Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 March	23 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 speedily deleted by User:Bwilkins under criterion A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Denis

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

Non notable self promoted musician. Article serves only as an autobiographical advertisement. If he ever becomes notable he can have an article with pleasure. Just not yet. Contested CSD. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article meets the requirements for a speedy delete. An exact copy has already been removed from is user page. Someone keep removing the tags from the main article. --JetBlast (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with you that the article is a valid speedy deletion candidate. I nominated it here because the CSD tags were removed by an editor was was not immediately identifiable as the originator, who seems to be somewhat confused. There was also template:Kelly Denis that was created by the same confused author. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 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 redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States. I don't believe there is anything to merge, but if someone disagrees I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 09:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Hawkins Flowers

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

No evidence of meeting WP:N's general guidelines - the subject got a brief burst of attention around her 112th birthday and death, but nothing to suggest meeting WP:N's requirement of making "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". Most of the material in the article (and available in the references) is nothing more than trivia. Canadian Paul 23:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States. She's not notable enough for her own article, but it'd be a valid enough redirect to add to the list of supercentenarians in the USA. I believe that the precedent for articles is that once they reach supercentenarian status, they can be redirected to the appropriate article/list. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4 JohnCD (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Visby (activist)

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

Non-notable individual. Unreferenced WP:BLP (or at least the sole "ref" is not WP:RS). Unable to find any sources that call this person remotely notable (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found nothing to indicate that an encyclopedia article is justified. --Michig (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G4. Why was an article on a musician created at (activist)? To hide from the many previous deletions at Adrian Visby, Adrian Visby (musician), Adrian.Visby, Adrian Visby (artist), Sex Ant Toys, Adrian Boyd, Adrian Voyd, Cabalaza Music, Cabalaza Republic, The Fragile v4, Heavenade, Lampara?, Civilexit? and more. Delete, salt, scorch, ban. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:29, 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. J04n(talk page) 09:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Hill

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

Contested PROD. Original rationale for deletion was: "Subject has never made a first-team appearance for a professional club in a competitive match." This rationale has not been addressed, and the subject also fails WP:GNG. – Pee Jay 21:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 21:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Sir Sputnik. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. – Michael (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nomination is solid against WP:NFOOTY in that this player has not appeared in a fully professional league. No WP:SIGCOV to suggest inclusion on other grounds. Mkdw ^talk 22:37, 28 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) 09:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dao (spoken game)

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

Hoax or something someone made up one day. (Or both; I suppose those aren't mutually exclusive.) PROD tag was removed by the article's creator without comment or improvement to the article, so here we are at AFD. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article barely makes sense and has no references. WP:HOAX and/or WP:MADEUP, as the nom said. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In addition to the reasons listed in the nomination, I'd also say that this is a spectacular failure on our verifiability policy. -- Whpq (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not entirely sure if you'd call this a 'hoax'. It's very likely a real school yard game, but simply not a notable one. The WP:OR aspect of the article is it's largest problem. Mkdw ^talk 22:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whatever else this is, it isn't sourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:17, 29 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)} 23:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Berlin helicopter crash

