Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 March	9 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 delete. Keeper | 76 00:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Witwit

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

Iraqi academic with no evidence of notability. Seems to be a WP:COI with SPA User:Science flag. According to that user's talk page someone tried to speedy the article when first created but I can't see where that happened. A Template:notability tag was removed by an IP within an hour of being added. Le Deluge (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. The promotional pattern of editing by a single-purpose account (e.g. placing the article in inappropriately broad and high-visibility categories) is also not a good sign. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per David Eppstein -- alas, I want more articles on Iraqi academics and am willing to consider a lower bar to notability based on the difficulty of accessing sources, but zero Worldcat sources makes me believe this article's subject would have little notability to an Iraqi researcher as well. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Application of Military Airlift Aircraft

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

This is a very heavily promotional article about a proposed civilian/reserve military variant of the C-17 Globemaster. It is quite inappropriately biased toward promoting the concept, in great detail. However key sections are based on documents which are claimed but cannot be independently verified, creating a WP:RS problem in addition. It is not clear that it is notable in terms of the GNG. In my view a small section of the C-17 article could discuss this proposal in a much more neutral (NPOV) manner. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article reads like a promotional essay, and I don't think that this is sufficiently notable in isolation to justify a stand-alone article. Boeing C-17 Globemaster III#Commercial interest (from which, from memory, this article was split) does the job, though it could probably be expanded a bit. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete for reasons cited above and the fact that the C-17 program is ending without implementing this concept. The idea has been considered several times and rejected each time.Dhpage (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also think, notability is not clear! --Tito Dutta (contact) 06:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, is this a sub article of the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III article? If it isn't the content should be highly summarized, merged, and redirected to the article. If it is a sub-article it should be kept, as AfD is not a replacement for improvement to resolve the WP:NOTPROMOTION concern of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the original content is based on content removed from the C-17 article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly redirect to Civil Reserve Air Fleet as a one-liner. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This smells of Boeing vanispamcrufttisement; at the very most, as a considered-but-failed project, it needs either to be summarised in one small section of the Main C-17 article, or blown up and restarted as Boeing BC-17 if it's to be a spinout. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be entirely promotional. Ducknish (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete consensus seems to be very clear. Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 02:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it reads more like a press release than an encyclopædia article. In principle, it may be possible to write a neutral article - notability isn't very high but there's no rule saying we can't have an article on an abandoned project &c - but we'd have to start from scratch and lean more heavily on secondary sources &c. bobrayner (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like a press release. As above. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 19:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Onterio Varrio Sur

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

I prodded this article as "almost entirely unsourced", with serious reliability and BLP issues. Another editor deprodded it, removing much of the content and adding "sources". However, these are all unreliable, and all bar one appear to be to a mirror of the original article.

The article does not establish the notability of this group, nor anything else except that it exists. The (apparently reliable) source confirming its existence contradicts most of the other information in the article. RolandR (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article also appears to suffer from a severe attack of sock-puppetry; I have identified at least a dozen IPs and SPAs which have edited only this article, often making the same or a very similar edit, and which have disappeared after a day. RolandR (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage of the organization found in multiple non-primary reliable sources that indicate that the group is notable per WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Subject has received two brief mentions in news sources, however that is not sufficient to indicate notability.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Onterio" may be a variation on the city name of Ontario used by the gang, but RSs may be found by changing search term to "Ontario Varrio Sur". Just a thought. Boogerpatrol (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a couple possible sources here, http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/04/21/14375/black-angels, http://lang.sbsun.com/socal/gangs/articles/ivdbp1_main.asp, and http://www.justice.gov/usao/cac/Pressroom/pr2010/073.html someone care to evaluate? Boogerpatrol (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 22:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at news sources of "Ontario Varrio Sur", one will find mostly passing mentions; the San Bernardino Sun article has five one to two short sentence paragraphs regarding the subject of this AfD, it does not appear to be significant coverage.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google produces almost nothing of note on this group. WP:ORG demands some significant discussion by independent sources. Absent that, it should be deleted. --Noleander (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 02:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Larsson

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

Promotional. Does not meet any of the notability criteria for entertainers: "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" (no); "has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" (no); "has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" (no). AfD at Wikipedia in Spanish. Technopat (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Borderline. It's always difficult to tell without English-language sources. However, it is definitely in serious need of cleanup! Deb (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Author opinion - I know that it's a mess, I will clean it up when I have time. About the notability, there was a time when this woman was always on TV at prime time. Also there was some controversy regarding extortion with a sextape, that make her appear on every newspaper in the country. (you can see when that happened here). It's easily notable by english wikipedia notability standards, but the article is a very messy stub, I know. Give me some time. By the way, the spanish Wikipedia has a very different criteria for TV personalities and its full of deletionists.--Neo139 (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She appears to be a self-perpetuating famous for being famous person in Argentina, and the coverage meets WP:GNG, e.g., [1][2][3][4], The votes in the spanish AfD didn't like that, but also complained that their article was in poor condition and promotional, which simply means it should be improved.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did a little bit of work on the article, she's even more notable that I judged earlier, Argentine media is over all her.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 22:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - yeah, I can understand the nomination but I find myself convinced by Milowent's arguments and the improvements that have been made to the article. Thought I can't read the WP:NOENG sources, they certainly seem to be from reliable publications and would seem to cover the subject in some detail. Stalwart111 23:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG as the subject of multiple substantial independently-published pieces of coverage, per Milowent. Carrite (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article needs expansion not deletion. Hmlarson (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be covered enough to meet WP:GNG, in my opinion. Ducknish (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keeper | 76 00:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whisson Windmill

