then rename to List of common chemicals. J04n(talk page) 11:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I realise I might be on the losing side here, but the main criteria ("commonly available") seems to be rather subjective. Some of these commonly available chemicals are illegal to possess in some places, for instance. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forward Degree College

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

This article was previously nominated with the argument "Unaccredited tertiary institution. Fails WP:CORP, WP:SIGCOV, and may quite possibly fall into the range of Unambiguous advertising or promotion." It was kept, however, under the argument that it passed WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. That essay, however, very clearly states that "keep" is the common outcome for independently accredited institutions, not just for all educational institutions in general. I'm not sure if the essay has changed since then, if there is information pointing to an actual accreditation (I can't seem to find any) or if the !voters simply did not actually read the essay, but regardless this article requires some sort of significant coverage in multiple independent sources to be kept. Yaksar (let's chat) 15:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also (not that this alone should be a reason for deletion), this article seems to have been created by a single purpose editor, lending further doubts to its notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Yaksar, have you searched for coverage in reliable sources in Urdu? Unless an Urdu speaker asserts that sources are lacking, I can't support deletion. See WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Urdu is basically non-existent. If someone were to find Urdu sources I would certainly withdraw this nomination. However, I would not feel comfortable simply waiting for Urdu sources to show up for a few reasons:

There's no equivalent article on the Urdu wikipedia. This obviously isn't a deal breaker by any stretch, but its existence would allow an easy solution to this problem.
The certainly notable "affiliated university" doesn't seem to have any extant discussion or information on this college. Additionally, the .tk url gives me pause.
Unaccredited institutions do not receive inherent notability. Therefore this topic does not have any presumption of notability, and significant coverage in reliable sources needs to be found.
Given that the website of the university is in English and does not seem to offer an Urdu equivalent, one might expect at least some sort of available sourcing in English.

If this was a case where the independent english sourcing was simply weak I would feel more comfortable waiting for Urdu sourcing, but given that there is not indication at all that any is available in any language I would not. I agree that system bias is a major issue for Wikipedia, but that means we should be working to create more articles on notable topics of other cultures, not simply allowing articles that at most hold dubious notability without any proof of even basic notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - way premature renomination of an institution kept in AfD in January 2013. Flawed nomination in any case; this college is affiliated with the University of Peshawar which thus provides accreditation of its degrees. TerriersFan (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, especially for one with a non-admin closure waiting over a month is not grounds for a speedy keep. Additionally, you're going to have to provide some sort of independent source showing that there's the university is accredited (actually, it doesn't even have to be independent. A University of Peshawar source would do equally well) or else your claim doesn't really have any merit, since right now the only evidence we have of accreditation is self-made).--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have created this page and the website forwarddegreecollege.tk . I am student of this institute and I have created this page and website. The website is created by me and is not powered officially so that why ___domain is of .tk. For your confirmation you can visit this site Urdu News Paper Link English News Paper Link (These are the snapshot of ads extracted from aaj(urdu word, 'today' in english) news paper). Link to website for your clarification that institute is registered http://www.secp.gov.pk/ns/company.asp?COMPANY_CODE=0035280&id= 14:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Syedowaisalichishti (talk)

Ah, excellent, maybe you can help us out here. While the link you gave does seem to prove that the school is registered as a business, what we need is something that shows that it is accredited. In the case of Pakistan I guess this would mean that it was certified by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan. Alternatively, if you could show us some sources in any language from independent sources providing significant coverage of the university that would help show that it is notable. Thank you!--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Pakistan, colleges are not affiliated with HEC they are affiliated with education board or university, Only universities are affiliated with HEC. In case of this college it is affiliated with University of Peshawar and BISE(Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education). I am attaching pages of college prospectus which claims that they are affiliated with UOP,BISE,BTE Image1(Prospectus Front Page),Image 2(Some other info), Image 3(Page which claim to be affliated wth UOP, BISE, BTE.)Syedowaisalichishti (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is affiliated with the University of Peshawar - http://secure.britishcouncil.org/pakistan-educationuk-country-partnership-institution-university-of-peshawar.pdf - so it doesn't need separate accreditation. TerriersFan (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Degree-awarding tertiary institution affiliated with an accredited university. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly.Syedowaisalichishti (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 In Legend. As editors have noted, meeting one criteria for WP:BAND isn't a guarantee of notability. However, the suggestion that we should not maintain a redirect is definitely wrong ("redirects are cheap") and someone who searches for this person's name should find something useful. Given that I have to choose one or the other, there's a slight numerical preference for In Legend, and a stronger argument, so I've chosen that as the target. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bastian Emig

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

Non-notable musician. His name gets no hits on Google News, and no hits on Google Books. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Read WP:BAND bullet 6, which says "is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles". If we were to redirect this article to van Canto, how would we know he is a part of In Legend? If we were to redirect this article to In Legend , how would we know he is a part of van Canto? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. There is nothing to say about him other than that he existed and was in two bands. Those two factoids can be mentioned in each band article without even taking up a full sentence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a man with two jobs, not a notable artist. The Banner talk 22:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - With all that being said, to which article should Bastian Emig be redirected? If an artist who is in ONE notable band should be redirected to that band, why should Bastian Emig be redirected to ZERO bands? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth makes you think that we have to have any redirect for a non-notable person? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - WP:BAND states "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases". --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That does not mean we must have a redirect. It means that we should not have a standalone article. If he is more closely associated with one band, redirect there; otherwise toss a coin, or don't redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - IMHO, "toss a coin" is not a good solution to determine to which band a musician redirects if both bands are equally notable. In this case, the musician's article acts as a "disambiguation page" of sorts. IMHO, it is better, when someone types in Hughell or Pitruzzella that it shows all of the bands that the person has been a part of, instead of just saying that the musician does not have any page at all, and requiring the reader to sift through search results. That is what an encyclopedia is all about. If it is properly sourced that the musician belongs to the notable bands in question, then the page should remain. If one or zero of the bands are notable, then the musician might not warrant a page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply An encyclopedia is about summarising information on notable topics, from independent reliable sources. It is not about creating a walled garden of pseudo-articles on non-notable people merely because Jax prefers creating permastubs in order to up the blue-link count on his forest of navigational templates, rather than just cross-linking the articles. There is absolutrely no need to create pages on non-notable people, when all we need to do is add a few words to each article:

In van Canto, we write: Bastian Emig (also the drummer for In Legend)
In In Legend, we write: Bastian Emig (also the pianist in van Canto)

That's all. Simple, and no need for the pseudo-article. If you want, redirect Bastian Emig to either of these bands, and the reader will find the link to the other one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Again, if both of the bands are equally notable, how in Sam's Hell will we decide to which article the musician should be redirected? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Simple: redirect to which ever band he is most closely associated with, because that will be most helpful to the reader.
In this case, I find 6,000 ghits for "bastian emig" "van canto" and 19,000 ghits for "bastian emig" "in legend" ... so unless somebody has some contrary data, we should redirect to In Legend. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Article is now more substantive, and has more reputable references. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a tricky one. Most of the sources here are not reliable, so the only information we should really have is that he is a member of the two bands - endorsements are hardly worth mentioning. Personally I don't have a problem with a stub that merely states that and links to the two bands. This is a plausible search term for either band. --Michig (talk) 08:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BAND states that a musician may be notable if they meet at least one of the criteria. Meeting one criterion is not a guarantee that an article's subject is notable. Miniapolis 15:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But if he was only a member of one notable band we would at least leave a redirect to the band. Leaving nothing at all because he's a member of two notable bands doesn't seem to make much sense. --Michig (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As above, simply redirect to whichever of the bands he is most closely associated with. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge into In Legend. His name is a plausible search term for either band, no reason not to keep as effective disambiguation. A redirect should clearly be to In Legend - which is defined by his leadership. – SJ + 02:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and comment: While the article is unlikely to grow beyond a stub in the near future, it does satisfies at least one criteria of WP:NMUSIC, although loosely. Also, take a look at the introduction of In Legend: "In Legend was founded in 2010 and is the piano band of Van Canto drummer Bastian Emig." I guess that gives us the answer to the "to which article should we redirect it" matter, right? Furthermore, he became part of van Canto in 2007, whereas In Legend was founded in 2010. He has released three full length albums with the first, and only one with the second. If I was to redirect it, I would choose van Canto. It is definitely his main band, in terms of the amount of work done. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 02:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - The article is now beyond a stub, and this is exactly the problem we run into with members of two independently notable bands. To which ensemble do we redirect? This is exactly why I have no problem with having such a "disambiguation" stub article stating to which bands the musicians is/was a part of. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. As above, the where-to-redirect question is simple: redirect to the band he is most closely associated with. i.e. In Legend.
    I have just removed a lot of the content from the article, and it's now a stub again. Some of it was unreferenced, some of it misrepresented the sources (such as the claim that he is endorsed by MEINL); and much of what remains is referenced to the band's own website. That breaches Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source, which says that such material may be used only if "the article is not based primarily on such sources."
    Note also that WP:NMUSIC#If_the_subject_is_not_notable: "Wikipedia's goal is neither tiny articles that can never be expanded nor articles based primarily on what the subjects say about themselves.". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only claim to notability has been hashed out thoroughly in this discussion, as for the appropriate redirect, make it In Legend, the first sentence their already links to Van Canto so anyone can easily find out all they need to know. J04n(talk page) 11:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, redirect it to In Legend, then. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 13:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the numbers are close, those asserting notability here provide conflicting suggestions, and many of them are not policy based. The suggestion to merge, when looked at closely, is actually a suggestion to write a totally different article, most likely about the whole season. No one has established that there is actually a named event (March 2013 European snowstorms) that exists as a discrete, specific, encyclopedic topic. However, it is certainly plausible that the underlying information would be useful for some sort of "season" article; as such, I'm happy to userfy the article for anyone who wants to work on that (though, as implied by some of the editors, it may be too soon to write that, as we may lack the perspective needed to get away from WP:NOTNEWS). Qwyrxian (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March, 2013 European snowstorms

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

Not a notable event. ♦ Tentinator ♦ 13:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, Keep, since I believe this (supposedly related, I'm not a meteorologist) chain of snowstorms in Europe is notable enough because of the very high level of media portrayal, and the high level of disruption caused (some fatalities, thousands of cars stranded on several kilometers of highways, declaration of state of emergency, the involvement of military and special forces, involvement of charity organisations, and other very *uncommon* events happening because of the snowfall). I presume the nominator lives in the US, and thus it might be possible he/she views these weather and related event(s) as not notable enough compared to the snowstorms the States might get. Although here in Europe (at least here in Hungary) the previous days were far from everyday, and some reliable sources stated that "this weather situation was unprecedented" (having such a disrupting snowstorm in March is highly odd in Hungary). The government had resorted to order military to use their cargo trucks and tracked vehicles to assist rescuing motorists stuck in high snow sometimes longer than 24 hours. Reliable sources can support this. The weather and the situation what the affected - at least the hungarian, as far as I can cite sources - population experienced isn't something that they will forget in a week or two. Thus, it is notable in an encyclopedic manner.