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

Fails WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. Helicopter crashes are common, it was an exercise. Nobody notable killed. WP:NOTNEWS applies also.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 20:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ...William 20:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 20:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC) ...William 20:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The event meets GNG because of international coverage and extended national media attention. Even the federal parliament of Germany will now debate this accident in a discussion about the structure of the federal police forces, so there may be a political aftermath. As to your other arguments, how is the fact that this happened during an exercise affecting its relevance? Train stations and ships are also common, and yet we have a plethora of articles about them. De728631 (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also quote from WP:EVENT: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." De728631 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Quite notable. Just because nobody notable died doesn't mean that the event isn't notable. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In this case, notability seems clear; while helicopters do tend to fail at beating the air into submission fairly regularly, a collision, of police helicopters, with the political repercussions from it, adds up to this being a notable incident. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a non-event according to WP. Also there are no "political repercussions" as user Bushranger stated, or even "parlamentarial debates", as user De728631 (the almost sole contributor) boasted. Quite to the contrary it was made very clear that there won´t be any parlamentarial investigations, e.g. here, on german. Furthermore users "De728631" sole intention for this article in EN:WP seems to be to bolster the german article, which is currently also under deletion discussen ("looky looky - even en:wp has it !!!1!11!") - IMHO a very appalling move. 212.23.103.66 (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of second-guessing my intentions (assume good faith?) you might want to read the source again you quoted. While there won't be an official parliamentary investigation, Bosbach has announced that the interior commission will discuss the accident in a debate with minister Friedrich. This is clearly a political dimension that has been added to the event. And the Berlin state parliament will at least debate the accident on 15 April: "Auch im Abgeordnetenhaus soll das Unglück auf die Tagesordnung der nächsten Sitzung am 15. April, wird wohl im Rahmen des Punktes „Besondere Vorkommnisse“ besprochen, so der SPD-Abgeordnete Thomas Kleineidam." (Also in the House of Delegates, the accident shall be put on the agenda of the next session on 15 April, and will presumably be dealt with along the item of 'special incidents', said SPD MP T. Kleineidam.) [1] De728631 (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all: This smells like hounding. Then, no "second guessing" necessary, since it is plain obvious. See here on the german deletion debate (16:58, 22. Mär. 2013 (CET), "Die englische Wikipedia hat sich dem Thema nun auch angenommen" - "en:wp has it, too!!1!") OnT.: In that very article it is very clearly stated "Eine parlamentarische Untersuchung des Unglücks ist im Bundestag oder im Abgeordnetenhaus bisher nicht geplant." ("No investigation, neither in parliament nor in chamber!"). Nobody cares what Mr. Bosbach says. He is a well-known attention-whore and will speak even to microphone-dummies. That said, deletion is the only way to go. 212.23.103.30 (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I do feel a bit hounded. The remark "Die englische Wikipedia hat sich dem Thema nun auch angenommen" was made by Excolis [2], and not by me as 212.23.103.66 implied. I have neither been pushing the interwiki argument in the German Afd nor have I cooperated with Excolis to "create" more relevance. And whether Bosbach's announcement will come true or not is also not relevant for the moment. It has been reported by reliable sources that a regular panel of the German federal parliament has shown interest in the case. And it has been confirmed today that the Berlin state parliament will in fact investigate the accident: "Helikopterabsturz wird Thema im Berliner Parlament" (Helicopter crash will become an issue in the Berlin Parliament) Berliner Morgenpost, 24 March. The oppositional parties are going to raise the issue in the interior committee of the Berlin parliament. De728631 (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Berlin state parliament" - that gave me a good chuckle. That´s nothing more than a town hall meeting. And your "reliable" source for the Bundestag is - *ta-daa* - aforementioned attention-whore Bosbach. You are deliberatly misleading the people here. Stop this travesty now and delete it. 212.23.103.25 (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The official designation in German is Landesparlament which translates to "state parliament" in English. After all, the city of Berlin is still one of the 16 German states (aka Länder). See also Abgeordnetenhaus of Berlin. You might have been thinking of the Senate of Berlin that resides in the town hall, but the Abgeordnetenhaus is something entirely different. De728631 (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        212, your comments about Bosbach violate WP:BLP, please strike them. And they sound like a case of your not liking the source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I won´t. Bosbach is the personification of annoyance and incompetence. My words are carefully chosen. And since this person utters smelly hot air only, "not liking the source" is no valid point as there is a lack of "source". 212.23.103.64 (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This attitude of yours may get you blocked over here. De728631 (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ... most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value ... whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable ... - here: WP:NEWSEVENT. --Ben Ben (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nomination. This is not a newspaper. Sad though it is, the death of the pilot is not notable, nor is the accident, unles some fundamental changes to helicopter operations result, which is highly unlikely.--Petebutt (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems likely that changes to German police helicopter operations will result. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Source? 212.23.103.64 (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Petebutt and William in saying that this article isn't notable and needs to be deleted. Military incidents are very common and don't need a wikipedia page. You only need to give pages to notable commercial air crashes. Wikipedia isn't all about the military. Springyboy (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This wasn't a military operation but a civil police exercise. De728631 (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Police or military, who cares. This article shouldn't be on wikipedia and needs to be deleted.Springyboy (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would you care to explain how this accident is any different from a commercial aircraft crash, e.g. 2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash?— Preceding unsigned comment added by De728631 (talk • contribs)
      - Thanks for giving me such a nice example to explain off. 2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash deserves to be on Wikipedia due to the damage it caused on the station and objects around it, the reviews that were conducted into the crash investigation and the coverage it received around the world. This was just an ordinary police exercise that went wrong. There is no need to give it the coverage you have given it, due to the limited coverage and limited issues that eventuated from it. I'm in Australia and I can tell you that I heard about the 2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash less than an hour after the incident, but it took you almost a week to put this page up. It is now a long forgotten news story that does not need to be remembered anymore. Accidents in police exercises are common. Do you want me to put up all the incidences that have happened in Australia with police? There may be a lot of info related to the crash online, but that still is not enough to prove its notability.Springyboy (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        As noted, the premise of the !vote is flawed, as this was not a military accident. And the WP:WHOCARES brushoff of that being pointed out doesn't help. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        So, let's recount the facts. Vauxhall: helo hits house, 2 dead, massive material damage, worldwide coverage, article not even prodded; Berlin: 2 helos collide, 1 dead, massive material damage on the tax payers' expense, worldwide coverage, political debates announced, article Afd'ed. De728631 (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This got a huge amount of press coverage; Google News returns 5300 results for "helicopter crash berlin"; all of the first 25 are about this incident. As was pointed out by User:Big Ben, this will be investigated by the Berlin landesparlament. Survives WP:GNG and appears to survive WP:EVENT. Marechal Ney (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still not enough to prove its notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springyboy (talk • contribs)
- It will not be discussed in the "landesparlament". The topic will be the poorly planned police exercise, not the crash in particular. Crash investigations are a task for the german BFU (air crash investigators), and prior to their expertise there won´t be any serious disussions since they´re pointless. But it can last a year or more until they publish their report. So it stays a non-event. 212.23.103.64 (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Worldwide press coverage. Very rarely police helicopters collision. NickSt (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misread your facts there. There have been many police helicopter crashes. This isn't the first police crash to get a wikipedia page. 2012 Kenya Police helicopter crash deserves a page due to its notability and issues that affected Kenya after the crash. This German crash does not deserve a page, due to its forgotten status, its common causes and not needing to make any changes to the current system. (i.e it fails WP:Aircrash) This article is a long lost incident that does not need to remembered. Why do we need it?Springyboy (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The 1993 Auckland mid-air collision had no lasting effect on the NZ flight regulations either and nobody notable died in the accident. And yet the article was featured in "Did you know". Granted, this page had a full section on the investigation from the beginning but it still strikes me as bit strange that nobody even cared to question the notability of this incident which was probably not even as widely reported back then as in today's globalised world ten years later. De728631 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is a rare but Effective media event of the accident between two police helicopters in Berlin. --Coffins (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The arguments fall under two basic principals, the keep camp arguments for WP:INDEPTH due to it's international coverage, and the delete camp's arguments under WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE. Ultimately, I think under the arguments of WP:AIRCRASH, both arguments are met but it's difficult to decide whether the in-depth coverage addresses the lasting effects requirements since no changes to German flight safety or police operations were mandated out of the crash. Mkdw^talk 22:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:INDEPTH is not a quantity argument, it's about quality of information aka in-depth analysis. World-wide news doesn't count as quality, only as a quantity for sensation, usually sensation for one day. There is no analysis of the accident in the article, because non does exist at present. Accident analysis needs time and only if it turned out that The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes it would fulfill all needed standards for inclusion in WP:AIRCRASH. --Ben Ben (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As we are currently (a deadlock), I suggest we Merge into Aircrashes in 2013 to break the deadlock. That way we still have a record of the crash and the resulting damages. I don't think it even deserves a record on Wikipedia however to please both parties we need to Merge otherwise more debates will come out of it. Springyboy (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merging could be a solution, but not in an article about commercial aircrafts (the article is about the crash of police helis). --Ben Ben (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem with merging is that there are apparently only lists of aircraft accidents for either commercial or military operators; see Category:Lists of aviation accidents and incidents. De728631 (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - List of accidents and incidents involving general aviation. Could that fit?--Ben Ben (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see what the problem is with that page. It looks like a good place to move our article to.Springyboy (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Then you might want to change the definition of "general aviation" in the lead paragraph. Currently the list seems to be about private and corporate aircraft, while military aviation is excluded. But there's also no mention of other state agencies like police, so I thought the list wasn't suited for merging. De728631 (talk) 17:07, 30 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) 10:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus Music Academy Awards

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

Possible hoax. I can only find references to this thing on Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. "Official page" is on blogspot, at http://cyprusmusicacademyawards.blogspot.com . Despite having run for a claimed 12 years, the article was created 10 days ago. On March 22, the total page view count for the "official page" was 43. A little low for 12 years.—Kww(talk) 20:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Obviously, this includes:[reply]