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

Very few incoming wiki links, malformed reference, notability not established. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was created by Grundle2600 (talk · contribs), who was banned in 2010 for making hoax edits. The "windmill" is mentioned on howstuffworks.com; that article seems to have been written in 2011, but the Wikipedia article was created in 2009, so we appear to be dealing with a case of the Seigenthaler effect. Per the nominator, I would delete, and I see a case for speedy deletion. AGK [•] 23:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I managed to find one substantive mention in a publication that wasn't a simple mirror of the article - Opportunities Beyond Carbon by John O'Brien (Melbourne Univ. Publishing, 2009) - though I'm not sure if that small section is based on the article or not. Either way, one single source would not be enough to substantiate notability, in my view. Stalwart111 23:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The windmill is verifiably not a hoax. I found this opinion piece in The Australian. As an opinion piece, it is not useful to establish notability, but it does verify the devices existence. Coverage in reliable sources do exist in the form of IOL, ABC (Australia), and a blog entry from The Age. However, all of this is from 2007, with no onging coverage outside of this blip in 2007. With sustained coverage, I would switch to a keep. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 11 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. Secret ^account 04:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kulveer Ranger

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

Notability:being a paid employee of an elected politician does not make you notable Simonjon (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only mentions in reliable sources are in passing, for example here where he is clearly not the subject of the article. Unsuccessful election candidate and working in an advisory role also do not meet subject specific criteria at WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- As an appointed official of the Mayor of London, I think he might just about get over the threshold of notability. However, this is probably breaking new ground as to who is notable. I would not vote this wayt for the officials of the elected mayors of smaller English cities. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, subject of the AfD has received significant coverage in one non-primary reliable source. However, the other reliable sources only briefly mention the subject of this AfD, in total it is my humble opinion that the one source plus all the other mentions do not add to significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources. Therefore, unless more sources arise where the subject is the primary subject of the content and is given significant coverage, I have to support deletion. Perhaps it is too soon for this individual to have a wikipedia article per notability, as the subject presently fails WP:GNG WP:POLITICIAN & WP:ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the general notability guideline with coverage at [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] (full 417-word text available via Nexis), [10]. etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 22:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the AfD no longer appears on the Mayor's official appointments page [11] which was originally cited in the article to establish notability, or its subpages, so likely no longer an appointee or even an advisor to the Mayor. Agree with earlier comments that failed runs for elected office is weak grounds for notability.Simonjon (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source Combat System (aka OSCS)

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

Non notable neologism, recently coined as one of the references http://www.modernhhc.com/open-source-system says. Other references are not useful or are self referential. Disputed PROD Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no reliable sources that provide significant coverage of open source martial arts. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and lacks good sources.Mdtemp (talk) 18:05, 12 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 all. JohnCD (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tran Buu Ngoc

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no evidence of notability, all appear to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 23:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail GNG and NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. No indication in the articles that players fulfill GNG however, also no indication that they have not played in a fully professional league. The source determining whether it is an FPL provides a 404 error (what a shock - the FPL list fails again!), so would appear that the three users above have not bothered to check this. This therefore also calls into question their unsupported statements that the players fail GNG as one would assume they haven't checked this either. Fenix down (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - all fail WP:NFOOTY and WP:SIGCOV. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keeper | 76 00:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pham Van Nam

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. This article appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:22, 8 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) 22:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. No indication in the articles that players fulfill GNG however, also no indication that they have not played in a fully professional league. The source determining whether it is an FPL provides a 404 error (what a shock - the FPL list fails again!), so would appear that the two users above have not bothered to check this. This therefore also calls into question their unsupported statements that the players fail GNG as one would assume they haven't checked this either. Fenix down (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woah woah woah, stop right there and AGF at once. You have got so much wrong/twisted in your comment I don't know where to start, but I'll give it a go - "No indication in the articles that players fulfill GNG however, also no indication that they have not played in a fully professional league" - the WP:BURDEN is on those claiming notability, and they have to verify the claim. That has not been done and I don't think it can be done. The Soccerway profile shows 0 appearances in any league, let alone a fully-professional one. "so would appear that the two users above have not bothered to check this" - based on what?! No, you completely right, after 7 years of editing I have no idea about the existence of WP:BEFORE, no idea whatsoever </sarcasm> "This therefore also calls into question their unsupported statements that the players fail GNG as one would assume they haven't checked this either" - this article began was initally tagged as an unreferenced BLPPROD, I couldn't find any sources and even the article creator's attempts to improve the article has found minimal. You are incredibly ignorant of WP:AGF, WP:BURDEN, WP:V etc. and I find your attitude here entirely inappropriate. Giant Snowman 12:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right, I did not check the soccerway page, there is no evidence readily available that he has even played. I retract my comments with apologies. Fenix down (talk) 14:06, 11 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 under G5. James086 ^Talk 17:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solera networks

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

Non-Notable company fails WP:ORG, WP:RS, and WP:COI. Only sources locatable for article content are primary sources and secondary sources which for the most part are reprinted press releases from primary sources or the subject of the article, patents, and books which are marketing literature associated with the organization. Additionally, this article was created and vetted by a paid freelance writer and the subject of the article itself (see this entry in the AN/I noticeboard for this editor.). Cannot find any reliable secondary sources nor any third party sources. Non-notable private company. Article is just advertising puffery. Equalsmsquared (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete. fails WP:ORG, WP:RS, and WP:COI Equalsmsquared (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. a networking technology company that develops network deep packet capture and stream-to-storage technology. The company's technology is delivered as dedicated network appliances, software based offerings and virtual appliances. MEGO. Referenced entirely to press releases. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:52, 10 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 Roy Maloy. About half of those commenting here advocate deletion in some fashion, however some of those along with the editors favouring redirection note that it's a possible search term for Roy Maloy, therefore I've closed this AfD by redirecting. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Blended Impressionism

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

Article about a term without widespread use outside of a single person, who apparently was also the editor that created the article. Fails basic notability; no book hits, nothing. A bunch of external links were removed as they were borderline spam. There is simply nothing to indicate that this is a known or accepted variant of impressionism. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Roy Maloy. I found only one independent source, a small Australian newspaper article on the man, not the concept [12], and no evidence in reliable sources that this neologism is in wide use. Without reliable sources, this topic fails notability guidelines WP:GNG and WP:NEO, suggesting that the article should be deleted. Update: Colapeninsula made a good case below for redirect. In the interest of consensus, redirect to the artist's page is fine by me, too.--Mark viking (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as a non-notable neologism. As this is the invention of Roy McPherson (per THIS), a redirect to his biography would be perfectly appropriate, were there such a biography. Carrite (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roy Maloy, which I now see is the stage name of the creator of the subject, Roy Macpherson. I've created a redirect for the real name to the stage name. Carrite (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is written by Roy Maloy and makes false claims. All references to "unblended Impressionism" are made by "Roy Maloy" in small community newspaper and no such genre exists.
This article is in fact supported by major Australian newspaper articles <ref name="Roll up, roll up to wolf">{{cite web|last=Carbone|first=Suzanne|title=Roll up, roll up to wolf|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Non-Blended_Impressionism|work=The Age|publisher=Fairfax|accessdate=9 March 2013}}</ref>