Reliable and international sources supporting the above:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130315/eu-europe-snow/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21806043

http://metronews.ca/news/world/596652/hungary-snowstorm-strands-thousands-in-their-cars/

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/15/17327572-winter-storm-strands-thousands-of-motorists-overnight-in-eastern-europe

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/winter-snowstorm-batters-northwest-europe-125728172.html

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/03/15/weather-europe-idUKL6N0C7FNJ20130315

http://rt.com/news/snow-europe-hungary-tanks-333/

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/major-snowstorm-to-slam-russia/8137504

http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/22925/53/

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/international/europe/2013/03/hungary_snowstorm_strands_thousands_in_their_cars

Hungarian (several more would be citable):

http://index.hu/belfold/2013/03/16/katasztrofa_minden_fronton/

The Hungarian Wikipedia have an article on the hungarian facet of the situation:

http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013._m%C3%A1rciusi_katasztr%C3%B3fahelyzet_Magyarorsz%C3%A1gon

The English Wikinews have an article about the western aspect of the situation:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Heavy_snow_causes_disruption_across_northwestern_Europe

-Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Withholding judgment for now, but most of those links are ordinary news reports, which doesn't make them notable. In the least the scope needs to be expanded to cover a full season, not just this month, which is only barely half-way over. I realize there's a few other versions of articles like this lurking around, but many of them would probably get the same reception this one is going to get. An exception would be articles that cover wide geography and time-frames, like North American blizzard of 1999 (I'm sure there are some historic ones that would qualify too). These weather articles are tricky; wider scope (and the article's quite meager as is) helps. Shadowjams (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been continued snowfall across the United Kingdom over the past few weeks. Scotland has been hit particularly. Additionally, today there has been widespread snow across the UK which is unusual for this time of the year. Northern Ireland has had blackouts to 40,000 homes also. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brefardan (talk • contribs) 14:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of these are just ordinary news reports. It fails WP:GNG. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Inks.LWC and the fact that the article is empty and has been that way for 4 days. United States Man (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but merge. There's probably enough notable stuff to write an overview article for this winter, say "Winter 2012-2013 in Europe" into which this could be easily incorporated. Snow in the UK is certainly unusual for late March, and there is an economic aspect to the story in that the adverse weather is being partly blamed for the continued depressed state of the British economy. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename/merge per Paul MacD. Useful information, can combine with other meteorology from the season. Systemic bias: The topic is just as notable as, say, individual nor'easters in the US and Canada (all of which we cover and have articles for because weather geeks from that part of the world frequent WP). This topic clearly needs work over time, but there's no need to delete it now simply because it hasn't matured. – SJ + 02:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename, possibly to 2013 European cold wave. The weather in Europe is extraordinary for March, see for example cold weather alerts in UK and a report from Kiev, Ukraine. Brandmeister^talk 21:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Then whey keep the page? 3/4 refs are about one incident, not the overall cold wave. It's a completely separate topic. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article just should be rewritten, not deleted I think (unless an article about the same topic already exists). Brandmeister^talk 09:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER there is no indication that this weather event will have enduring notability. J04n(talk page) 11:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep admittedly the article is rather thin at present and needs work. I like the European aspect to the article, and it probably could be widened to discuss the winter in the European region. Snowiest winter in 100 years in Moscow, on course for coldest march in the UK for 50 years. Snowfall leaving thousands without electricity across Scotland and Northern Ireland, the weather has also caused sporting event cancellations (international soccer and horse racing) and travel disruption. Military assistance called upon in Ukraine and Hungary. I tend to look at the catastrophe modellers and insurance sites for a guide on notability, so far only GAB Robins have issued a notice on the situation, however most of these groups tend to focus on insured losses in Western Europe.

(RMS reactions http://www.reactionsnet.com/RMS.aspx Alert Worldwide http://alert.air-worldwide.com/default.aspx GAB Robins http://www.gabrobins.co.uk/surge-status.aspx Eqecat catwatch http://www.eqecat.com/catwatch/).Lacunae (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the coldest March in the UK in 50 years, there have been massive amounts of snowfall (12 feet drifts "up north"), there are thousands still without power days after the main snowfall, thousands of livestock have perished and where I am it's the latest lying snow since the 1980s. All of these are notable points and the article is worth keeping. Note that I haven't even touched on mainland Europe, but I'm sure it's been just as notable over there. Retron (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected. So this title was redirected to another article on the album at Utopia (EP). Note the parentheses. Of the delete arguments here, WP:CRYSTAL is addressed by the fact that the album comes out tomorrow, and WP:NALBUMS is addressed by the fact that the article appears to be well-sourced. I know that the EP article was substantially less compliant with policy than the (EP) article, and that the comments here only reflect the EP version, but the redirect and the existence of a properly sourced article means we can close this out. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia EP

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

Unsourced article about a future EP. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. I initially redirected this to the artist article, but another editor reverted the redirect (without an edit summary). - Mr X 04:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. She's an up-and-comer and I'm sure the album will gain notability in the future, but for now, no need for a standalone article. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Kerli HAS confirmed she is going to release the album, as seen here [2], therefore it doesn't go against WP:CRYSTAL. Now WP:NALBUMS, I'm not sure, but Kerli seems to be a fairly popular artist, so I'll leave it at a weak keep. Revolution1221 (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:35, 9 March 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, Spinning Spark 13:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bathgate Championship 2013

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

This appears to be a local competition between non-notable players with no coverage whatsoever. Shirt58 (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 11 March 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, Jenks24 (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- a bad page, for a NN competition. It is only from the category that I realise that this is snooker! Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. And I removed the product catalog for obvious reasons, other then that AFD is not cleanup Secret ^account 01:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ace of Clubs Records

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

unsourced article that looks like a product catalogue! WP:NOTDIRECTORY The Banner talk 00:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 11 March 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, Jenks24 (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This was a significant (but long obsolete) Classical record label, established in the period when the price came down from £2 or more to a guinea, which was still a lot of money in the 1960s. I agree that the article is a poor one, but that is a reason for improving it, not deleting it! Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up - historically significant. Not being used as marketing spam; long out of business; doesn't fall under normal "not a directory" guidelines. – SJ + 02:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed as Keep; withdrawn by nominator. – SJ + 02:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Virus 100

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

Flagged for notability in 2009 with no progress on resolving the notability concern Nolabob (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not finding an overwhelming amount of (online) coverage, but there are reviews at Allmusic and Punknews, which are both considered professional review sites by WikiProject Albums. The album is also ranked on The A.V. Club's list of 10 Surprisingly Good Tribute Albums. I have added a reception section to the article to incorporate these sources, and think there's enough material to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 22:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator because of the new information in the article as described above. Nolabob (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avenue 52

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

I love this band, I really do. The problem is, I'm pretty sure they're not notable enough for Wikipedia. They're unsigned, I don't think they've ever charted, they haven't actually won any awards, and the only significant coverage I could find was [3], which is already in the article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The band doesn't appear to have yet reached a level where an encyclopedia article is justified. --Michig (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON, simply not enough just yet. J04n(talk page) 11:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 17:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Crowder

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been deleted twice before. I was the editor who nominated it the first time that it was deleted, because it did not meet the notability guidelines. When it was deleted in the past, it was because there were no secondary sources on the subject available.

There have been a few sources published on him, but they are all on this single protest incident. I feel that this fits the description of a pseudo-biography and thus the subject still does not meet the notability guidelines. "In general, creating a pseudo-biography (on an individual who is only notable because of their participation in a single event) will require the inclusion of other biographical material, e.g. their date of birth and family background. Such information, in many cases, will fail the inclusion test, as it is unlikely to have been widely publicised in the media."