1st Cyprus Music Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2nd Cyprus Music Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
3rd Cyprus Music Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
4th Cyprus Music Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
5th Cyprus Music Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cyprus Music Academy Award for Best New Artist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cyprus Music Academy Award for Album of the Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cyprus Music Academy Award for Song of the Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cyprus Music Academy Award for Artist of the Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced and unreferenceable. -- Whpq (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The official website is a free blog from blogspot. These could have almost been speedily deleted as they make no legitimate claim of notability nor seem legitimately associated with a major musical society. Mkdw ^talk 22:50, 28 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Macaluso

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

I do not believe that this individual is notable. SOTA Toys might be, but Macaluso doesn't get to inherit notability from SOTA Toys. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: More to this guy than just founding a Toy Company. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:14, 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, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 03:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Macaluso has credits on several films as well as founding multiple companies. Sounds notable to me. --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 16:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. SOTA may deserve a separate article. – SJ + 02:11, 21 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, NativeForeigner ^Talk 20:25, 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. Shii (tock) 05:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Process (philosophy)

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

I propose that this article be deleted because it says nothing. It is a stub. No one seems to be trying to develop it. It refers to Process philosophy, an article that already exists. Chjoaygame (talk) 12:01, 15 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 15. Snotbot t • c » 12:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Article is almost completely redundant. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 20:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Buzzard Coulee meteorite via WP:SNOWBALL. --Lord Bromblemore 17:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and expand - the concept of a philosophical process is obviously more general than, and a predecessor of, the specific derivative ideas of process philosophy and process theology (among others). – SJ + 02:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the above strong keep. I have no axe to grind here. I think I have a general basic understanding of areas related to this. I have to say that I have no idea what this article is trying to say. If it can be re-written so as to make it clearer what it is intending to say, and that turns out to be reasonable, I will not object. But as it stands, the article is so badly written that I think it fair to say it says nothing. That does not mean that I disagree with its content; it means that I do not know what it is trying to say, I find nothing to agree or disagree with. The new edit seems to me to be more or less nonsensical namedropping, concocted to provide some appearance of activity for this article; I would say specious appearance. I am a keen student of Alfred North Whitehead, but I don't see how the new edit is relevant to the article. The above strong keep comment speaks of something being "obvious". Not to me.Chjoaygame (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chjoaygame, I didn't suggest anyone has an axe to grind. I agree the article isn't well written; abstract topics can be hard to get right. This article needs more than one example, for instance. But the notion of a process in philosophy is quite general; whereas "process philosophy" is highly specific. One cannot redirect to the other. – SJ + 18:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article might perhaps be a sketch for a dictionary entry, but is not suitable as a Wikipedia article, which should be on a definitely circumscribed topic, not on all meanings of a word.Chjoaygame (talk) 07:45, 24 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) 19:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - So far the text of the article doesn't explain what process (philosophy) means. How does this article differ from Process philosophy? I can't make any sense out of it. I searched the book given as a reference, including pages 84, 85: Ludwig von Bertalanffy, General System Theory, George Braziller, New York, 1968, pages 84,85 ISBN 0-8076-0453-4 and couldn't find and mention of process (philosophy).[3] All mentions in the book of "process" were general and applied to a variety of disciples, but not philosophy that I could see. Where else does this term occur? (The word "process" isn't mentioned in the article on von Bertalanffy. Star767 (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The general notion of a process, in philosophy, is quite general. And it does refer to ideas that apply to a variety of disciplines. If you want to rename this to something like "Process (abstract)" instead of "Process (philosophy)" that might be clearer, if only because of the name-collision. But there is a long tradition of thinking about causality, systems, and interconnectedness that is more strongly a part of philosophy than of any other field. It is that tradition that thinks about abstract processes and similar terms. – SJ + 18:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : This seems worth merging with process (science). I've combined the text of both articles, but left the latter for now until the AfD is resolved. Now it should be clearer and is better sourced. – SJ + 19:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Or redirecting to Systems theory. That article is more encompassing of the many disciplines that use "process". See: Process (disambiguation). Systems theory mentions Ludwig von Bertalanffy who was the original reference for this article, and Alfred North Whitehead who is mentioned in almost all the philosophy "process" articles. Or at least redirect to Process philosophy. Both Process (philosophy) and process (science) are rather a mess, and to upgrade them would be duplicate material already in several other articles.

I don't see what this article adds to the many existing articles, e.g. Process philosophy or other terms related to Alfred North Whitehead. There are bunches of tiny philosophy articles, e.g. Systematic philosophy, Datum (process philosophy), Nexus (process philosophy), Process and Reality, Concrescence (process philosophy), Creativity (process philosophy), Philosophy of Organism. Why do we need another article that just repeats info in articles we already have?

And the article in its current state is just a link farm, seems to me. Star767 (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been extended by some new edits. The new edits convince me that the article aims just to stake a pseudo-conceptual territory, marked by a beloved label, but lacking genuine inhabitants. With the new edits, I still think the article should go.Chjoaygame (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Massively confused. There may be a philosophical concept of process but this article completely fails to say what it is. Furthermore, all of the cited references also fail to say what it is, or even confirm its existence. So as it stands there is a failure to meet both WP:V and WP:N. The sources all seem to be using the word process in a perfectly normal way without any special meaning, so this article is also a WP:DICDEF violation. I cannot live with the lede. The first sentence is all unhelpful waffle and the second sentence says process is "a property of a dynamic system". Velocity and rotation are dynamic properties, but are they processes? A process should have a product, but those properties do not. The second paragraph might be saying (it is hard to tell) that process (philosophy) is causal process. If that is really what it is trying to say, then the authors should start a causal process article and the first sentence should say what a causal process is. In the meantime we should delete this article as a hopeless case. Spinning Spark 23:12, 31 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. L Faraone 02:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Health Physicist