It was also written by myself, not Roy McPherson. I have studied art, specialising in impressionism for a number of years and this article draws on the evolution of impressionism and several other modern art styles including pop art and well known artists such as Banksy to create this article.The references deleted from this article in fact supported this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nissa13 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 9 March 2013‎— Nissa13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete The articles DO NOT support anything in accordance Wikipedia policies as they are references ONLY made by Roy McPherson and no other person within the mentioned articles . If we are going to list qualifications here, I have a degree in fine art and have been an exhibiting artist for 20 years and know that this page is not only baldy written but completely false and misleading. It is done in a vain effort to increase the value of Roy Maloys AKA, Roy McPhersons AKA, Timothy Roy McPhersons artwork and is deceitful. It also confuses historical facts about Art genres and art history. I suggest you go back to school 01:32, 9 March 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ LlaelMcd (talk • contribs) 01:54, 9 March 2013— LlaelMcd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete This article was clearly created to give a false impression as to the validity of the term "non-blended impressionism"

There is no reliable source offered, and the reference originally used has been misrepresented. The newspaper snippet did not attribute the style as one crested by the individual, rather it quoted the individual's own description of his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.85.180 (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC) — 122.108.85.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Delete~~ The image displayed is not that of a genre "Non-Blended Impressionism" but that of the Artist "Roy McPherson" Roy Maloy the person who made the false claims of pioneering this fake genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LlaelMcd (talk • contribs) 22:56, 9 March 2013‎— LlaelMcd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If you read through the references in this article (which were incorrectly deleted) you will see there is in fact multiple references supporting this article as a new genre of art. You will also find if you read the article correctly that this is in fact a new genre of art, so there is naturally only going to be small amounts of people who have had this term applied to them. Any person who has studied art will understand this is always the case with new genres of art. I suggest you take some time to read through the listed references carefully before commenting again.

In reference to the article, the artist is credit with pioneering this style, and there is no reference to him describing his own work this way.

   ^ Lewisohn, Cedar (2008). Street art : the graffiti revolution. New York, NY: Abrams. ISBN 9780810983205.
   ^ Cherbo, edited by Vera L. Zolberg, Joni Maya (1997). Outsider art : contesting boundaries in contemporary culture (1. publ. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-58111-7.
   ^ Rewald, John (1979). The History of Impressionism. New York: Museum of Modern Art. ISBN 0870703606 {{isbn}}: Check isbn value: checksum (help).
   ^ Whiting, Cécile (1997). A taste for pop : pop art, gender and consumer culture (1. publ. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 0-521-45004-7.

Please read these references carefully and in full, before responding. Please also refrain from making personal acts, as this is a place for discussion about facts, not feelings. If you continue to make personal acttacks, you will be reported for vandalism. ~~Nissa13~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nissa13 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC) — Nissa13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Redirect to Roy Maloy, his stage name. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the content of this article I have added in more accurate references and evidence to support this article. Powerknow100 (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)— Powerknow100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete or Redirect to Roy Maloy A very carefully crafted article full of reliable independent secondary sources which talk about everything except the actual subject of the article. The actual subject of the article appears to have received no coverage in independent reliable secondary sources and is therefore not notable. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be self promotion by the artist. The term "Non Blended Impressionism" is only referred to by the artist, in relation to the artist or the journalist interviewing to the artist directly. There are no references to this term in any external publications but those in which Roy Maloy was directly involved. The term has been coined by the artist himself. No such genre exists. Artsrights (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)— Artsrights (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please carefully re-read the information relating to Neo-Impressionism and the sources cited here. This provides a good understanding of how new genres are created in art.