Aside from the few articles on this incident, there are no independent secondary sources on this subject published under editorial control. They are all articles and videos that the subject himself has created, or they were from blogs. I maintain that this article still does not meet the notability guidelines and should be deleted. Rogerthat94 (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person's career has advanced to meet WP:GNG and start to nudge slightly at WP:ENT... and, differently from the version that was deleted in 2011, independent secondary reliable sources with editorial oversite indeed cite this version of article. Using an essay as a rationale for deletion is fine, but I prefer looking to WP:DEL#REASON and seeing if the rationale falls within that list of valid deletion criteria. It's a suitable stub and it serves the project and its readers for this to remain and grow over time and through editorial effort. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:BLP1E also applies to this article. Do we assume every contributor to a cable network will grow to become notable? Rogerthat94 (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E definitely does not apply, he's gotten news coverage for multiple events. Even though his union assailants will not be brought to justice in the eyes of the breitbartarians.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any reputable independent secondary sources about the subject that aren't about the protest incident? Rogerthat94 (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Look in the versions of the article that were substantially my content, not the versions created by his acolytes.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 2012 CPAC "controversy" was one. It was also highly reported in left or right leaning news sources which I tend to avoid when I can find others. I'll even exclude Talking Points Memo if I can.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created the current iteration of the article after the union coverage, noting that Crowder's press coverage had grown significantly. Not all sources available on him are about the protest. Is he super-notable? No. But I thought he had become notable enough to merit a new shot, especially when I realized he was also the "knicker" rap guy at at CPAC2012. Also, the protest is still in the news as of yesterday: [4][5] (Spoiler: No one is going to jail!!) The "psuedo-biography" issue is really about article improvement, not deletion. But it is a real problem with this article, and I hope this AfD draws more watchlisters to it. Editors keep trying to rewrite this article (look at the talk page for extent of debate), mostly acolytes of Crowder. Frankly, its a pain in my ass. Secretly I would have a little relief if it gets deleted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a link to any of the sources you are talking about, that mention something other than the protest incident? None of the CPAC articles that mention him satisfy WP:RS. WP:PSEUDO doesn't mention anything about article improvement. Either a subject is notable outside of a single event or not. There's no policy that says we should keep an article up and wait to see if the subject becomes notable for a standalone article. We should delete this article and recreate it if Crowder becomes notable for anything else, per the policy. Rogerthat94 (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was involved in both of the prior deletion reviews. The 2nd deletion was directly attributable to my actions because I didn't understand the deletion-recreation process back in the day. If it were nominated today, I would not fight the deletion. As for the current article, it is much improved over the original. Crowder has achieved notability in secondary sources via the incident in Detroit, his activities at CPAC, his activities in MMA, and his punditry at Fox and Sun News, his acting gigs (via IMDB), and other sources. The references have been MUCH improved thanks to a group of people who were interested in improving the article. And while I agree the early-life bio is a little weak, a lot of good effort has been put out - and continues to be put out - in trying to find verifiable information. Some information that was not verifiable has already been removed (such as the MySpace win) and continued efforts are being made to verify the rest of it. 5minutes (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is specifically mentioned as not being reliable and thus not meeting the correct criteria. Could you provide examples of sources that do, which mention something other than the protest incident? The closest thing I found were posts about CPAC on blog sites like Gawker, and none of these were published by "professional journalists" or "professionals in the field on which they write." This means that they are not considered reliable sources and thus do not demonstrate notability. Rogerthat94 (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I mentioned IMDB, I am referring to his film career, not his biography. The other sources are listed in the article. I'll let the admins decide, based on this discussion, if those sources are notable enough. 5minutes (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His film career does not meet Wikipedia:ENT. In addition, the article focuses on his punditry and mentions almost nothing about his film career (aside from a list of films he mostly played minor roles in), and it hasn't changed since the first AfD discussion when it was brought up. None of the sources in the article (except for the one about the protest incident) meet the necessary criteria, which is why BLP1E applies. Rogerthat94 (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say his film record met all the standards. I said it was a resource for the article. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. Please stop reading into my statements. 5minutes (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a resource for the article, but it does not demonstrate notability. There are no sources on this subject, which demonstrate notability, except for sources on this one protest incident. Thus the article is a BLP1E. Rogerthat94 (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We'll let the admins decide. I'm done with you. 5minutes (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is all too flimsy--a minor event here, a newspaper mention there. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, subject has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources, however most of those are about a single notable event. Therefore, per WP:BLP1E the article should be converted to a redirect to an article about the event. Like Sandra Fluke, if the subject receives significant coverage for other events, the article can always be recreated. I understand that the subject has posted a lot of commentary work, and has been interviewed as well, but on those things they do not have him (the subject of this AfD) as the primary subject of the content. As a writer (or even reporter) it is my opinion that he is not yet notable per WP:CREATIVE. As an actor it is my opinion that he is not yet notable per WP:NACTOR. It is too soon for a stand alone article, he maybe independently notable outside of the event one day, maybe if he speaks at a national convention (that was what changed Fluke from a BLP1E individual to a independently notable biography subject), but not today.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:GNG has been met (HighBeam alone returns at least 30 different articles to a "Steven Crowder" search). I believe (from what I've seen here and elsewhere lately) that the proposer has far too little editing experience (102 article edits for Heaven's sake) to be in a position to evaluate the merits of one guideline over another (yes, the ones that have "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions" splashed over their introductions). A piece of advice: get out into the real Wiki-world for a few years and find out what it's like to build content. I'm more than happy to help you with that if required. GFHandel ♬ 03:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The HighBeam articles are mostly about the beating incident. The rest appear to be passing mentions. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources in the article are either (a) by Crowder; (b) mention him only in passing; or (c) blog-ish. Am I missing the independent reliable sources that discuss Crowder in a significant way? If the Americans for Prosperity tent incident was his claim to fame, then (as suggested above) an article on that event should be created. --Noleander (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:GNG I from Russia. In Russia his video translated from russian language and show in libertarian site. I think it is glory. dwertys ♬ 03:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.180.216.247 (talk) [reply]
Delete One non-starring mildly significant movie role is not notability., and there is essentially nothing else. DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Crowder has received significant coverage, and not just for the event that those in favor of deletion are claiming, but for his involvement in media and CPAC. He is a relatively major part of the conservative media circuit and meets WP:GNG. Ducknish (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He gets coverage for things, not just people beating him senseless and cutting his tent down at an event. [6] Dream Focus 22:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you provide a source for any of this coverage beyond the one protest event? The example you gave falls under WP:SPS. Rogerthat94 (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a self published source. He works for Fox News, not the Daily Bail. Plenty of coverage for the other thing, and this unrelated thing gets coverage also. Detroit Free Press covers something else he did. [7] Dream Focus 05:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be misunderstanding WP:SPS. The link to the Detroit Free Press is much better, but it still appears to go to one of their blog posts, not one of their news articles. Rogerthat94 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just noticed in the last hour that Crowder got new round of press for trying to tell a "joke" involving Ashley Judd and rape.[8][9]. He must have seen this AfD was relisted and spiced up his act for CPAC over the weekend.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has this event, or any other besides the protest, been covered in any sources that meet WP:RS? Rogerthat94 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Jones (magazine) is a reliable source. [10] Just look at the news results this guy gets for all sorts of things. Dream Focus 20:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this wasn't published as an article in the magazine. It's listed on their blog section. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was written by Tim Murphy, a paid reporter who works for them. Dream Focus 21:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The author being paid doesn't automatically satisfy WP:NEWSBLOG. Plenty of websites will pay bloggers who aren't professional journalists or experts. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Click his name. It shows he is in fact a professional reporter. Dream Focus 22:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It says he is a reporter who blogged about a road trip. There's no mention of any journalism school, certification, or the word "professional". Rogerthat94 (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Murphy is a reporter in MoJo's DC bureau. Last summer he logged 22,000 miles while blogging about his cross-country road trip for Mother Jones. His writing has been featured in Slate and the Washington Monthly. Dream Focus 22:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saying something was posted in the "blog" section of a good news source is always a questionable argument, and getting worse as more and more dead tree publications go belly up. In any event, here a dead tree article just from yesterday, which will make Crowder's posse bezerk.[11]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is absolutely a reliable source. It's in the news section, not the blog section. However, it still only covers the subject in the context of the protest incident. Reliable sources isn't a question about paper vs. online. It's a question about self-publishing and editorial control. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other things he's gotten press on would be the 2012 CPAC knickers/nigger joke[12][13] and the 2013 CPAC ashley-judd-rape-joke. Quality of sources generally not as good as mainstream newspapers. There have also been a large number of less significant press mentions for other stuff, e.g., [14][15][16]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was it really necessary to write out that word here? Anyway, Both Gawker and Mediaite are blogs and fall under WP:SPS Rogerthat94 (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What word?[17] That's why the event is notable. And gawker and mediate are not SPS, that claim is absurd.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not commenting on the AfD, just that the constant references to SPS above are misplaced. I don't know why there is a bias against certain types of publishing models, but sites like Gawker are more RS than most newspapers. Obviously some pieces are opinion, just like any publication, but they have a regular staff of professional writers, they update articles that are found to be inaccurate or even misleading, and they cite sources, usually within the text of the article. They do publish rumors and they publish quickly, but they do not present rumors or speculation as fact. Notice how this this story was not only updated to not be misleading, but they explicitly stated how it was updated and what was accidentally misleading about it. How many morning papers do that? If you have further concerns about a source's SPSitude, please take it to the RS noticeboard, and quit derailing the conversation. I appreciate that your bias is towards traditional media, but it is still a bias and does not help in this sort of discussion.▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Adequately sourced to pass GNG; see especially the NY Times piece. Journalists are notoriously hard to "source out," since other media venues do not as a rule cover those working for their competition in depth. The subject is an adequately large figure in the mainsteam media to justify encyclopedic biography. The piece can obviously be improved, as it most certainly will be over time. Carrite (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Adequately sourced. – SJ + 02:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is quite borderline; the one source provided is quite good and in-depth, but one source isn't usually enough to meet WP:GNG. But if the person should get even a little more verifiable coverage, I think this article could definitely be recreated; I'm happy to userfy if anyone wants to watch out for that possibility. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Saffer

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

Non-notible person; no acting/film/tv or music credits or awards to merit article as drag queen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnberrytree (talk • contribs) 22:35, 9 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: I am sligtly concerned that there is a series of AFDs all-at-once and all being female impersonator related. Niche genre entertainment will be sourced in niche genre RS. More looking to be done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet wikipedia notability requirements for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - general notability since 2004. Appearances on national television shows and in multiple national papers (listed on myspace comedy page); has continued performance online. – SJ + 02:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Good Morning America, Fox News, WUSA 9 Washington D.C., FOX WGHP Greensboro NC, FOX 5 WTTG Washington DC, The Roseanne Show": 3 of these are local news shows and other than his myspace, I can't find a reliable source for the others. Jason Saffer doesn't even have an imdb page.