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

The article appears to be copied from a course catalog description from a technical college with no verified sources. I like to saw logs! (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, no verification at all. This appears to be a non-notable certificate, issued by a non-recognized specialty board, which doesn't actually license the holder to do anything. "A certification by the ABHP is not a license to practice and does not confer any legal qualification to practice health physics." From this article it's not even possible to understand what health physicists do. There is some explanation at Health physics but I would not recommend a redirect because of the unverified nature of this title. --MelanieN (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the article certainly needs work and more references, this is a real certificate, and the AHP is the primary professional and licensing organization for Health Physicists. A poor article is not a reason to delete, but an incentive for improvement if the topic is notable. PianoDan (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There isn't a sentence that I would keep in such an improved article. And I believe that despite the bad prose, the article is woefully unnecessary and not notable enough to appear here. It wouldn't be the topic of discussion in a verifiable source. There's no books or journals written on this subject. It's a dead end article. There's also a better article receiving six times the traffic, at Health physics. I like to saw logs! (talk) 21:02, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added three references to the article, two of which are secondary. The secondary refs show that this is a real certification and the OOQ article, put out by the Department of Labor, shows that it is a required certification in some government and corporate jobs. There is a university course devoted to the certificate exam. Given that this is the primary certification of the field of health physics, I consider it notable. If the consensus is against notability, however, at the very least, content in the lead and references should be merged into Health physics --Mark viking (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or merge anything worth keeping into Health Physics. The references all seem internal within the small health Physics community which seems unrecognized by the medical or physics communities. I think this makes the subject non-notable. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am a physicist, and I certainly recognize the notability of the health physicists working at my lab. PianoDan (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is not "Health physicists" but rather the certification. Health physics and health physicists are covered in the Health physics article. Do you have any better sources for the certification which would warrant anything more than a sentence in Health physics? Dingo1729 (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference from AAPM is an association external to the field and recognizes the certificate as a valid qualification. The second reference, an article in the Occupational Outlook Quarterly, is produced by the Department of Labor and is well outside the field. It also recognizes the certificate. --Mark viking (talk) 16:49, 29 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Country for Cancer

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

It looks like this fundraising event was a one-time-only event. There's been no updates to their website and no news posts that I could find. I think the article might fail the notiability guidelines. Dianna (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not noteworthy; per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Kierzek (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 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) 19:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's great that they did this. But it's not notable for wikipedia. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 14:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:47, 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. L Faraone 02:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zingano BJJ

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

I couldn't find anything to show this club was notable, except for the fact that Cat Zingano trains there (it's run by her husband) and notability is not inherited. The sources are either primary or about Cat Zingano. The owner was a non-notable (by WP standards) MMA fighter. Mdtemp (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page needed a major cleanup. I cut out most of the information about the owner as it looked more like a page about him as opposed to the training facility. Correct that notability is not inherent, but the additional references added are not about Cat. She is one of the major people from the ___location but I added others. There is still information from the original article that I left that could use sourcing, but this is about as far as I am going to take it. It could either be sourced or removed either way. --JakenBox (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'm not seeing coverage of the school, just of people who train there and that I don't think that makes the school notable. Of course I could be wrong about that. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:26, 21 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) 19:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - It gets a few mentions on Google News, but mostly they seem to be about Cat Zingano and only mention the club in passing. I couldn't find any independent reliable sources actually focusing on the club itself, so I'd say the club is non-notable, since notability isn't inherited from Cat Zingano. CaSJer (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The sources are either not independent or provide only passing mentions (such as "so and so of Zingano BJJ fought ..."). The closest thing I found to coverage of the school itself were the two articles talking about adding well known individuals as the Muay Thai and wrestling coaches, but these were more in the form of press releases ("for more information contact ..."). In addition, when I checked the school's website neither of those persons are among the 25 instructors listed (most of whom are blue belts)--although the article mentions them as coaches. Even if they were, it would probably still be a case of WP:NOTINHERITED, but it might give the school some additional notability. I believe the school itself simply lacks the WP:SIGCOV necessary to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find significant coverage of this school.Astudent0 (talk) 23:41, 31 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 January 2013 Eastern Australia floods. L Faraone 02:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013 Eastern Australia floods ‎

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

Notability not established. This flood didn't cause a widespread impact. It was only along the Mary River, which floods every couple of years, where flooding affected some people. There was no tornadoes and only minor flooding elsewhere. Shiftchange (talk) 23:12, 6 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 6. Snotbot t • c » 23:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with January 2013 Eastern Australia floods. Obviously the title of the merged article will need to change to cover the entire summer flood season. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:32, 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, Courcelles 02:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Lankiveil. The floods were over a period of time covering both months and related. BerleT (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In what way were they related? The flooding which occurred in February lasted a few days. It wasn't the same weather system. They don't compare on area affected, cost of damage (by a significant order) of magnitude or by the type of damage. There were no tornadoes neither did several regions have trees down all over the place. It is hard to remember the February flooding of the Mary River or Sunshine Coast creeks in comparison to the January event. I would support a listing on Floods in Australia, however it wouldn't be appropriate to merge it to the January event. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Still insufficient discussion to establish consensus, please address whether merging would be appropriate

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Merge to with Floods in Australia, ~~no need to merge as it is already~~ the information is not yet listed there. Agree that there insufficient notability for a standalone page. J04n(talk page) 10:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with January 2013 Eastern Australia floods, and consider renaming to 2013 Eastern Australia floods. TheBlueCanoe 17:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't be appropriate because that whole article is about the damage and floods which were due to an ex-tropical cyclone. There is no need to change the scope of that article to cater for another smaller event later in the season. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I created the article, I believe a merge is needed here. Rhain1999 (talk) 07:00, 30 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Zdyrko

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

Autobiography of a non-notable video game designer. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:00, 14 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) 16:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. No independent sources. Article was created by a single purpose account, with probable WP:COI. CodeTheorist (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Relisted to get more opinions 18:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 21:33, 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 10:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Team killing

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

Article fails to establish general notability or meet WP:N, nor does it provide a single valid citation (and has been tagged as such for three years with no change). One citation leads to another Wikipedia article (not a valid citation) with no context. Another citation leads to the homepage of a video game developer's website. For all intents and purposes, the entirety of this article is perfect candidate for WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTOPINION. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 17:31, 22 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) 18:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTDIC and WP:NOTNEO. Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While TKing is certainly a part of MMO game culture, there are too few reliable sources on the matter to create an article, qualifying deletion per WP:GNG. Marechal Ney (talk) 23:50, 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 10:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archives: The International Journal of Medicine

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

Non-notable journal, tagged since 2010. Established in 2008, seems to be moribund since 2009/2010. Claims to be indexed in several databases, none of them very selective. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator's analysis. Seems to be a failed attempt at a journal that never really got off the ground. --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 27 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. I would be happy to userfy it upon request. J04n(talk page) 10:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Behavior Asylum