You can also find independent references to this genre included in the article. As an earlier contributor has commented, please refrain from using this discussion as a personal attack on the artist, as this discussion is about creating a useful reference for people. --Powerknow100 (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)— Powerknow100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Redirect to Roy Maloy. Art genres are not automatically notable, they must meet WP:GNG and other policies. Wikipedia is not for publicizing your newly-invented genre. This is not a widely used stylistic term, it is something invented by one person to describe his own work. And Maloy is not a well-known artist: he seems notable if you include his circus skills but I can't find any serious critical discussion of his art, just a couple of human interest stories that say a circus performer has shown paintings. Until the term is used by art critics (plural) rather than just quoting Maloy, it's not a notable term just a neologism of Maloy's. The term is mentioned in Maloy's article, which should satisfy anybody's good-faith attempt to explain Maloy's work; making it a separate article gives the false impression that this is a movement that goes beyond Maloy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The intention of this article seems to be simply promoting the artist. I say we ought to redirect to the artist's article, as Colapeninsula said. Ducknish (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. Redirect it on the off-chance that someone might come here looking for the term, but as a stand-alone article it fails WP:GNG and the sources given have nothing to do with the term itself. freshacconci talktalk 02:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author continues to edit in the same biased and misrepresented references. There are no independent references to the artist having created or pioneered a new genre of art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.42.209.116 (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC) — 203.42.209.116 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Delete~~ The author has no understanding of what constitutes an art genre. The bias and missleading information on this article is nothing but neologism I suggest immediate deletion as the author seems unwilling to listen and continues to put up the same irrelevant external links. Artsrights (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)— Artsrights (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - I suggest taking a look at this link to the post on 'Roy's 'Art' wall which states "if you've ever bought one of my paintings... it just got a little more valuable...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Blended_Impressionism" source: http://www.facebook.com/RoyMcPhersonArt/posts/534346833277059 I think that just about nails the coffin shut on this one. Wikipedia is not a free self-advertizing site. If it was, we'd all have a page. The 'Roy Maloy' page undoubtedly could use an overhaul, too, if anyone's up for it. I dread to think how much unsubstantiated self-marketing rubbish is being spewed out there by 'Roy' and his 'manager'. Nobodyonahill (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)— Nobodyonahill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep the discussion about the article this page is for and refrain from personal attacks, as this isn't what this discussion is for.--Powerknow100 (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - it is clear simply by observing the logs of the various accounts making accusatory and personal attacks that someone who has a grudge is misusing this page. The artist has clearly used the technique for a proven amount of time, and though the term may not be well known his art is. Redirect is acceptable and reasonable. Unbiased&fair (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Unbiased&fairUnbiased&fair (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)— Unbiased&fair (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This is NOT a personal attack STOP PLAYING THAT CARD We are simply stating that this is SELF PROMOTION and Wikipeda frowns on this. Wether he is a good artist or not is irrelevant HE IS NOT NOTABLE. He is not mentioned in any art journals or arts networks, not had proper gallery representation and has only been active as an artist for a very short period of time. He is only known for his work in his own circles that are related to his own social media pages. Outside of this he is an unknown talent. May I suggest you make a sperate website for Non blended impressionism, link it to related topics on Wikipedia and his own website. Then you will begin the process to developing your style of art with more solid grounding. But at the moment your making a fool of this artist and yourself and making it very hard for anyone to take him or you seriously. PLEASE just be respectful of this medium, its important that wikipedia is kept factual and not used for advertising. This will continue to go around in circles until the cows come home becuase clearly you have no idea what your doing and you are not willing to listen. Artsrights (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)— Artsrights (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect per WP:NEO. I checked a few scholarly databases and I found as little as FreeRangeFrog. I prefer a redirect to a full length article in this case because Maloy appears at least somewhat notable and is related to the topic of this article. Andrew³²⁷ 01:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he has indeed pioneered a new method or genre of art there would be some reputable sources to cite. Not trying to be nasty but this does appear to be self promotion.METOKNOWONLY (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a new form of art then logically there will be few references. Just because it is a newly coined term doesn't mean it isn't valid. 'Artsrights', your bitterness is showing. Admins, redirect the page and be done with this nonsense perpetrated by pettiness.. Unbiased&fair (talk) 08:16, 14 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. postdlf (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Index of physics articles (!$@)

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

This an all other similar articles provide nothing that Category:Physics does not while introducing another place to maintain what is essentially categorical information. WIki categories are a better solution here as they are hierarchal instead of flat like these articles. RadioFan (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because reasons listed above:[reply]

Category:Index of physics articles

Delete this, and all indexes in Category:Index of physics articles. Ridiculous and un-maintainable lists which were super-ceded by categories long long ago. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the merit of keeping these. Which is, it's good and useful to have a flat index as well as a nested-Lord-knows-how-many-deep hierarchy. Let's not declare it un-maintainable unless we've shown that nobody is maintaining them. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 18:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - While I wouldn't advocate anyone commit the massive amount of time necessary to create and maintain such an apparatus, it is clear that this is very well done and fulfills a valid navigational function, which is the key thing. Carrite (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly meld into one Index of physics articles article. Indices of science-related articles on Wikipedia are numerous; Category:Indexes_of_science_articles lists 37 of them. Why pick on physics? If it is because the index is broken into separate articles, we could meld them into one. If it is not the physics index articles in particular, but indices in general that you think are useless, then this is something to bring up on a policy forum, not AfD. As a side note, there is no AfD notice on the 'A' page. --Mark viking (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that these indexes appear to have originally existed as a single index named "Index of physics articles", but was apparently split in an attempt to make it more easily readable and maintainable. The common objection to these indexes is not related to the number of articles they take up, but to the huge maintenance overhead that they entail. If indexes like this exist and are approved by consensus, then article creators should be duty-bound to add their new article to the index, which becomes maintenance creep. Also what defines "Physics-related" as the appropriate point in the category nesting to create a flat list? Why not "Science-related"? Alternatively why not "Quantum Physics-related" and "Computational Physics-related" and..... ? A far better solution would be an addition to the MediaWiki software that allows any category to be viewed in flat-form with one button click. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if such an index is not complete, it can still be useful, just like Wikipedia as a whole. That button would be really nice to have, but that's not decided here. It would also need to be more than just a one-click button, since walking down the category tree far enough starting from Category:Physics you can easily get to completely different topics. — HHHIPPO 20:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. As they stand now, the lists don't do anything better than categories. There are also several problems just from a cursory examination. Physicists don't need to be included individually when there is already a List of physicists, and they definitely shouldn't be ordered by first name. Also, articles like zinc sulfide and zirconium alloy really belong in the Index of chemistry articles (which also lists scientists by first name). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Passes WP:CLN, no policy-based reason for deletion has been advanced, since "redundant to category" is both a) not a policy-based reason, and b) not true--list articles maintain past revisions of their content in history, categories do not. Jclemens (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is absurd because lists may be hierarchical and these examples form a simple hierarchy with the main Index of physics articles being the parent. Warden (talk) 12:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apart from the aforementioned, the lists also help to monitor changes to physics articles using Related changes. For this purpose a single list would be even better, and there was one until October 2012, but it was split into the present pages since it had grown to nearly 400 kB. — HHHIPPO 16:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the creator of the majority of these articles (I did not create Index of physics articles). The reason these lists were originally split was due to the extreme size of the list if all of these entries were on the same article; as mentioned above, the size of the articles would have been about 400kB. And since the list is not breaking any types of policies (as mentioned above), I do not see why these articles need to be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. At the present time, these articles are not in Category:Physics. However, they are currently in Category:Index of physics articles. That should be noted, regardless of the outcome. Steel1943 (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put them there since Category:Physics requires diffusion. I don't see the connection to this AfD though. — HHHIPPO 20:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't either. In fact, I thought the transition was a good idea. Just needed to point it out since that category could be affected, depending on the outcome of this AFD. Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The point of the {{orphan}} template appears to be to promote Wikipedia interconnectivity. An index like this is one way to interconnect articles by subject matter; some of which may otherwise be orphans. Hence, I think this index should be retained in some form. Praemonitus (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is what categories are for. No need to keep redundant lists just so articles aren't orphaned. Viridae^{DON'T PANIC} 23:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Categories are not counted in the link tally. Thus they are not useful for the purpose I stated. Praemonitus (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per gorgan_almighty. This is what Categories are for. Viridae ^{DON'T PANIC} 23:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As explained further above, and in the already mentioned WP:CLN, categories and indices are not the same. We should keep these index pages until we have another solution providing the same functionality. — HHHIPPO 18:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per past precedent and Warden. —Theopolisme (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Tales