Delete looks like we are basing this on the info posted on the subject's MySpace page. The Washington Post is a good start towards notabilty but not enough to establish it. J04n(talk page) 15:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Bodies in an Empty Room

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

Unable to establish this as Wikipedia-notable outside of an Allmusic article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Swans discography. Can't find enough coverage to be notable, and live albums typically don't get the same attention as studio albums. Also, the article is very short, so preserving the information isn't much of an issue. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AllMusic should meet WP:GNG. At worst, redirect to Swans discography. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has secondary sources, live performance albums are still notable.--Soul Crusher (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires "reliable sources" - "Multiple sources are generally expected" - but AllMusic is only a single source, and therefore doesn't establish notability. Read WP:RS for more information. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet a new BLP article only requires one reliable source. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPROD isn't a notability policy. An individual can pass BLPPROD but still fail notability policies: "This method of proposed deletion is an additional tool to be used in the interests of increasing the quality of BLP sourcing on Wikipedia. Nothing in this policy should be understood to affect the core content policies or existing deletion processes." (from WP:BLPPROD) --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 3 March 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, Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, official release from a notable band, and some third-party coverage. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per compelling rationale of nominator (and others, especially RockMagnetist)based on relevant policies cited here. Obviously not a straight !vote count. Keeper | 76 03:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge. Understanding. Skill

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

Article on a Russian academic journal. Main claims for notability are inclusion in the Russian Science Citation Index and inclusion on a Russian government list. The RSCI seems to try to include most Russian journals, so is not the kind of selective database that we usually take as proof of notability for academic journals. The Russian government list contains journals that are acceptable as outlets for PhD theses, as far as I understand, and doesn't seem to be particularly selective either. I appreciate the problems encountered by non-English-language journals in getting included in major selective databases, but even among Russian journals, this one is rarely cited: the RSCI impact factor (not to be confused with the impact factors published by the Journal Citation Reports) is only 0.13, meaning that in general only 1 in about 7 articles published in this journal gets cited even once in the first two years after the publication year. No independent sources are otherwise available either. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Randykitty (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are really few Russian academic journals presented in English Wikipedia. Some of them have practically the same (e.g., International Organisations Research Journal) or even lower the RSCI impact factor (e.g. Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal, although they were established much ealier. Anyway it is the data of the year 2010. Please, look upon the number of citations at present time - it is much higher than it was in 2010 (http://elibrary.ru/title_profile.asp?id=11981 - 713). So, I would like to consider that there is a justice here and one will be so kind as to indicate the difference between some other Russian humanities journals presented in English Wikipedia and this periodical. It seems that most of them are not indexed in any well-known citation indexes. Thank you in advance. In my humble opinion, the Criteria of notability are too cruel for non-English publications. As most of the articles are published in Russian it is better to search for "Знание. Понимание. Умение", for example in Google Books Stonedhamlet (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those Google Books results, apart from this single sentence that tells us the publisher and scope of the journal, appear to consist of just a few dozen citations to articles published therein. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but, unfortunately, as far as I know most of the Russian academic books are not indexed in Google Books. Cf., e.g., the results for International Organisations Research Journal or Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal. So, why are these publications OK and this journal is not?Stonedhamlet (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (aka WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) is an argument better avoided in an AfD... --Randykitty (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, not so good in all English Wiki's WPs. But still I see a kind of injustice.Stonedhamlet (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-I haven't seen this academic journal but the topic seems notable and I broadly agree with Stonedhamlet's remarks.--Goldenaster (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not clear whether the Russian Science Citation Index itself is notable. So far the article on the index has no independent sources. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ulrich's does not list a single index that this journal is on. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The main source of information on this journal is eLIBRARY.RU (it is also the publisher of the Russian Science Citation Index). It says it was commissioned by the Russian Ministry of Education. So maybe it is a reliable source, but I'm not sure how to determine that. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that eLIBRARY.RU is reliable in the sense that we can trust the information listed on it. I don't think it confers any notability, as it seems to list basically all Russian journals. --Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But there is enough discussion to satisfy WP:GNG, if it is reliable. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And Ulrich's is another source of information. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it looks like the site mainly displays information provided by the indexed journals themselves. I think they would not reproduce just anything, which is why I said that I would tend to trust the information provided, but I don't think that it is eLIBRARY.RU that has evaluated this journal and then provided the description that you see on that site. So I would only source non-controversial information from it (like date of establishment, publication frequency, and such). Ulrich's also provides information but, again, much (all?) of that is journal-provided and there's been a long-standing consensus in AfDs that being listed in Ulrich's doesn't confer notability. --Randykitty (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is not listed in any index that is considered by Ulrich's. It is not in Journal Citation Reports. There is not a single citation in Web of Science under its English or Russian name. It is only found in two libraries in WorldCat - Library of Congress and Bavarian State Library. As discussed above, even the sources for the citations in the article are of unclear notability. If this is unfair, the unfairness is in the real world, and it's not Wikipedia's job to remedy that. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per analysis by Stonedhamlet (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is a humanities journal published by a major university, and its the importance of the publisher which is the only real positive factor. . Impact factor is irrelevant--since humanities articles take many years to become cited & are then cited in a wider range of books as much as journals. That it isn't in isi or scopus is also not relevant because they do not have significant coverage in the humanities , especially not in English, and most especially not in non-roman languages. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of the article identifies it as a science journal; it actually seems to be a mixture (sociology, philology, pedagogy, psychology, art criticism and culturology). I covered it both ways in my statement: indices for science, and library holdings for humanities. I don't see anything in Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) about the importance of the publisher. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian word "научный", which is usually translated as "scientific", has a broader meaning which includes much of what English-speakers would classify as humanities, so I don't think we should read too much into the description as a scientific journal. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I brought up the citations in the nom was because the article mentioned an impact factor. We generally consider journals notable if they're included in the Journal Citation Reports, so I wanted to make sure that it was clear that this was something else. In general, I think that sizable citation rates show notability, but that low citation rates don't necessarily prove something is not notable. In this case, I think that being published by a reputable university really is a bit too meager (WP:NOTINHERITED). Apart from that, I agree with Phil: in other languages "scientific" sometimes includes social sciences and the humanities, in contrast to English usage. --Randykitty (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If I understand the ISI criteria correctly, they may well refuse to index this journal because of the language, as "all journals must have cited references in the Roman alphabet." [18] --Hegvald (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe Hegvald is correct; we can't use those criteria exclusively. And per DGG. We should be wary of systemic bias. – SJ + 02:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re: ISI: there are many other selective databases that don't have this restriction and which could make a journal meet NJournals if they included it. Re: systemic bias: I don't want to appear biased, but if someone publishes a journal in a non-Latin alphabet, you kind of "build in" that the journal will never be of more than limited, local relevance only. I don't think that it constitutes a systemic bias on our part if we consider this fact (and I'm not so sure that it constitutes systemic bias on the part of the rest of the world either, in fact). --Randykitty (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The primary purpose of notability criteria is to ensure that we can write properly verifiable articles on subjects which contribute to human knowledge. I think on that basis, the analyses by DGG and StonedHamlet above are persuasive that it does Wikipedia no harm, and indeed quite possibly some good, to include a short article about a serious Russian academic journal, even if its indexing in non-Cyrillic seems to lag. Ray^Talk 17:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I closed this as keep, my read on consensus was questioned and I see the point made by the editor. At this point I think it best if someone else closes this. J04n(talk page) 22:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the arguments for caution with indices are reasonable, but - as I detailed in my delete vote - this article doesn't come close to satisfying any other notability criterion. So far only DGG has attempted to provide any evidence for notability, arguing that the publisher is a major university. The article on Moscow University for the Humanities provides only weak evidence of notability; but even if it is a major university, that doesn't guarantee notability of its publications. Major publishers of all kinds often publish non-notable literature - which is probably why the publisher isn't even considered in WP:NJournals. That leaves the arguments that this article should be kept to address systemic bias or because there is an indexing lag. If such arguments prevail, what basis would be left for deleting any journal in a non-Latin alphabet? RockMagnetist (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper | 76 19:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Father Sebastiaan

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm completing this nomination for User:Olderon, as there was a bit of confusion over its initial adding to the AfD and the nomination was started about 24 minutes ago and sort of left. I have no opinion over Father Sebastiaan's notability, but I'm completing this for the other user. His justification on the old AfD was "Suspicious references, none of them are really about the author, article seams more like a commercial page with links, rather then an article of an artist. Person is not notable." I figured that since Olderon was concerned enough about the notability of the article to want to nominate it, I should help him out some. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I did some cleaning up of the article and of the sources and I found that there are things out there about FS. I'm not entirely happy with all of the sources and given that a few of these are of the "hey, look at the guy who makes the fangs", I can see where some can argue that the sources aren't really in-depth enough to be reliable. He is, however, mentioned twice in one academic text, giving credence to claims that he's a notable figure in the vampire subculture. There's just enough here to make me think he's a notable enough figure for the most part. I'd like more coverage, so I'll continue to dig.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I nominated this article, because this fang-maker artist is definitely not notable enough. All the information I could dig on him, are like Tokyogirl79 said - "hey, look at the guy who makes the fangs". This person has his own fan base, but it is not too big and it is mostly teenagers who are fond of gothic cosplay. The artist is mentioned on some gothic subculture forums and articles, but all the information is definitely non-encyclopediac. Olderon (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made and sourcing available for further improvements. Sure this guy has a narrow field of interest, but he has been receiving coverage specifically for his eccentricities for many years... with coverage over many years in such disparate sources as Institut National de l'Audiovisuel (2006), Business Week (2010), Providence Journal (2008), People's Daily (2010), Relevant (2011), Daily Advertiser (2011), et al, appear to meet the requirements set by WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You may want to recheck. Have a look again at the People's Daily. I don't think it is relevant. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First nomination on this topic was based on obvious Conflict of Interests WP:COI, but since there was no consensus, the article was kept. Now it is nominated for the same reason. User:Olderon said this article looks like a publicity page. And it actually does. What do we know about this fanger or whatever he is? He wrote couple of non-notable books on a vampire topic and was interviewed for local TV channel documentary-films that are also not really notable, since there is no trace of them on the internet what so ever, couldn't even find them on imdb. And yet I managed to look through couple of those interviews on his personal YouTube channel, and all the interviews are low-quality and talk about the subcultural parties he helped to co-organize and nothing else. Were those parties some big, unique or notable events? Not really. And all the coverage of him, that • Gene93k mentioned, also speaks only of those vampire-publicity party events and how this person (just like some others) is subculturally active. Are those coverage articles of him reliable? Yes they are in a certain aspect, but they don't stand the basic requirements of Wikipedia, because all those sources are dated NEWS articles, but Wikipedia is not a news channel WP:NOT#NEWS. The verdict is simple - this person is not notable, because he did nothing notable. Bigspray78 (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NY Post, Bloomberg, and East Village all feature this guy as the primary subject. That represents multiple (I've named only 3 of the best sources for notability purposes) significant coverage (he is the primary subject of substantial articles) in independent reliable sources (all those sources are mainstream media publications) which satisfy our general notability guidelines. Any issue of conflict of interest can be dealt with through editting although I do note that at the time of nomination, I don't really see any issue with this article adhering to a neutral point of view. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 12 March 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 09:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BOOK. Qworty (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [19], [20], [21]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - However quirky, meets basic notability per Whpq and NA1K. Yes, being strange means you can get reliable sources to cover you just by saying "hey, look at this strange person". – SJ + 02:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Greene

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

The article disambiguates no extant Wikipedia pages.♦ Tentinator ♦ 09:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wow, Tentinator, you've tried to speedy delete this twice and taken it to AfD - all within 40 mins of the page being created! God knows how many valid pages we could have lost with that kind of approach. This is a page with 4 valid entries in main section and three valid see alsos (entries don't need to have extant articles to be valid dab entries - see MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION.) What could possibly be gained by deleting this page? How would it help readers? Boleyn (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rushing to speedy delete things - even if it was invalid - is clearly not the best approach. If a merge had been proposed to Larry Green (disambiguation), that would have made more sense and been clearly more helpful to readers than deletion - although I would still be of the opinion that a merge was not necessary, as this page has enough valid entries to stand on its own.