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

Film does not have stand-alone notability, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 16:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The film is notable as of references on other official encyclopedia based websites here. User:H.Brian Griffin ^talk^|^contribs 16:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- this seems to have been written by somebody close to the subject? Otherwise, where has the information come from? It seems very unreferenced/original researchy. Secondly, WP:CRYSTAL, and why is there the need to write about upcoming film? If/when it gets released, OK, but we've got another year until that happens and there are press reviews of it to reference. WP:TOOSOON!. And WP:FFILM. At that point, it may meet WP:NF, but it doesn't appear to now. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Userfy- for a while. I thank User:H.Brian Griffin for his contribution,[4] but lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources, we have a failure of WP:NF that does not merit being an exception to WP:NFF. Sorry H.Brian, but even with the film being "slated" for a January 2014 festival screening, it simply lacks the requisite independent coverage. Allow back only when WP:NF can be met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Userfy- per Schmidt. There isn't anything to show notability, but there's no harm in the editor userfying it.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:00, 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. J04n(talk page) 10:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ABC's of Ecommerce and Dropshipping Success

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

I am unable to find coverage in reliable sources for this book; it does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK at this time. Prod removed without explanation. Gong show 16:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Gong show 16:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Gong show 16:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per article: Currently there are missing any substantial reviews or critics to this publication. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional piece touting a non-notable e-Book. Carrite (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no indicationm that any notice has been taken of this book. -- Whpq (talk) 22:02, 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 10:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Team Charlie

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

Notability. The awards (Rockets on Prisoner) were an award for Halo: Combat Evolved based machinima. Rockets on Prisoner awards are hardly noteworthy. I also can't sources independent of XboxOttawa.ca (their website). James086 ^Talk 16:05, 22 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) James086 ^Talk 16:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not establish any significant notability from reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources to be found. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:23, 29 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) 10:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

José Henrique París Prieto

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence notability of this 19th century businessman and family member. No claim of notability made in either the English or Spanish articles, although it's possible that I've missed information about him under a related name, which in addition to the fact that it's already been here a couple years, is why I haven't simply A7'd this. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like a family history project. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 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. pure speculation L Faraone 02:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IWatch

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

All this article is is crystal ball Chris Ssk _talk 13:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Apple Inc. - a short section about the speculation is probably valid there (basically, whatever the reliable sources stated about the leak, and none of the speculation); there is no way this product is yet notable though. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject has (at least) four full length articles written about it (not just mention in a larger article), publications including The Telegraph, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal. If this isn't significant coverage in reliable sources I don't know what is. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see point 5 of WP:BALL, "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Chris Ssk _talk 14:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not become Apple's handmaid and delete everything that hasn't got their stamp of approval. Rules, even WP rules, can be interpreted rigidly, or sensibly. I would consider keeping this article as "sensible". The whole hubub around the watch is notable on its own, moreso than many thousands of articles on minor subjects that are perfectly validly on Wikipedia as well. Deleting it may well fit the letter of the rule - but not the spirit of Wikipedia as a place where you go to look up things, in my opinion. Ingolfson (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point 5 of WP:BALL also states While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. The article is about a newly revealed product, and is not simply a product announcement, there is encyclopedic verifiable information within the article, it is not entirely speculation (while there is speculation on what it will look like). I contend that this is a notable product in development, and see no reason to merge it into an already very large article.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly redirect to Apple Inc.. This page is based on anonymous leaks, agreeing with the nominator here. J04n(talk page) 10:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing but speculation and rumour from tech journalists at this point. If and when something substantial enters the public ___domain, then perhaps the article can be revisited. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:09, 31 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. Spinning Spark 16:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Lavie

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

Once all of the dubious sourcing is removed, the notability is not sufficient for an article. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 13:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Noting that the first AfD was unanimously for "delete" and that the BLP was recreated in 2009 without any actual notability still. Sourcing is primarily youTube (self-published) and Bloginity (which is a blog when all is said and done). Collect (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While unanimous it was hardly resounding with only three participants. AIRcorn (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: Most notability-bestowing events began a few weeks after the Oct. 2007 AfD (see 19:42, 22 March 2013 MUSICBIO Explanation below). RCraig09 (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hidden within the youtube clips there are a few sources that may attest to her notability.[5][6]. There may be more, but there are far too many bad sources diluting them so I looked through google news instead and found [7]. At the moment I am leaning towards keep, but if someone can provide a few more that would help. Either way it needs a lot of work (the interviews and reviews from you tube users need to be removed at the very least). AIRcorn (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Subject meets WP:MUSBIO §§ 1, 4, 6, 9, 12. Some facts: Sourcing includes multiple CNN cites, ABC News, Messager LaSalle, BMI Music World, Hollywood Records, Allmusic, Entertainment Tonight Canada, eTalk, Fox News, Seattle Times, Houston Chronicle, Tampa Bay Informer, Gant Daily, USA Today, Gulf Times, etc. YouTube is repeatedly cited for objective statistics for historical perspective (not "self-published"); or, sometimes, by videos not published by subject herself, to prove a non-controversial factual statement being made: WP:RS states sources should be reliable for the statement being made. This comment is by article's main contributor RCraig09 (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem you have is that potentially good sources are being lost among all the you tube clips. If you wish to save this article you will need to present links here to some substantial coverage in reliable sources. At the end of the day this will live or die according to general notability. Sources along the line of the montreal express I found above. It is not enough to say that they exist, you need to give participants here something to look at so they can judge the coverage for themselves. AIRcorn (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I've added Summary Comments below. RCraig09 (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ...if the fluff and peacock can be pared back .... the Jarboe/Ryder 2009 book mention, plus on the soundtrack albums of two 2006 motion pictures Stick It starring Jeff Bridges (Lavie's original song "If I Only Knew") and The Guardian starring Kevin Costner and Ashton Kutcher (Lavie's version of "Mockingbird").[11][12], ...do this get a Wikipedia bio. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And userify to the author's userspace for later inclusion. WP:TOOSOON in my opinion. I disagree that the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO in any way. What coverage there is seems trivial, aggregate or secondary of the subject herself, so no #1. Being a backup singer to Yanni does not meet #4 or #6. #9 is not met either because YouTube is not a music competition. #12 is not met because whatever coverage there was was in aggregate to the video that she appeared in, not for herself. Artist has not charted, and has not released a record through a major label. iTunes doesn't count. The Streamy Awards is mentioned, but obviously she didn't receive one, she was a backup singer for another artist that also didn't receive the award, she just performed. All in all, the article is probably 90% puffery and excessive referencing. The 10% that's left at the end doesn't really qualify for WP:GNG at this point. If the article is removed and userified, and at some point in the future the subject meets the notability guidelines, I'd recommend the author be a lot more honest about how the bio is structured and sourced. Someone who is truly notable hardly requires that level of reference overload. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Explanation: Meets WP:MUSBIO because ... I can see how someone without knowledge of the subject's history might say those things, FreeRangeFrog. But I was saying the article meets meets WP:MUSBIO for the following reasons: RCraig09 (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