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

This comic strip is run in only one newspaper, which is not enough to be notable. The article's only source is a primary one from the same newspaper which prints the strip. A google search returns a facebook page and unrelated items. Page was previously PRODed, which was declined by the page creator. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to have received any coverage in any reliable source other than the primary one. Note: Not to be confused with "Gary Larson's Tales from the Far Side" which appears a lot in the search results. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this comic strip; it does not appear to meet WP:GNG. I found this in the Boston Globe, which mentions the comic but doesn't really go into any details - there's some info on its creator, Gary Lucia, and the rest (the majority of the piece) focuses on the origin/definition of the word "tweak"). Gong show 20:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. George's YouthNet

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

Delete because this is a local organization with no indication or evidence of notability per WP:Notability or WP:ORG. Note: I am separately starting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen J. Blackwood for an article about an individual associated with this organization. Orlady (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to have received any significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources, as required by WP:N. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Currently the only things it has that have the appearance of being sources are links to its own site and deadlinks to a local web hosting service. There is no in-depth reliable third-party coverage that would pass WP:ORG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - search of my own produced nothing substantive enough to suggest notability has been met in this instance. Happy to consider further sources that might not have been immediately available to me but for now, it should go. Stalwart111 00:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided I created this article a few years ago at the same time I created the article for the organization's first director Stephen J. Blackwood (I am not Stephen Blackwood by the way). At that time I was new to Wikipedia, and I would not now give a new article the form I gave this one. I have just now tried to improve it but I am still unsure whether it ought to pass muster. In any case I fully understand and accept that the decision belongs to the Wikipedia community. Tillander 08:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keeper | 76 00:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen J. Blackwood

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

Article subject is not notable under either WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC; most of the article content is not supported by sources. I propose to merge and redirect to Ralston College, as Blackwood's only claim to notability at this point is his founding of this still-not-operational start-up college, of which he is president. The college has a valid claim to notability through coverage in a blog piece by Stanley Fish on the New York Times website. Blackwood is named in that piece but he is not the topic, and we need to remember that notability is not inherited. Some information about him belongs in the Ralston College article, but a stand-alone article is not warranted. Note on related XfDs: I am separately starting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. George's YouthNet, for an organization with which Blackwood is associated, and I intend to go to WP:CFD with some categories related to Ralston College. Orlady (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to have received any significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources, as required by WP:N. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A new Ph.D. with a job leading a new school with no news coverage that I can find does not seem to meet WP:GNG and I don't think the school yet meets the standard of "major academic institution" required by WP:PROF#C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I very rarely contribute to an AFD with just, "per nom". But the well-reasoned nomination in this instance includes all the justification I could ever offer for supporting deletion. So... delete, per nom. Stalwart111 23:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not much else to say. This article fails to stand on its own. Ducknish (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per nom -- the school could soon become important enough for its president to have an article under PROF#C6 (the bar is pretty low), but it's not there yet. There are enough RS in good places to keep the article on the school, as the nominator supports, but not for this recent Ph.D. at this point. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:15, 13 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 Anti-Pakistan sentiment. J04n(talk page) 22:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Murdabad

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Per WP:NOTDICDEF, "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. This problem is inherent in this article, which is currently a WP:SYNTHESIS of quotes that, as said in the preceding passage, only use the term. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary or Wikiquote, and this article in its current state is a WP:QUOTEFARM. There are dozens of quotes which only use the term with passing mention, and say nothing about the term. 95% of the information here is more suited to an article on violence during the Partition of India and Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Those who want to propose a merge of some of the content into relevant article/s may voice their opinion on this AfD too. Mar4d (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third time you have nominated this for deletion, both previous AFD's suggest a merger, yet you have not begun a discussion on a possible merger at all, why not? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the third time I've nominated it for deletion, please check the nominator in the previous AfD before commenting + the article has become such a WP:SYNTHESIS WP:QUOTEFARM of irrelevant material since the second nomination that it is not immediately clear where it should be merged to, if at all. Either way, as far as the phrase itself is concerned, the content of the article is largely irrelevant to it so an AfD discussion is in order. Mar4d (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problems are all surmountable. If you're so concerned about QUOTEFARMing then just paraphrase it. WP:RUBBISH - "In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion." Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 09:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the article would be left to a single-paragraph stub if a cleanup was performed. In that case, merge seems the outcome. Mar4d (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you'll disagree now. BTW "a single-paragraph stub" is permitted within wiki-policies. It doesn't necessarily need a deletion. You have no clue of what you're saying. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 12:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW "a single-paragraph stub" is permitted within wiki-policies - not just any stub, it depends whether the subject of the article is encyclopedic or notable enough to have an article, and in this case there are more issues than just that. I have no desire to go back and forth over this with you. Mar4d (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From your comments in this page I think you are confusing WP:SYNTHESIS with something it is not. You have failed respond to Darkness Shines's query as to why you believe it's a "synthesis". You're a Pakistani it's no secret (you even use a {{User Pakistan}} template on your userpage) and you naturally might be more inclined to remove this page, hence, please pardon my candor, I doubt there is a conflict of interest on your part.

This phrase ignited widespread ethnic carnage in the Punjab in 1947. It is encyclopaedic and very notable. Are you kidding me, you doubt its notability? Notability is not temporary. It needs work, not a deletion. Over use of quotation is not a ground for deletion.