You also did not inform the creator of this AfD. Boleyn (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this dab page disentangles two redlinked people of the same name who are mentioned in WP articles, and two others mentioned in articles, and thus helps readers and future editors. The encyclopedia would not benefit from its deletion. PamD 11:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as keep. Valid and necessary disambiguation pages cannot be deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All seems in order per MOS:DABMENTION. older ≠ wiser 12:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Larry Green (disambiguation). The radio station owner and the Beacon Hill character are not getting their own articles, leaving two redlinks, which can join the Green redlinks. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Pam and JHunter. Given this nomination by nom, as well as nom's recent nominations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JECatt and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jürgen Cain Külbel and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The History of Leather in Relation to the Jewish Tradition, I would suggest that nom consider watching some discussions and participating in them and reconsidering how he nominates articles before engaging in too many nominations at this point. Nominations which lack a proper basis waste the time of the community.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once Upon a Time: The Singles

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

Does this need to exist? What more could be added to this article? I think it's very rare for a greatest-hits-album to warrant its own article – it has to have some sort of historical merit or importance within the band's ouvre, such as Singles Going Steady, for example, which is arguably more well-known than that band's studio albums. Lachlan Foley 09:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No real reason put forward for deletion. This was a hit album that spent six months in the UK Albums Chart. Pretty much every music publication of the era would have reviewed it. --Michig (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the artist's article. The coverage may exist, but it's not really significant enough to justify keeping a separate article. Ducknish (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The combination of coverage (with more presumably offline), chart placements, and accolades that have been added to the article should be enough to demonstrate that it meets WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 23:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE and refs in article. In ictu oculi (talk)
Keep. As this album is considered to be a classic by critics, this has to be kept. Carliertwo (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This album received plenty of coverage in reliable sources, plus some major chart success. Meets our guidelines for inclusion. — sparklism ^hey! 07:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twice Upon a Time: The Singles

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

Does this need to exist? What more can be added to this article? I think it's very rare for a greatest-hits-album to warrant its own article – it has to have some sort of historical merit or importance within the band's ouvre, such as Singles Going Steady, for example, which is arguably more well-known than that band's studio albums. Lachlan Foley 09:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its existence alone being by such a notable band should warrant at least a redirect to Siouxsie and the Banshees discography#Compilation albums. There's much worse out there, though, than to have this exist amongst all the other stubs. At least this has a review and apparently charted in the UK. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see a benefit from deleting this. It was a hit album by a notable band. --Michig (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage and chart placement (now added to the article), on the whole, seems to be enough to meet WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 23:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BEFORE 96 results in Google Books, a good number not passing mentions either In ictu oculi (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability of this compilation is proved. This demand is unfounded as this compilation is very well known. Carliertwo (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gongshow. Hit record with plenty of coverage to warrant inclusion. — sparklism ^hey! 07:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of Siouxsie and the Banshees

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

Does this need to exist? What more can be added to this article? I think it's very rare for a greatest-hits-album to warrant its own article – it has to have some sort of historical merit or importance within the band's ouvre, such as Singles Going Steady, for example, which is arguably more well-known than any of that band's studio albums. Lachlan Foley 09:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its existence alone being by such a notable band should warrant at least a redirect to Siouxsie and the Banshees discography#Compilation albums. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see a benefit to deleting this, and there is no argument put forward why this should be deleted. --Michig (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Detailed coverage in multiple reliable sources [22][23][24][25]; appears to meet WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 23:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE, again. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that there was a track exclusive to this release pretty much defeats the "Greatest Hits Packages Don't Count as Works" rationale. Adequate sourcing and good information. Carrite (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability of this compilation is proved. This demand is unfounded as this compilation is very well known. Carliertwo (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major album (even if compilation) from a notable group. Shadowjams (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Fall discography. Keeper | 76 19:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fiend with a Violin

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

I can find two notable publications on this – an AllMusic review and a Trouser Press summary – but does this need to exist? Is it likely to grow more as an article? Etc. Lachlan Foley 09:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was just the first of many pointless collections of outtakes and other non-notable material by The Fall assembled by Receiver Records at the time. No need to single this one out for inclusion, as the whole Receiver mess is covered by a few paragraphs in the List of compilation albums by The Fall article. - Foetusized (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to The Fall discography. It would at least be worth mentioning there the era that this was compiled from, and this should redirect somewhere useful. --Michig (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of compilation albums by The Fall#Receiver Records already includes content about this compilation and the other related compilations -- Foetusized (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That article largely duplicates a section of The Fall discography, where it should possibly be merged, although that proposal didn't seem to get beyond tagging the article. Either would be a valid redirect target. --Michig (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable compilation should be deleted. Koala15 (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Fall discography. J04n(talk page) 15:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

50,000 Fall Fans Can't Be Wrong

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

This seems to exist under the rationale "this is a notable band; therefore, there should be an article on every one of their releases". Yes it has received coverage from several notable publications, but does this—a greatest-hits-album—really need its own article? I think it is very rare indeed that a greatest-hits-album should warrant its own article. Lachlan Foley 09:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Yes it has received coverage from several notable publications" - you've answered your own question right there. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - List of compilation albums by The Fall lists 36 albums, only three of which have articles. You've also nominated Fiend with a Violin for deletion, and I'm fine with that, as it was just the first of many useless compilations done by the Receiver label. Leaving articles for two compilations out of 36, those being a six CD box set of Peel Sessions, and the only career-spanning compilation containing tracks across multiple record labels, hardly qualifies as "this is a notable band; therefore, there should be an article on every one of their releases". That is a straw-man argument. -- Foetusized (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above two. No benefit to the project from deleting this. --Michig (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that just because this is a notable band, that does not necessarily require an article on every one of their releases. WP:NALBUMS suggests this, as well. In this case, in-depth coverage exists in at least three reliable sources (Pitchfork, Allmusic, Stylus), which appears to satisfy the guideline. Gong show 23:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per deletion nomination admission of notability. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources to warrant inclusion. — sparklism ^hey! 07:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of Joy Division

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

Is this really necessary? What is this article on a fairly substantial greatest-hits-album going to amount to? Lachlan Foley 08:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It received enough coverage to be considered notable. No good reason put forward to delete this information. --Michig (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close No rationale put forward by the nom, notable album by a very notable band and borderline pointy nomination. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Detailed coverage in multiple reliable sources; subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 23:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. Some of the hits actually refer to the Permanent album but all the same not adding any value to anyone to delete this later compilation for disambiguation and precision purposes. Also note WP:BEFORE on series of AfDs at the same time. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Peel Sessions (1987 Joy Division EP)

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

Is there a need for this article? Will it amount to anything? Lachlan Foley 08:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was reviewed in several major sources at the time of its release, and was a top 5 hit on the UK Indie Chart. I see no good reason to delete. --Michig (talk) 08:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE peel sessions "joy division". In ictu oculi (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Peel Sessions (1986 Joy Division EP)

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

Is there a need for this article? Will it amount to anything? Lachlan Foley 08:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was reviewed in several major sources at the time of its release, and was a top 5 hit on the UK Indie Chart. I see no good reason to delete. --Michig (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE peel sessions "joy division". In ictu oculi (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - with the 1987 one (The Peel Sessions (1987 Joy Division EP)) which was also nominated for deletion. If they can't stand alone, maybe they can stand together. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 17:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent (Joy Division album)

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

Come on; is this article on an insubstantial greatest hits album ever going to amount to anything? I say just delete articles like this. Lachlan Foley 08:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Joy Division discography. I think this can be adequately summarised there. --Michig (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE and footnote refs in article. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, charting album. Nomination sounds suspiciously like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep as pointed out by In ictu oculi, the footnotes demonstrate significant coverage. J04n(talk page) 15:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 01:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illogistical Resource Dept.