§ 1: Sourcing includes those listed above, after "Some facts:" -- The most pertinent sources that focus on subject herself include Entertainment Tonight Canada and eTalk (Canadian national television). USA Today said she's the "visionary" behind the "phenom" YouTube video--not just a singer in it. I'm not relying on Streamys performance.
§ 4/6: Subject is a lead vocalist for Yanni--she's not a 'backup singer.' Worldwide Yanni tours with singers are significant, especially since Yanni is traditionally an instrumentalist.
§ 9: The "major competition" was being a finalist in the 2007 YouTube Awards (musician category) -- the largest video upload website on the planet with millions of music videos uploaded each year. It was a formal competition.
§ 12: Broadcast segments include ET Canada and eTalk (2007), mentioned three paragraphs earlier. Further, the CNN and ABC News segments (2010), though about the We Are the World remake video, highlighted her as the sole mastermind, organizer, and co-editor of the video -- not just one of 57 singers.

I would have preferred fewer and simpler references myself, but FYI: many were added or bulked up to appease a deletionist in 2010. Some referencing is factual referencing to YouTube statistics for historical context, not for "puffery." Also, some (not accusing you) confuse notability with level of fame. I plan to trim less important content and references (schedule permitting: early April 2013) but I strongly assert WP:TOOSOON was outgrown in October 2007. RCraig09 (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - The problem is most (all?) of these criteria require the coverage to be non-trivial. little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer 15:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I agree with the nominator. WP:42 isn't met because the most reliable sources give insubstantial coverage, and the dubious/bloggy/exceedingly local ones give the most substantial coverage. Articles on living persons simply require more solid sourcing, and claims that any accomplishment is encyclopedically or biographically significant need the same. Yanni doesn't help this subject WP:INHERIT anything without a durable (cf. occasional) ensemble membership, and being broadcast on TV in and of itself isn't necessarily worth mentioning, especially if the subject is otherwise obviously notable. JFHJr (㊟) 17:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Observation. Subject has been one of two lead singers on all Yanni tours since autumn 2010, though there are of course gaps between tours. RCraig09 (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator's and FRF's convinving arguments. Create a redirect to We Are the World 25 for Haiti (YouTube edition) - whatever legitimate notability the subject may have is BLP1E-ish, and stems from her involvement in this video; while I'd usually suggest a merge, the content here simply isn't suitable for excerpting a brief, relevant bio, which needs to be redone from scratch. Userfy on request, but the primary author really needs to understand WP:BOMBARD's lessons before attempting a rewrite. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Summary comments from article's main contributor. (1) Lead has been updated here to summarize notability.
(2) Article presents detailed factual biography of one of the earliest subjects to successfully use the Internet outside old-line music labels, a detailed task for which numerous references were necessary over four years--not to demonstrate threshold notability, nor for WP:Bombardment.
(3) Re: YouTube: (3a) Please guard against dismissing anything YouTube-related based on underlying improper WP:OTHERCRAP-like assumptions; (3b) the article's YouTube cites are generally (i) permissible primary-source uses of archives of subject's channel or YouTube front page to put subject's YouTube channel statistics in historical perspective and for front page features; (ii) some "official" YouTube channels' videos; (iii) to WP:verify bare facts such as particular performances--not as opinionated reviews; and (iv) a couple of subject interviews, openly labeled as such, not cited for truth of their content. RCraig09 (talk) 14:36, 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. Courcelles 23:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hillbilly jamboree

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

Insufficient supporting material to indicate that this article is anything more than the imagining of its author. Although the concept of a jamboree as a major social and economic event sounds plausible for a rural society such as 19th century Appalachia, no source can be found to verify that such events actually occurred, or occurred with an sufficient regularity to be considered a "cultural icon". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found for such jamborees with such an impact. My search didn't locate any though. Fram (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jamboree is US slang for a raucous revel and this is part of the hillbilly musical tradition. As an example of a source, see Mountaineer Jamboree. Warden (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Any source for a "hillbilly jamboree" as an ancient tradition (there are a number of unrelated 20th century things individually called hillbilly jamboree, but that's not what this article is about) . Your source doesn't seem to have anything to do with e.g. "Often the ___location of the jamboree may have been previously unnamed, receiving a name only because of the occurrence of the jamboree. Thus the legacy of the jamboree lives on in the place names that honor them." or other claims in the article. Fram (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The detailed content of the article is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:IMPERFECT. For an example of a jamboree in a particular place which attracted substantial attention, see the Wheeling Jamboree. Warden (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - An example which actually has nothing to do with the article up for deletion. Note that we have an article about WWVA Jamboree, and that neither the article, nor your source, even mentions "hillbilly" or "hillbillie" (never mind that otherwise, they are hardly about the same thing as this article either). So you have a source that matches neither the title nor the content of the article we are discussing. "Not cleanup" and "Imperfect" (you forgot the more general "Preserve") are not applicable here. Fram (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:No salvagable sourced content. There may be an article that can be written about jamborees, but this is not a suitable foundation.—Kww(talk) 21:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kww. Jamboree is a potential article, but what we've got here looks like WP:OR to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is completely unsourced, and the sources suggested in this discussion don't appear to relate to the same topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:31, 29 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 per WP:CSD#G12 as a copyvio (either of the ppt listed below or of the source [8] given in the article, both of which predate article creation). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coin-row problem

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

Unremarkable problem, game or so whatever they call it. Simply non-notable. I was thinking that it could also be a hoax if ever. Mediran (t • c) 10:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I agree it is not notable enough for a page of its own but it is not a hoax. A quick Google search turned up plenty of references to it. I have added one source to the page for now but it should be merged with the examples section of Dynamic programming. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As short as the article is, the prose is a nearly exact copyvio of slide 7 of this powerpoint presentation last modified in Nov. 2012. As such, this article should probably be simply deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 20:45, 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 merge to Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TRAI Bangalore Regional Office