There is NOT a single PROBLEM with this article which can't be surmounted. United States and state terrorism also attacks one country! It has lengthy quotes too. Should we also delete it? And what about countless other articles like it? What about Death to America? I mean what is going on? Wikipedia contents don't need to be censored. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 05:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see what Mar4d, ITopGun, Justice007, etc wrote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan Zindabad when it was nominated for deletion. They voted to keep it. According to Mar4d, TopGun it needed to be kept since it is a historical "battle cry". Justice007 considered it "poor and not good faith nomination." The very first nomination was labelled as "Bad faith nomination". Now we have another battle cry nominated for the 3^rd time, which is equally historical, notable and talked about in reliable sources but this time from the opposing party, all of these guys want it deleted. This is flat-out hypocrisy and a very blatant demonstration of tendentious editing. There is a whole category of slogans. See Category:Political slogans. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 05:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is very different thing, slogan of honour and cheer for oneself or others create no any harm, but abuse to others is not only harmful, it is also shameful act if we make that a historical subject. Actually there should have the articles on the word/words of Zindabad and Murdabad with the etymology and the history of the different cultures, and descriptions of the words that were used, why, where and when around the global covering people's behaviours, mass anger and things (states) and etc. At that point one can create a best article on this topic/subject. You have mentioned me that I voted for Pakistan Zindabad but you did not mention I voted for Hindustan Zindabad too. You do not see there is Hindustan Murdabad. If we are eager to insist and persist on that point, then there should be articles on every country, because that slogan exists everywhere in different languages. Please do not split the hairs. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is very different thing - You're not serious, are you? 'Pakistan Zindabad' was a battle cry for Pakistan and its people and 'Pakistan Murdabad' was a battle cry against Pakistan and its people. That's all the difference there is. Everything else about the phrases is the same. As a matter of fact, both have same significance and do complement each other.

Also, I didn't wish to drag India-Pakistan divide into my comment above. As it seems, you don't even realize that your keep vote for ′Hindustan Zindabad′ further proves your emotional bias (against articles which might hurt feelings of others) instead of negating it. No, there needn't be a slogan equally popular about every country (not every country got divided, not every slogan is a precursor to large-scale conflicts). "Please do not split the hairs." — I am not, I didn't nominate it for the third time. Why can't you accept that we're all against to keep sentiments from getting hurt? The slogan about Hindustan is historically somewhat notable, but nowhere near as notable as "Pakistan Zindabad" or "Pakistan Murdabad". Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 05:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That can be more discussed, but I can now say only that let's reach consensus result in accordance to the rule.Justice007 (talk) 11:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and further merge and redirect if possible, some of the content to Anti-Pakistan sentiment and Partition of India, per my reasons given above. Mar4d (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do not get to vote twice, your nomination is your vote, so I struck your new vote. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin please noteMar4d has voted twice in this AFD, I had struck his second vorte but he has seen fit to restore it[13] Please discount the vote above by him. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not voted twice, the nominating rationale is not a vote + nominators are free to express their opinions. Let an admin see the comments and decide what to do. Mar4d (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The books cited in the History section of the article actually say someting about the slogan (it's context, usage etc), and don't just mention it. The term/concept is notable.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They all give only trivial, passing mention and not one of those sources is actually about the subject of the article - but rather discussing general riots and violence during the partition. This is a textbook case of WP:SYNTHESIS. Mar4d (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a synthesis? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a notable slogan. WP:NOTTEMPORARY - "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." As a side note, Why didn't you pay heed to what others are saying? I agree with DS in this case. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 09:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"it's a notable slogan" - your opinion of course. 2) How is WP:NOTTEMPORARY relevant here? The issue here is synthesis and context. 3) Pay heed to what? That none of the sources used in the article are about the term? WP:NOTDICDEF. Mar4d (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I shall ask you again, where is the synthesis? You keep saying this but have yet to provide an actual example. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a bunch of quotes and a few uses or mere appearance does not cover notability. Wikipedia is not a quote farm. There is no detailed RS coverage of the slogan itself. Should be at minimum redirected to Anti-Pakistan sentiments per my comment on previous AFD. That's what has been done to Death to Israel which seems to have more usage due to contention over the topic but still does not have a separate page. The point of this should not be to promote the word itself, rather to cover what is already used. That can be done in a few lines in the Anti-Pakistan sentiment article. The current article doesn't seem encyclopedic. I'll ask the closer to compare this article with encyclopedic articles to weigh my point. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta say, NOTAVOTE. One of your first edits in months is to turn up for an AFD? Get an email did we? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's on my watch list and I commented on the last two AFDs.. is that enough for you or do I have to get your permission? Didn't you get blocked enough no of times for your bad faith accusations? Do not engage me into non content related debates. I don't see how your edit is in anyway a reply to my comment. It's not a 'vote'. And I know the polices. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, after all, you voted the same ways as Mar4d a few days ago here, how unusual that you would just happen to return from your break for these few AFD's. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not editing, doesn't mean I'm not reading either... neither are these my only edits. Anyway.. I've no heart to engage with you... again = IBAN or not. Make a new friend ...my comment is self explanatory. Adios. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE...This matter has already been discussed to death. The Scythian 11:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and as of today it survived two AFDs and still no consensus on deletion. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 16:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It did not "survive" two AfDs, the result in both was "no consensus". Please do not try to distort the meaning of previous consensus. Mar4d (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back to back "no consensus" outcomes tells something doesn't it? Yet you had the passion to nominate it the third time? Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 05:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Mar4d has not responded to the questions put to him regarding his allegations of synthesis, and based on the previous AFD and the work done on the article previously by Fowler. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTHESIS: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The sources and quotes in the article are not about the term, they are all discussing another topic and the only thing they have in common is that the term somehow gets one passing mention. They are not exclusively about the term nor describing what it is about. Combining unrelated material from multiple sources not even discussing the subject of the article exclusively is synthesis. Mar4d (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That does not answer the question put to you, all you have done is repeat yourself. Please provide an example from the article which is actually a synthesis, I have seen none. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me how the article is WP:SYNTHESIS, I showed you. The rest is WP:IDHT as they say, and everyone lived happily ever after. Mar4d (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When the whole article is full of, to put it bluntly - shitloads of quotations and essay-like pieces of texts discussing nothing about the subject, then you don't need to see an "example"; the article is right there in front of you. I am not going to respond to your WP:IDHT again. We can agree to disagree and stop wasting space here. Mar4d (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you are in fact just throwing around random policies and guidelines, your refusal to actually substantiate your argument shows this is more to do with hurt feelings than any policy on wiki. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:We should bear in mind that the key to resolving a subject is not to find and list all the dirt you can find on something. Neither the article meets standards and quality of wikipedia nor values of mankind, that is just based on abuses and sick mentality of political incitement by the mass anger.It should not be an article.Justice007 (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I do not see anything different in this afd than was the case in previous ones. Its a legit article, fulfills criteria. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 15:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Use in quotations is not notability. Were there articles specifically about this phrase, that would be different.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has been the third time that this article has been nominated. I don't understand why editors are in favor of keeping this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the knowledge and resource for the world. An article such as this (created because of pure rivalry) doesn't seem to fit the description of an encyclopedic topic. Those who are in favor of keeping this article, could you give a single reason how it is even notable and people would want to see it? Every country has some enmity with another country but that doesn't mean that we should start using a forum such as Wikipedia, which is created solely for the purpose of knowledge for people, to express their personal point of views.
Just using quotes from different books doesn't necessarily mean that a separate page should be created for it. If the term is notable, put it in the article of Partition of India or Anti-Pakistan sentiment. As the nominator has said that 95% of the information here is more suited to an article on violence during the Partition of India. If the editors in favor, don't like Pakistan, you should keep it to yourself instead of bringing your POV to an encyclopedia.
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 22:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for illustrating my point in better words. Indeed, God knows what a WP:SOAPBOX propaganda Wikipedia would become if hundreds of articles were created on trivial "Death to XYZ country slogans. Mar4d (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This Article, as in Wikipedia we have to be neutral. But this article certainly targets a country! This Article may be used as a weapon by other users against that country, in this strong encyclopedia, I agree with other users, as it attacks a particular country, and the Article should be removed! Faizan (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Comment moved from talk page [14] Mar4d (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