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

only reference is their record label website. band members, label, are all nonnotable. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what's wrong with that? Nonnotable as in not famous enough? Soundtweaker

Delete. Non-notable. In response to Soundtweaker, this doesn't cast aspersions on the band's fame or importance, it just means that they haven't been written about in any great detail by independent, reliable sources. See WP:Notability for a fuller explanation. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I nominated for lack of coverage only. Thank you ST for adding review refs, which is one result of AFD'ing an article: proponents of keeping adding evidence of notability. the examiner review is at www.examiner.com/review/the-illogistical-resource-dept-s-catharsis-cd-will-speak-to-you, but we cant link to it as a blocked site. I dont know if those are enough, as brushvox doesnt have much notability itself. I have no problem with the article being recreated in the future if they start to get reviews. (I also like them)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea not sure why examiner.com is a blocked site since it's a legit site but I added it anyway so people can copy and paste if they like. More reviews and references are coming soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundtweaker (talk • contribs) 23:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, did not find significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources to indicate that group is notable as notability is defined by WP:GNG. Failing GNG, band is also not notable per WP:NBAND.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of coverage. The brushvox source seems to be a blog, which is not a WP:RS, and there's really nothing else to support the band as notable. Ducknish (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a hoax. If you want to redirect it to Andy Borowitz, that's an editorial decision you are welcome to make. --B (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Emeritus (rapper)

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

not notable aside from this one minor news mention, which in the new yorker case may be pure snark. WP:BLP1E applies here. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: But, this ONEEVENT got huge media attention. An article mentions, he has been recording tracks since 2005. Is there any notable published album of the singer? --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC) After further studies I could not find any notable album of the rapper! --Tito Dutta (contact) 05:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since there is no policy WP:STUPID, just WP:NOTABLE which he seems to be. Borock (talk) 08:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One event, which didn't exactly attract "huge media attention", as far as I can tell. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article and sources fail to note how this is not WP:NOTNEWS or how he is notable per WP:MUSICBIO. --DHeyward (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to fit WP:ONEEVENT to a T. Ducknish (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, and calling it an "event" is pretty generous. The coverage reads like it could've started with The Onion. --BDD (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ACADEMIC. He's my old rapping professor from West Virginia Bible Tech and one day I asked him if he was notable enough for a Wikipedia article and he told me to stop talking so he could go back to sleep. Lord Bromblemore 18:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Andy Borowitz writes a humor section for the New Yorker. The article was a satire. The reason there's no other sources for him is that he was made up for a joke. Y'all are silly.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect and merge to Andy Borowitz thanks for researching the Borowitz column, which i was too lazy to do. Seriously, its made up? I guess its too close to the truth to notice. as a fake story, it definitely doesnt deserve an article. a line at his article might be nice, as the story seemed to have been picked up by some as serious. good job, andy.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If an editor believes there are sources out there that haven't been found yet I will userfy the page to them so they can continue to work on it. J04n(talk page) 16:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demon's Cycle

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

Fails WP:COMPANY for lack of sustained, in depth coverage of the company itself in independent sources. There are large numbers of news hits, but they're all PRWeb Newswire press releases. The best source is one brief blog post by Bryan Harley at MotorcycleUSA. There would need to be more than one of these, and they'd need to say much more about Demon's Cycle to meet the notability criteria. Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, yes you are right in the sense that the article is incomplete, but it doesn't mean that Demon's Cycle isn't important. More research is needed to provide separate sources. Even if the sources are press releases this shows the activity and worthiness of the company but we need to find more ways to substantiate that. As a reference the custom motorcycle company J&P Cycles is similar to Demon's Cycle and has a long time entry in Wikipedia.

Also as final remark, since Wikipedia is community based and I edit this article and others in my spare time, please don't make any rushed decisions. (User talk: Garysims)

As long as sources can be found to exist, the article won't be deleted just because it's short. The problem is that if there are no good independent sources, then no amount of time and effort can fix it. I searched Google books and news, HighBeam, General OneFile/Gale (publisher), and Questia and came up with nothing that meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The J&P Cycles article might well need to be deleted -- it has many footnotes but a lot of them are just blogs and press releases, or brief mentions of one of their bike rather than in depth coverage of the company. The book Keeping the World on 2 Wheels. How J & P Cycles Changed the American Motorcycle Industry by Ed Youngblood is published by J&P Cycles; it's not independent. But please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. This discussion is about Demon's Cycle. See WP:CLOSEAFD for how these decisions are reached; it is unlikely to be rushed or deleted without clear consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on ProQuest either, for both Demon's Cycle and Thomas Steinbacher. Brianhe (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources not found at Highbeam Research or other online searches. Press releases don't cut it as spelled out at WP:SPS. Policy is not to wait for coverage to materialize at reliable sources, but to delete the article now and recreate it if and when this happens. — Brianhe (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Matthews

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

Probably speediable, but I wanted a discussion in case I'm missing something. It seems like a pretty blatant ball of hype - the artist in question hasn't really done anything yet, at least not anything that has been noticed. The "references" are press releases. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bongwarrior, I am the one who is working on the page for Jay Matthews. I work for Global Entertainment Services as a helping hand and am building his page up slowly. There is countless other websites, shows, and magazines that have done interviews and reviews for Mr. Matthews and I am trying to gather them all as we speak. I am still learning how to work Wikipedia so please bare with me. I will get everything togather as fast as I can. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayMatthews616 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also just a sidenote Mr. Matthews just got his name Trademarked. I dont know if that would make a difference but as soon as he recieves the paperwork I can have it sent to your email if that would help. Thanks

Delete. I can't find any independent coverage of this artist. And no, it doesn't matter that he got his name trademarked unless reliable sources have written about it. FYI, deletion discussions are open for at least seven days, often longer, so if there are indeed countless interviews and reviews that neither Bongwarrior or I have managed to locate, you've got plenty of time to add them to the article. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive us for the delay we are working with Mr. Matthews to gather all of the info we need to post. We are finding it difficult to find the physical magazine articles that have been written about him online. Is it possible to just quote the magazine and add it without having the actual article online? Also we have numerous radio interviews that we are trying to figure out how site those correctly. We have the mp3 audio of some of them so can we just quote those as well? We are trying the best we can its just very busy this time of year. Thank You and again we apologize this is taking so long - Global Entertainment Services — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.131.56.34 (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you should probably create a sandbox page, say User:JayMatthews616/Jay Matthews, and edit a draft of the article there. Sources don't have to be online, but should be reliable sources, preferably national. Then find someone who has edited articles of other artists in your space, and ask them for help in moving it to a proper article. If you try to create the article about him directly, it will not be neutral and will likely be deleted. – SJ + 02:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the article's already been created, we may as well try and go forward from here. JayMatthews616, offline sources are fine. Citation templates may make your life easier; you can cite radio programmes with {{cite episode}} and magazine articles with {{cite journal}}. Also, when you're taking part in discussions, remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). DoctorKubla (talk) 08:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I strongly doubt that the interviews he's given will show notability even if added. The existing print sources are entirely pr or pr derived. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline speedy delete. Doesn't assert notability, clearly written by someone with a WP:COI per comments above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No views in favour of deletion after expansion and additional sourcing. Michig (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The DO-IT Center

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

Non-notable self-sourced article about campus center. Orange Mike | Talk 21:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, fails WP:GNG ukexpat (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The DO-IT Center is not only a campus center; its programs are directed toward assisting students with disabilities and training faculty at national and international levels. I wrote the original article (so the self-sourcing is my fault; I thought I was properly "quoting" them by sourcing their own materials; am working to fix this). I've added an Awards section to demonstrate notability. Also: I created the article because the DO-IT Center and its programs are referenced several times on Wikipedia, including the DO-IT Scholars Program and Universal design for instruction. I'm working on adding more notable sources to the article now. If it is decided that it still fails notability, it could be redirected/merged with the DO-IT Scholars Program. AlmostRutger (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have added outside sources (New York Times, Seattle Times), and a paragraph on the Center's international collaborations. Am continuing to update & edit. AlmostRutger (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated article with additional information about AccessComputing Alliance, a notable nationwide program directed by the DO-IT Center. AlmostRutger (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated article with Impact section, additional outside sources. AlmostRutger (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AlmostRutger has expanded the article, adding enough references to show notability, and also showing that this is not just a local center, but one with national and international influence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after expansion (though it now has lots of duplicated text and needs editing). – SJ + 03:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Van Canto. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Storm to Come

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

Non-notable album. Tagged as unreferenced since Nov 2009, so it has no sources which could be assessed to see whether it meets WP:NALBUM. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or redirect to van Canto at a minimum) - Merging too many album articles losslessly (track listings and personnel included) into the ensemble article would be messy. The number of albums with full track listings and album info to be merged into a musical ensemble or artist page was discussed here. Are we going to now start a mass deletion campaign of all non-notable albums? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- When a topic is not notable, we don't need to aim for a lossless merge; we can summarise. If the topic is not notable, it does not require that much detail, and should not be covered in that much detail.
  In any case, I note that Jax0677 does not make any claim that the topic is notable, let alone evidence that it is notable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Here it says "Users have expressed interest in keeping the tracklists somewhere in Wikipedia". Implied in this is keeping the information about the album, which is what an encyclopedia should do. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Jax, was that a sneaky attempt at misrepresenting the result of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Merging_of_non-notable_albums, or did you just not bother to read the closing statement?
Whichever it it was, Jax has quoted from the closing admin's summary of the discussion rather than from the conclusion, which rejected any blanket approval of that point: "that consensus is to Keep current wording and merge or redirect album articles that only contain an infobox and a tracklist. Given the comments above, such merges should be done in compliance with current policies and guidelines, and when such information is considered notable (or encyclopedic) enough to be included". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Do I recall you saying "If an article would be overwhelmed by listing all the tracks on non-notable albums, the solution is simple: don't list all the tracks"? My point is that neither the track listings nor the pertinent details should not go away, even if the album articles do get merged into the ensemble article. IMHO, if the artist is notable, the song names, times and participants in their albums can be listed somewhere on Wikipedia. WP is WP:NOTCENSORED, therefore the track listings should not be excluded from an artist or ensemble page so long as the artist is considered notable. The track listings and the album titles are information about the artist. Perhaps an AfD should be filed against van Canto? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being silly. There is no question of censorship, just of editorial commonsense. If the material overwhelms an article, some of it may be omitted; but the fact that some editors want to include material which overloads an article is no grounds for creating another article on a non-notable topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - If the article has room, include the track listing in the article. If not, do a size split. The reason that Central Station (Phoenix) has its own article is because the Metro Light Rail (Phoenix) article would otherwise be too large. This is why WP:NALBUMS says "space permitting". --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see any point in removing this page. The referenced discussion about notability did not reach a clear consensus or guideline. Wikipedia is well-known for being a good repository of track listings. Removing this page leaves Wikipedia less complete. Merging the listing to the artist page would make it cluttered and reduce its objectivity. The article is not badly written nor badly formatted, it does not misrepresent information nor causes any confusion or ambiguity with other topics. Fbergo (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Thank you Fbergo! --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply. Se WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is not a collection of track listings or any sort of listings; it is an encyclopedia, which covers notable topics. That may or may not include track listings, and the conclusion of the referenced discussion wads that the inclusion or omission of those listings in any particular article was an editorial decision to be made in respect of each article.
  That discussion did not decide to set aside the notability criteria when considering articles on albums, and your "keep" is invalid because it does not address the notability of the topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply If Wikipedia is not a collection of listings, then half of it is overdue in being deleted. Good luck with that. Fbergo (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply. You're putting the cart before the horse. An article on a notable topic may include an embedded list, if appropriate. However, the desire of some editors to create a listing does not make a topic notable, and does not justify creating a page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:56, 10 March 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, ~ mazca ^talk 01:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting as only a few people have participated without agreement, a few comments from uninvolved editors would be helpful to determine if a keep, merge or outright delete would be most helpful here. ~ mazca ^talk 01:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Van Canto. None of the band's album articles seem to have enough content to make separate articles necessary, and merging them all to the band article would make sense. The personnel is basically the same across the albums - any members coming or going could be mentioned in the prose, and I wouldn't see the track lengths as essential information to merge.--Michig (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Like No Justice, the albums absolutely should be merged losslessly, track lengths included. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge with Van Canto. Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: per Jax. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. What exactly are the policy grounds on which you want to keep a wholly unreferenced article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge losslessly or Keep. One of the services we can easily provide to readers is detailed structured information like this (track lengths per album for all notable bands). Whether this is through separate articles or separate sections should be a matter of format and style, not notability. – SJ + 03:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The A Storm to Come topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Regarding merge, WP:NALBUMS requires that it be "appropriately" merged. Since the proposed information to be merged is not based on coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the A Storm to Come topic, there is nothing to merge and such a merge would not be appropriate per WP:NALBUMS. In particular to the tracklist, it needs to meet one of WP:LISTPURP like any other WP:List or, if an embedded list, each entry needs to be covered in a reliable source that is independent of the A Storm to Come topic per WP:N. Without independent source material to summarize for the aricle, the information in the Wikipedia article appears to go against WP:NOT#FANSITE. Unless those proposing to keep/merge rebut the delete arguments posted, the close likely will delete per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well there certainly isn't any sort of consensus to delete at present, rough or otherwise. Are you seriously arguing that to have a list of tracks on an album, each track needs to have coverage in reliable sources? That's a rather extreme interpretation. --Michig (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or, as a second choice, delete. Totally unreferenced and doesn't assert notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with van Canto, unable to survive without proper notability assertion. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 03:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Van Canto we don't need to losslessly (I don't know where this word came from) keep every track listing and all contributers for every non-notable ablbum. Someone may look up the album and they should be redirected to the artist's page. J04n(talk page) 16:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Malyutin