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

A regional office doesn't need a separate page per WP:BRANCH. The functions are almost similar, except that it will handle for a particular region. Merge to Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 07:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I really think my article needs to be there because,regional office of a regulatory organisation have completely different functions.as a professor of telecom management and having a phd in it I think that regional offices have completely different functionalities to perform from the HQ.In a month also,the regional offices are to be separate entities with enforcement function and also administrative powers regarding the cable acts.As soon this happens,this wil be updated on wikpedia.So in short i believe this aricle needs to be on wikipedia and a separate article and not to be merged.Uncletomwood (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The minute administrative functionality difference should not be counted for, as overall its the same body, just having different responsibilities for better functioning. A separate para for all the regional offices areas can be created and clubbed together in TRAI. It would be really unusual to have articles on each of the regional/zonal office of each Government/PSUs/Companies, as it won't have much content to add on after a certain time. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 13:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amartya,as per my earlier comment I had stated that this regional office is going to be a seperate entity.please a regulatory body's regional body cannot be quoted with a private/government office.the trai office is going to take charge of the telecom law.in short it will enforce the law,and this is different from the trai hqs job.the term cell of DoT is going to go toTrai hence more info will be updated.Uncletomwood (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"is going to be" is not a valid rationale. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:53, 28 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, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 12:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect/Merge to Telecom Regulatory Authority of India as per WP:BRANCH. I agree with User AmrtyaBag Jethwarp (talk) 09:50, 22 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) 09:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~DELETION not necessary~~ deletion is unnecessary as this branch has diffferent functions from its head office and WP:BRANCH does not exist for regulatory,governmental offices which enforce law.Uncletomwood (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you have already !voted above, please do not make more than 1 !vote entry. you may "comment" all you wish. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the original TRAI article and create a separate section or paragraph TheStrike Σagle 15:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Vide this article: Apart from Bangalore, new offices have been opened at Jaipur, Bhopal, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Lucknow, Chennai, Bangalore and Mumbai. . We do not need separate articles on this branch or the others, as they are all monitored by the head office in Delhi, which defines the remit of its branches as its standard-bearers. Information on this and the other branches and their functions could, therefore, be merged with the main TRAI article, which should suffice. There seems to be a strong case of merging Advisor,Telecom Regulatory Authority of India with the main article TRAI as well and having all the information on TRAI, its functionaries and functions in one easily accessible article. There seems to be no rationale for having two separate articles, let alone three. Too many cooks spoil the broth! The main TRAI article could be revised, improved and expanded to give it a facelift instead of having several short(er) articles on TRAI- related issues and branches. Otherwise it will be Bangalore today, followed by articles on the other regional offices and on any new ones which may emerge in the future, so merge or delete.--Zananiri (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
redirect/merge fails criteria for stand alone. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:30, 28 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. Courcelles 23:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WinFlash Educator

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

Written mostly by the person who created it, it's basically a spammy advertisement for a non-noteworthy product. It appears to have one CNet review, which appears to be the amount of non-shareware-specific attention it's gotten. A previous AfD exists at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Winflash. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Poorly referenced software article, with insufficient coverage to establish notability, created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 10:57, 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, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 02:05, 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, Mediran (t • c) 09:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was had back several years ago. WinFlash Educator has been a well-received program for many years with 10's of thousands of users. Why does Mr. Orlando single out WinFlash when there are many programs of much LESS notability listed on the Flashcard Software and Spaced Repetition topics. Please leave this listing as it is. Here's a quote from the PREVIOUS delisting attempt "Keep it's an ace program actually. Still, the article is a bit of an ad and maybe needs toning down.--Bedivere 19:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)" All suggested modifications to make the listing less of an 'ad' were made at the time and remain. It would be unfair to remove this listing without doing a complete purge of all listed flashcard software products! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DickBryant (talk • contribs)

Comment: Quoting a user account (User:Bedivere) blocked and banned for sockpuppetting may not represent the keep case in ways User:DickBryant intends. BusterD (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Inclusion on Wikipedia needs significant coverage in independent reliable sources. That is not the case here. The sourcing in the article is not to reliable sources, nor can I find such coverage when I search myself aside from this CNet review. -- Whpq (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing approaching the WP:IRS standard here. A reasonable search finds that though the product has been available for many years, media buzz surrounding the product is sadly lacking. Since Wikipedia is not a directory of all softwares and insufficient sourcing exists to sustain the page, delete. BusterD (talk) 14:50, 29 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) 17:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Colombia, Ankara

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable. they need significant coverage of its activities LibStar (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move to~~ Colombia-Turkey relations and broaden scope. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the article doesn't exist. LibStar (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why it is a redlink. We can add http://www.mfa.gov.tr/relations-between-turkey-and-colombia.en.mfa http://www.ntn24.com/news/news/turkey-and-colombia-scrap-visa-requirements etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then Keep In ictu oculi (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1st source you provide s a primary source. LibStar (talk) 09:46, 23 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, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 01:53, 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, Mediran (t • c) 09:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG, embassies are not notable unless they cover significant relations (like Embassy of the United States, London) or were involved in a significant historical event (like Embassy of the United States, Tehran) Revolution1221 (talk) 16:18, 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. J04n(talk page) 14:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hammerkatz

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

I previously deleted this by PROD, but have restored it following a request at my talk page. However, I am bringing to AfD as I believe this organistion is non-notable. Giant Snowman 12:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see that this would get past WP:GNG. Specifically I tried to find reviews from reliable sources (or any sources) as well as significant coverage/mentions, etc. I can't find anything that would stand up to scrutiny. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 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, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 01:49, 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, Mediran (t • c) 09:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The GNews archives show some brief mentions for this comedy troupe but the coverage does not appear significant; subject seems to fall short of meeting WP:GNG. Gong show 16:36, 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 anyone wants to merge any of it I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 14:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Berko

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

Does not seem to fit the notability criteria. Possibly merge with Uni-versal Extras? Ezia (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- so he runs (or ran) a recuitment agency, which briefly hit the headlines as a successful one. Is that really notable? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to subjectively assess whether this or that person or job should be notable, under GNG the key thing is whether that person or firm is the subject of multiple substantial pieces of reliable, independently-published coverage. Porn star or clergyman, that's the key criteria. Carrite (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into his company Uni-versal Extras. Snappy (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the same content is already in the piece, nothing to merge. I'm for keeping the piece on the firm, losing the piece on the proprietor. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 22 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, KTC (talk) 10:16, 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, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 01:48, 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, Mediran (t • c) 09:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Guardian piece listed in the footnotes absolutely counts as 1 towards fulfillment of GNG, but I'm not anything else wheeling down the footnote links; nor is a googlectomy seeming to generate anything of use towards GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still say delete but would not object to merging/redirecting to Uni-versal Extras. The article should certainly not be allowed to survive. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Orthodox Church