The last two votes actually say we should delete an article in case peoples feelings get hurt

Which policy is that then? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article was originally created as a negative attack page and presumably with a bit of bad faith, there is some substance behind those comments actually. Mar4d (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha are you for real??
You are talking about policy. We are here to improve an encyclopedia right?? Just give me a single GA or FA that is full of quotations or is specifically based on what people said. Instead of improving articles which are actually worth improving and are normally used by readers, you are improving an article which has no logic. Even if you look at the stats, just 564 views in a month, in which majority must be from the people who are fighting for keeping and deleting the article. Talk about hurting peoples feelings, if that was not the case, there would be articles full of abuses for everything thing that other people don't like. Thousands of people and news articles are there in which famous people say bad things to other people and countries. Should we start creating articles for them too? We are not here to fight for India or Pakistan. This is an encyclopedia for peoples knowledge not a forum to fight and create rivalry. If you are so much concerned about using this term, why not go for a merger and put this term in anti Pakistan sentiment?
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 10:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with the quotes and their overuse, then just paraphrase it. Why ask for its deletion?

But this article certainly targets a country! -- so freaking what? There is NOT ONE PROBLEM with this article which can't be surmounted. United States and state terrorism also attacks one country! It has lengthy quotes too. Should we also delete it? And what about countless other articles like it? Wikipedia contents don't need to be censored.
This is plain hypocrisy. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 05:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have separate articles that satisfy RS for this term? Use of a phrase in quotations is not considered to be notability. I also have references that state far worse sayings about India, should I start creating an article on those phrases? Then may be you will understand what an encyclopedia is. If you are here for making encyclopedia better, try to give me a single GA or FA that is written in the same way as this article is written.
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 22:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I also have references that state far worse sayings about India, should I start creating an article on those phrases?" - Sure if you think the quotes merit a separate article, why not? That very phrase had and still has certain types of social and historical repercussions in the same vein that Pakistan Zindabad had or has.

"Then may be you will understand what an encyclopedia is" - I won't be lectured by you on what Wikipedia is and what it won't be. Wikipedia, among many things, is not censored based on people's emotional demands. I will try to desist from quibbling with you. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 05:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP As per the same reason in the first RfA. Satisfies GNG, has refs, seems notable enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfies GNG, has refs, seems notable enough - you say this despite all the issues clearly elaborated upon? That is blatant ignorance. Mar4d (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You pose as if you've killed every argument in favor of keeping it and that too with aplomb. But the reality is you didn't answer anything. You couldn't even justify why you say that this article is a violation of WP:SYNTH or why it doesn't meet WP:GNG. The first of what you ought to have done is demonstrate why the problems are insurmountable, you didn't. The issues are surmountable. You're emotional about it, you're a Pakistani and I understand it but this is not a legitimate ground for deletion. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 06:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Again. And I'm more or less literally repeating my vote from the first and second times round. What is "notable" here is not the slogan as such, but the various incidents of conflict in which it was used (and about which we obviously have separate articles). The existence of the slogan as such is a trivial fact of the Hindi language – just as in English you can create a "down with X" slogan about anything you hate, and a "long live Y" slogan about anything you support. The fact that people use such slogans about various issues and at various occasions doesn't render these stereotyped slogans themselves notable, separately from the notability of the political issue each of them represents. The article still consists solely of an enumeration of separate and unconnected cases where people are reported to have used this slogan. None of the lengthy literal quotations on the page is actually about the slogan; they are about the violence and merely mention the slogan in that connection. As such, the article is a paradigm case of WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Why should an article which failed deletion requests in past suddenly become eligible for deletion now. This article is related to history and the history has not changed since last Afd. --sarvajna (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) :History, don't make people laugh, please read above mentioned one one word that is written by Fut.Perf.. We should follow neutrality rather than related to emotional demands, we are editors not the part of political actors.Justice007 (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: The article no where looks like a dictionary. The word "Pakistan Murdabad" is considered historical from the time of Partition of India. Notable enough! Here is a recent notable reference saying quoting the same [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] and many more. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mere slogan and Wikipedia is not a compendium of slogans. As the nom states, the sources merely assert that the slogan has been, and is, still used. However, there doesn't seem to be any discussion, in reliable sources, about the slogan itself. --regentspark (comment) 14:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, don't you count Pakistan Zindabad or Hindustan Zindabad or Inquilab Zindabad or Semper fi as slogans? There is a whole category of slogans. See Category:Political slogans. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 16:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same thing. Can't comment about all of them but three out of the four you quote are the subject of discussion in reliable sources. Pakistan Murdabad, at least based on what I see in the article, is not. --regentspark (comment) 16:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Anti-Pakistan sentiment. The references contain only trivial or passing mentions of the topic. utcursch | talk 01:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: In last vote I was in favor of delete but changing my vote to merge with Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Slogan has been used in the sub-continent particularly during the partition and does deserve a description but not a separate article on its own (per utcursch). P.S: Don't ask how I got here, I like to stalk most of the who's who on this page when time permits. Samar ^Talk 07:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A slogan raised some 50 years back against any nation, how can you justify its Notability. It has no reliance on WP and if it has, then I need to work on Kashmiri slogans. MehrajMir (Talk) 15:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary, did you even read WP:NOTAVOTE? Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 16:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is clear from all the references in this article that the slogan underlines the missing notability and that the article is therefore some sort of poor google research and original research to close this gap, therefore fails to fulfill WP notability criterion. Regards Averroist 09:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