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

Subject has only 1 top tier MMA fight so he doesn't meet WP:NMMA. The sources just seem to fall under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as they are just routine sports coverage. Papaursa (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. IronKnuckle (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Arizmendi

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

Subject has no fights for a top tier MMA organization so he fails WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. IronKnuckle (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 16:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrod Polson

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

Subject is a college basketball player who does not meet WP:NCOLLATH - has not won any major awards or hold any records. He has not appeared in repeated, independent, significant coverage beyond game reports and as such does not pass WP:GNG Rikster2 (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Secondary guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports) are only relevant if the topic doesn't meet WP:GNG but the topic is notable anyway, so I have not reviewed WP:Notability (sports). In this case, the first five links of the Google news link provide Polson as the headline of the article and show a topic that has received attention from the world at large over a period of time. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] These sources satisfy both WP:GNG and WP:BLP, and is just the beginning of the list. Perhaps there is a sense of objection that Polson is not one of the five starters, but that would be an argument to merge a wp:notable topic, not to delete it. In this case, the topic received in-depth media attention starting with his junior year in high school, and unusual attention for being a UK walk-on that quickly earned a UK scholarship, and these are factors that merit individual coverage. IMO, the article would be improved with some editing so as to focus on the topic, as the accomplishments of his teams are secondary. Unscintillating (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment You do realize that three of those come from one source (counts as one, not multiple) and the other aren't particularly independent - the school's athletic site and "Lost Lettermen" which is not a real news source, right? By that criteria literally every scholarship player on a major conference team would be notable. polson's coverage comes from him being a bit player on one of the most heavily covered programs in the US. Rikster2 (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you really want to wonder if the first five sources on the Google News link create a notability standard for "every scholarship player on a major conference team"? I think you are still working the non-starter aspect of this topic. If you didn't like a non-starter having a stand-alone article, you could have found or created a suitable topic to which to merge the topic instead of bringing this case to AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't agree with redirecting non-notable individuals to associated topics because I think it misleads readers using dynamic search or who are trying to Wikilink names in other articles. That's why I didn't suggest something that isn't compulsory. If you want to suggest that as an outcome, be my guest. Rikster2 (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But I wasn't talking about redirecting a non-notable topic, I was talking about redirecting a notable topic. And I've already given factors that favor keeping this as a stand alone article. I don't see you dispute that the first five sources in the News link minimally suffice for WP:GNG. So what notability argument are you making? Are you claiming WP:N's "not worthy of notice", which trumps WP:GNG? Are you perhaps trying to make a WP:NOT argument and calling it "notability"? Unscintillating (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the comment about redirects for non-notable topics, what exactly do you mean by "dynamic search". How does the Wikilink to Thomas Mantell at Franklin, KY mislead readers? Unscintillating (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's an odd criteria that says people who bounce a leather object up and down a court for a university are notable while most of the University's professors are not. This article is double the length of the article for the UofK president, Eli Capilouto. Ah well, nothing to see here. Praemonitus (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Praemonitus, while I sympathize with your perspective about the relative priorities of society regarding academics and athletics, let us recognize that Wikipedia is a volunteer organization and most of us edit those articles in which we have the greatest personal interest. Nothing is stopping anyone from expanding articles about the University of Kentucky's presidents and faculty members. There are examples of in-depth biographies of university presidents, some of which are even Good Articles and Feature Articles (see, e.g., Andrew Sledd and John Tigert). It's all a matter of our personal priorities in editing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROF requires that a Professor have significant credentials and/or accomplishments relative to their peers before they are recognized as notable. Most such are only earned late in a person's career. For the most part, WP:ATHLETE requires an athlete to be paid to play in a professional game. These are not the same, and I suspect it is why Wikipedia has such an enormous number of articles about athletes of every stripe. Sorry, but this seems like an imbalance. But no matter. Praemonitus (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. ~~Neutral for now~~. No, the subject does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines of WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NBASKETBALL. ~~Yes, the subject does satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, as demonstrated by the coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per~~ ~~Jrcla's~~ ~~Unscintillating's first, second and fifth sources linked above.~~ Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily striking my !vote until I can review further and conduct independent Google News and Google News Archive searches. I'm embarrassed that I did not notice that Unscintillating's first, second and fifth sources were all from the same newspaper (Lexington Herald Leader), and therefore only count as a single source per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See new "keep" comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually hadn't commented on this AfD, although I frequently do on basketball-related AfDs, so I understand why you probably thought it was me. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, Jrcla. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, second and fourth source count as one per GNG since its all from the paper that covers every detail of UK and their recruits - even the marginal ones like Polson's who is essentially being forced off he team to open a scholarship for next year. Rikster2 (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rikster, you are, of course, correct regarding multiple articles from the same source counting as a single source per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that "sources" in WP:GNG means at least two? Unscintillating (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ESPN commentators made these statements about Polson in the loss to Robert Morris on 19 March 2013:

"He's been their toughest playmaker so far."
"Archie Goodwin and Polson, the two most consistent guys..."
"Terrific play by Polson, the spin through traffic. ...[he] has been able to make plays better than anyone else."
"Polson continues to be the guy that is holding them in this game."

A Lexington Herald writer also writing about the Robert Morris game says, "Jarrod Polson, who bookended the season with big performances in the opener against Maryland and then here Tuesday night, and Archie Goodwin led an improbable UK rally."

I added the following two references to the article:

Jerry Tipton (Herald Leader) (January 27, 2011). "Nerves were just another hurdle for Polson to overcome. 'little guy' has earned more than victory-cigar status through perseverance". KentuckySports.com. Retrieved 2013-03-19. His 30 free throws made in 37 attempts in a game as a junior for West Jessamine remains a Kentucky high school record and serves as evidence of Polson's willingness to take on defenders.

"SBI classic broadcasts". Bartlett, Tennessee. Retrieved 2013-03-19. Jan. 24, 2009, In this game, Jarrod Polson breaks the KHSAA state high school free throw record and scored 51 points in the game personally.

Unscintillating (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unscintillating, game reports are expressly not usuable to establish GNG. I would particularly not try to use comments of broadcasters reacting to the game they are calling to establish GNG because their job is to comment about what is happening on the court at that moment. Look, I still haven't seen continued independent coverage for Polson. This reminds me of the AfD discussion for Justin Watts of UNC from a couple years ago. Very similar cases - not notable except to their school fanbase. Rikster2 (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rikster2, After reading my last post, you could have withdrawn your nomination assertion that Polson did not hold any records. We know from the article edit history that at 2013-03-17T00:27:43‎ you state, "Will AfD when I have more time", and then at 2013-03-17T00:37:46 you state, "Afd: Nominated for deletion". That is ten minutes and 3 seconds spent preparing this nomination. When you posted your nomination, you were advised, "Welcome to the deletion discussion for the selected article...discussion guidelines are available." One of the discussion guidelines is,

“

D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability

The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform.
[removed]
If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources...