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

There are no non-primary sources used to determine notability. As far as I can tell this group isn't in communion with either the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox communions, which means it isn't a true Orthodox church (see Orthodox Christianity). Looking at the group's website it appears to be a marijuana church that makes use of pseudo-Orthodox imagery. Perhaps a redirect to Marijuana religion might be in order? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I seriously wonder whether this denomination consists of much more than its founder, a self-appointed Bishop Davis, who has according to the website declared himslef to have no home. Am I being too cynical? We regularly delete one-man evangelical ministries, and this looks to me like another, tough of a differnent theological bent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – When checking on Google, be careful since there are a fair number of hits for Universal Orthodox Church. However, almost all refer to the world–wide grouping of all the Orthodox Patriarchates and not to this group for which no evidence of notability has been found. Jpacobb (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After filtering out the other sources that are not related to this communion, I don't see anything that suggests this meets GNG. Mkdw ^talk 23:06, 28 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. L Faraone 03:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GNATS

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

Completely WP:NN software project. Toddst1 (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per notability. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the really pertinent information is already on the Comparison of issue tracking systems page. Ducknish (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obvious keep. It's the bug-tracker of big projects such as the GNU project, FreeBSD[9], NetBSD[10] and surely others that I don't know about. In the past, its development was a frequent news items. Notability doesn't evaporate just because something stops being news. I'll try to add to the article (UPDATE: done), but I don't have much time. The article should be developed further, and deleting it isn't the way to make it happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gronky (talk • contribs) 13 March 2013‎

How does being used fit WP:GNG? If it's been in the news, cite it (not Usenet news). Toddst1 (talk)

GNATS' notability is verifiable by the number of websites and webpages dedicated to it. See GNATS#References for a selection. There are webpages devoted to GNATS by academics in non-related universities, as well as CERN, and non-related software developers. Finding a heap more is too trivial to need instructions. Some websites/webpages don't exist anymore, but many can be found via archive.org, but anyway, as a section title in the notability guideline says, "Notability is not temporary". I haven't checked Usenet, but it seems that Usenet pages/articles would count since the notability guideline says "published works in all forms and media" (it's in the bullet point "reliable"). Gronky (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People documenting their bugs and/or their use of a product doesn't qualify as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," Beyond that, Usenet news postings are inherently self-published, similar to blogs. Please don't remove the {{notability}} tag again. Toddst1 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles by third-party authors, published in media with review processes:

A section about GNATS in the book Practical Development Environments
Author Nikolai Bezroukov writes that GNATS "has been the cornerstone of Free Software bug tracking systems"
Jan Sandred, in his book "Managing Open Source Projects", writes in a section about GNATS that it has been the cornerstone of open source bug-tracking systems (not sure who wrote first, Jan or Nikolai)
Article by Cyclic Software
http://chess.eecs.berkeley.edu/softdevel/gnats.htm
http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/ivezic/sdss/gnats.html
http://www.codealias.info/technotes/gnats_bug_tracking_system_configuration_howto
http://www.codealias.info/technotes/integrating_cvs_with_gnats

Finding more isn't hard but I think this is already enough. I'd also note that I think it would be wrong to only look at this type of source. For software, especially software that peaked in the 1990s, there were very few magazines and news sources with review processes. The number of installations, third-party contributors, and third-party extensions is a better gauge. Gronky (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: The new sources need to be evaluated before determining consensus

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Secret ^account 05:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gronky has provided a very useful list of references. Of these, this, this and this are significant enough to meet the WP:GNG notability guideline and the other references strengthen the case. Thincat (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to GNU Project. Sources are sketchy; the third source cited directly above has a disclaimer that it is outdated, and this article looks like a permastub. Miniapolis 14:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two book references shown by Gronky above seem to be in enough depth to consider them valid independent reliable sources. A Google books search shows other books with shorter mentions. I agree with Thincat that the Cyclic source is also reliable; while out of date, it is a useful source of information about GNATS at the time it was written. Multiple reliable sources means this topic is notable according to WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. That it is the bug tracker for FreeBSD and NetBSD shows the significance of the software. As best I can tell, the article is close to or at start-class and there is enough information in the article to be useful to users. This suggests that the permastub assertion doesn't apply here. A notable topic and no insurmountable content problems suggest that this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources here are primarily short comparisons or tutorials. Few are more than a couple of paragraphs long, and they all repeat the same basic information. It's not plausible that this could be developed beyond a facsimile of the comparison section in Practical Development Environments, especially given that the software is seemingly moribund and that there's no demonstration of any non-trivial analysis of its historic use in FOSS projects. The argument that software from the pre-2000s should be excused from our guidelines on sourcing doesn't hold any water: notability is not inherited and simply having been used by an influential project (back when said project was far smaller than at present, it's worth noting) is isufficient. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are separate issues. Some sources, like the books, contribute to the notability criteria.

Other sources (often self-published writings by third-parties) show the topic's potential: there are lots of third-party developers, extensions, and modified versions. (See the list I gave above, and the references section of the article, and here's another comment about someone making a customised version.)

And the software's age is worth considering because for software that peaked in the late 90s, web searches only find a fraction of what has been written. There's printed materials (such as "Slackware Linux unleashed", but I don't have a link to a scanned copy) and websites/webpages that are no longer available.

(And lastly, GNU, FreeBSD, and NetBSD still use GNATS - the latter two use the send-pr interface.) Gronky (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked Google again. There is still no notability. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:49, 31 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crawdaddy (album)

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

Also I nominate:

Shame on You (The Native Years)
~~Pop Said...~~ Withdraw this. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Erotica (The Darling Buds album)

None of them charted, and they don't demostrate why they are notables by their own. They fail WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS greatly. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage for Crawdaddy includes Spin, Boston Globe, Washington Post, and Washington Times. Coverage for Erotica includes Time, USA Today, Billboard, and Allmusic. Both of these appear to meet WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Note that most of the coverage in these sources is behind paywalls and/or have snippet views in Google Books, and that further coverage is likely in UK-based magazines such as NME, Melody Maker, etc, whose back issues I don't have access to. I'm not finding coverage for the Shame on You (The Native Years) compilation (in online sources), so I'm open to redirecting that one to the artist's main page. Gong show 16:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The band is clearly notable, and all of these albums received reviews from multiple reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 18:31, 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shoppink

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

I do not think the two press releases given as references show notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing out there to show that this app is notable as of yet. There's the usual download sites and mention or two in non-usable sources, but nothing that would show notability.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Tokyogirl79. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to List of all iOS apps per above and WP:NSOFT which asks us to consider the "depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage." The Wikipedia article, created on the 21st, says the app was "first released on March 20, 2013". I found no hits on Google News. It's not entirely clear to me that they are press releases, but the Yahoo and e27 stories cited are identical. —rybec 04:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet GNG. Mkdw ^talk 22:56, 28 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.