”

FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rikster2, You have not answered my questions as to the nature of your notability argument, but your argument seems partly to be based on the "not worthy of notice" clause of WP:N, which can be argued even if the topic passes WP:GNG. You've stated a notability argument, "game reports are expressly not usuable [sic] to establish GNG", which is partially a red herring because I made no such claim. Regarding the term "game reports", WP:GNG is the general notability guide, and doesn't get down into details such as "game reports". As described by the nutshell, a notable topic is one that has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". Our article identifies ESPN as "an American global cable television network". ESPN has provided "significant attention by the world at large" giving in-depth attention to the topic. Whether or not it satisfies "sufficiently", no, not by itself, but the material is still adding to the wp:notability of the topic. Viewers of the ESPN broadcast may look to Wikipedia to find out more about Jarrod Polson. The second argument is, "I...haven't seen continued" coverage for Polson. The term "continued" is part of the WP:N nutshell, and is not "continued" but "over a period of time". I already stated in my !vote that the first five sources in the Google news archive show a topic that has received attention over a period of time. The word echoes your opening nomination, which uses the word "repeated", as if such comes from a notability guideline. IMO the article we have now will serve the encyclopedia far into the future. IMO the effect of deleting this article is to drive off editors, whether or not the editors are fans; and undermine our guidelines. Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to put Polson's article in perspective. Tonight I was updating the NCAA Tournament single game records article to add Russ Smith (who is a Sporting News 3rd Team All-American) for tying the single game steals record and found out that there is NO article about Smith on Wikipedia. Maybe as CBB editors we should spend some effort documenting someone who meets WP:NCOLLATH - HAS won major awards and holds records. And has appeared in repeated, independent, significant coverage beyond game reports and as such does pass WP:GNG . And less time trying to justify someone who only UK fans think meets WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG dr. knipple (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability guidelines for college athletes require that they are extraordinary (my word) and go beyond "mentions in game summaries" (not my phrase). This subject is not there by a wide margin. J04n(talk page) 16:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have now done my own full review of the available sources. Pursuant to the general notability guidelines stated at WP:GNG, I cite the following as multiple, independent, reliable sources: Central Kentucky News (10/1/2012), Lexington Herald-Leader (10/10/2012), Central Kentucky News (10/19/2012), NBC Sports (11/10/2012), ESPN (11/10/2012), Sports Illustrated (11/10/2012), Lexington Herald-Leader (11/25/2012), Lexington Herald-Leader (2/9/2013). I have excluded recruiting services, fanblogs, trivial references, and routine game coverage. Notwithstanding my own doubts about whether the subject is "encyclopedic" or not, it appears that he has received substantial ink from Kentucky newspapers and national sports media. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper | 76 20:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tony

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

Non-notable local (Baltimore) drag queen and non-notable local radio personality. Burnberrytree (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 11 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You'd need to make a really good argument that a local drag queen is notable. Shii (tock) 08:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 19:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donnarama

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

Non-notable local drag queen from Toronto. Xtra! and fab mentioned in article are both local/Toronto magazines. Burnberrytree (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, Toronto}})

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

Comment: We need to consider if a topic notable to the largest city in Canada and the provincial capital of Ontario is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. If not, then what other Canadian-only notables are being primed for deletion? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a gay man who lives in Toronto, and I think you're overgeneralizing. Plenty of "Canadian-only" notables qualify for and keep articles on Wikipedia — if they have properly written and well-referenced articles that actually make credible notability claims. Everybody on Toronto City Council has an independent article, for starters. Even some seriously quirky "nobody outside of Toronto has ever even heard of this" stuff qualifies, like David Zancai. But those articles are written in properly encyclopedic style and properly referenced — this one is just a mess. Bearcat (talk) 00:33, 19 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even as a local Toronto queerboy who's quite familiar with Donnarama, I'm just not seeing any genuinely strong evidence of non-local notability in this article as written. And that's not a comment on her as a person, but just on the fact that the article in its current form is a badly written piece of crap that just demonstrates her existence, and fails to provide any real evidence of notability. Xtra! and fab are both perfectly acceptable sources if they're being used in properly written articles that are making credible claims of notability, but this article is just a really badly written résumé with a couple of unsourced WP:BLP violations in its edit history. And while it listed a bunch of random links in the references or external links section with no explanation or context of why they were there, I actually had to remove most of them as either dead or inappropriate, leaving the article with just one properly footnoted reference and two potentially salvageable ones — and none of those three links properly supports a genuine claim of notability (as opposed to mere existence) either. (And, of course, just because I'm personally familiar with the topic does not, in and of itself, mean she necessarily belongs in an international encyclopedia anyway — she might, in fact, but that's determined by the quality and depth of sourcing that can be provided, and not by my personal familiarity.) Delete — though if somebody wants to start from scratch on a better version that makes her notability more readily apparent, that new version should be considered on its own merits rather than being automatically speedied as a G4. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, some fleeting local notability by the looks of it within the Toronto gay community, but not enough third party sources to really hammer that home. As in the above comment, this is not a comment on the person themselves, just an assessment of the coverage. If more coverage comes into existance or is found, then I'm happy to revisit this comment. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Dripps

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

Non-notable local (Cork) drag queen. Burnberrytree (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: We need to consider if notable in (only) Ireland is notable enough to en.Wikipedia. If not, then what other Irish-only notables may be prime for deletion? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:28, 15 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You'd need to make a really good argument that a local drag queen is notable. Shii (tock) 08:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The issue here is that although Dripps has won a local pageant, she hasn't been the focus of much coverage. She placed second in the AMI, but I wasn't really able to find any reliable sources I could use to confirm this. Dripps is famous locally, but not really on a national level as far as Ireland goes. She's known, but that doesn't really mean she's notable per Wikipedia guidelines. If anyone can dig up a few sources, especially a RS that can confirm that she placed second in the AMI, I'm willing to be persuaded. I just have to restate that she really hasn't received much notice in RS to show a depth of coverage, not even from the alternative papers. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Dee-Lovely

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

Non-notable local (Chippewa Falls, Wisconisn) drag queen. The WQOW credit is a local news station. Article is also an "orphan." Burnberrytree (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically an advertisement. Gamaliel (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A proper merge discussion can take place on the article's talk page, if desired. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 16:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Herrera (musician)

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

Delete, or redirect to Napalm Death. The lone reference is to an interview with the band Napalm Death, and that comes nowhere near establishing his notability. Most of his career has been with Napalm Death, so any salvageable content should be merged there with a link to the fact that he also played with Anaal Nathrakh. He is already listed at Danny Herrera (disambiguation). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NBAND, Danny is a member of at least 3 notable bands, Napalm Death, Anaal Nathrakh and Venemous Concept. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. That factoid can easily be mentioned in each of those band articles, in a few words which link to the other bands. This perma-stub adds no information which coukd not be easily accommodated elsewhere, and it adds no navigational benefit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Again, how do we choose to which article to redirect Herrera? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Simple: if we create a redirect, then we redirect to which ever band he is most closely associated with, because that will be most helpful to the reader.
In this case, I find ghits for "Danny Herrera" "Napalm death" and 10,300 ghits for "Danny Herrera" "Anaal Nathrakh" ... so unless somebody has some contrary data, any redirect should point to Napalm Death.
However, I dount that the disambiguated title "Danny Herrera (musician)" is a plausible search term, so I see no need to create a redirect. The entry in Danny Herrera (disambiguation) is quite sufficient. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 11 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Napalm Death as his primary band. We need to judge topics on the sources that exist, not just those that are cited in the article, but having said that, there seems to be little coverage out there beyond mentions of his membership of Napalm Death and Venomous Concept and a little about his drumming style: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. --Michig (talk) 08:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Michig, as you said about Bastian Emig, "But if he was only a member of one notable band we would at least leave a redirect to the band. Leaving nothing at all because he's a member of two notable bands doesn't seem to make much sense." So long as two of his three bands have articles, so should he. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Napalm Death. factoids about other bands can be mentioned there in a single sentence. Frietjes (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Venomous Concept. J04n(talk page) 19:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retroactive Abortion (album)

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

Non-notable album. No evidence that it charted, and it is referenced only to a lone 183-word review which comes nowhere near satisfying WP:GNG.

Note that the article on the band is also at AFD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venomous Concept. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge losslessly to Venomous Concept - Album belongs to a band with at least two notable musicians. IMHO, the following steps need to be taken in order:

Determine whether Kevin Sharp and Danny Herrera are notable
Determine whether or not Venomous Concept is notable
Determine whether or not Retroactive Abortion and Poisoned Apple are notable
Determine whether or not Template:Venomous Concept is notable

--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply A template is a navigational device; it cannot be notable. The fact that you don't understand that suggests that yor general, grasp of the concept of notability is poor. Please read WP:N.
As to the others, WP:NOTINHERITED, so we consider their notability independently.
If there is material in this album article which can be merged to the article on the band without overwhelming that article, then it can of course be merged. How much of it to retain is an editorial decision involving WP:WEIGHT etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Sorry, I meant whether or not Template:Venomous Concept SHOULD BE KEPT!!! Again merge it losslessly. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 11 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Venomous Concept. A Google search demonstrates that this has been reviewed in several reliable sources. I would go for a merge simply because the total content about the band will fit easily in one article. --Michig (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Thank you Michig! --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Venomous Concept as suggested. Frietjes (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, same as Poisoned Apple. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marine BizTV

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

Not notable, not linked from any article of any importance, content of article is highly promotional. Search for reliable sources came up with only promotional content. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 02:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 11 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Content is not verifiable through reliable sourcing. dci | TALK 16:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eiffel 65#Brekup and reformation. Keeper | 76 00:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Jey

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

As it seems, there is not enough information on the subject itself from Eiffel 65 and I suggest this article either be deleted until more info is found by another source or whatever info is on here be taken into the article Eiffel 65. I might have to think about the other members, as well, as making it's own "Members" section in that article, but like the one in the One Direction article. EditorE (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:04, 10 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eiffel_65#Breakup_and_reformation - It seems he has been with Eiffel 65 the longest and a Google News search provided the most results (several of the links are Italian). Searches for the other groups provided a few results but this one seems to be the one he is best known for. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Blackham

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

I have not been able to find any independent reliable sources that would support the subject's notability. Singularity42 (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 11 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Independent sources are definitely the missing link here. Ducknish (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems there are independent sources here. I would say this person is notable, although the page needs to be fixed and expanded upon--Soul Crusher (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- His list of clients is impressive, and I presume that this is supported by content on the record covers (hence verifiable). However, I have my doubts as to whether someone doing what I presume is an editorial job in relation to records is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep despite the insufficiency of sources to meet GNG, I think the list of clients meets any reasonable understanding of notability in any real sense. DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Jackson

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

Fails WP:BIO. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 11 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The stage name is turning up lots on a different Mo Greene. I am unable to find coverage in reliable sources for this person; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gong show 00:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with objection towards userfying - The first times I searched, I received irrelevant results and the one press release. One of my next searches found this Chicago Tribune article which briefly mentions him and the fact that he graduated NU in 2008. I have also found results for another rapper named Moe Green from Vallejo, California. I think one of the reasons for the lack of substantial coverage is that he doesn't seem to have officially released an album. Despite having searched with Ruwanga Samath, The Bird Call Productions and "Make it to the Sun", I haven't found anything to support this article or even add more useful information. SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete come back when he's released a physical CD. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per In ictu. – SJ + 03:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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