″Gotta say, NOTAVOTE. One of your first edits in months is to turn up for an AFD?″ This comment was originally written by DS regarding ITopGun's vote. He also comments frequently on your page. And amazingly the same is true about you also! See WP:CANVASS and WP:NOTAVOTE.
Nothing is clear.
"underlines the missing notability" - God save Wikipedia. Goodness me. Did you even read all the sources? Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 13:36, 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, Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 16:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge into Anti-Pakistan sentiment) - Per WP:NOTDICDEF. I read the entire article, and I just don't see sources analyzing the phrase as a phrase in any significant way. The article is a collection of uses of the phrase, which is precisely what Wiktionary is intended for. I'm not suggesting that all the information be deleted from WP entirely: much of it could go into Anti-Pakistan sentiment. --Noleander (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Meets WP:N and WP:V; a similar article, Pakistan Zindabad, has been kept. The phrase's negative connotations are insufficient reason to delete, although a merge to Anti-Pakistan sentiment would be a compromise. Miniapolis 18:45, 8 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 Pasilin, delete El Habib. In future please nominate separately, unless the two articles are the same or similar subject (ie same player). It becomes very difficult to make a proper assessment of the debate when it diverges between the two articles. Spinning Spark 13:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Pasilan

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - both fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete both~~ Keep Pasilan, Delete El Habbib - Unfortunately, the UFL isn't a purely-professional league yet (it's only semi-professional, although its fanbase is growing), and as such, ~~both players fail~~ El Habbib WP:NFOOTBALL. Although Pasilan is a member of the Azkals, to my knowledge, he's never played a game with them. No prejudice against recreation once: 1. the UFL becomes professional, or 2. Pasilan does play for the Azkals. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC) However, Pasilan appears to have played for the Azkals, even if only as a sub, so he passes. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pasilan. I've just restored to the article a sourced paragraph added by the creator and removed without explanation by another editor, which shows Mr Pasilan actually has played full international football for the Philippines. National-football-teams.com concurs, and the match mentioned in detail in the cited source is listed by FIFA as a full international (search for 2008 matches). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 2008 AFC Challenge Cup qualification and 2008 AFF Suzuki Cup qualification are full internationals; however, I don't quite understand national-football-teams.com's stats. What are "exchanges"? What's a difference between that and a "match"? It says Pasilan played 0 matches, had 2 exchanges and scored no goals. –H T D 19:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It means he wasn't in the starting line-up for those 2 matches, but came on as a substitute later in each game. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Shouldn't that mean that for every exchange there's a corresponding addition in "matches"? –H T D 04:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - NFT isn't the most intuitive of sites, and doesn't devote a huge amount of effort to presentation (to put it politely). If I were designing such a table, I'd have columns for starts, subs, and total caps (= starts + subs), to make it absolutely explicit what I was talking about. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That's why I'm confused. Another player, Jason de Jong, had more exchanges than matches in 2008. That can't be possible. This is a textbook definition of an unreliable source; in fact, the cited blog post is more reliable here. We're at the point that we're even sure that he played or not. –H T D 15:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, it looks like I'm being even less clear than the site. The column headed "Matches" means "Matches started", the column headed "Exchanges" means "Matches played in as a substitute": add the two together and you get how many matches he has taken the field in. The people who run the site are not native English speakers. I'm not arguing for its reliability in a WP:RS sense, but I've never yet come across a player that it claimed played international football who hadn't.
        As to Mr Pasilan, the official match sheet confirms his appearance in the AFC Challenge Cup quali. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Well that resolves it. –H T D 17:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment - in order to be notable per WP:NFOOTBALL, does someone merely need to play an international match, not necessarily be in the starting lineup? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, that is enough. As WP:NFOOTBALL says "Players, managers and referees who have represented their country in any FIFA sanctioned senior international match (including the Olympics) are notable as they have achieved the status of participating at the highest level of football" (my italics). A substitute does indeed represent their country when they play in an international match, regardless of how many minutes they play. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pasilan, Delete El Habbib - Pasilan has been capped at international level, which make him pass WP:NFOOTY. El Habbib has not played in a fully pro league nor been capped for his country. El Habbib also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:21, 14 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. JohnCD (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wipe Your Eyes

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

The topic lacks indepth coverage from secondary sources. If this is the standard for articles about songs then Wikipedia will have an article for every single track that appeared on an album in the past 10 years. Should be deleted as a failure of WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Till 23:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Maybe the article is not enough for being GA nominated, but it's certainly does satisfy both the criteria for being a body itself. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 10:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it satisfy both criteria??? It has 1 small paragraph derived from secondary sources. I didn't find anything in the sources that was significant coverage. Till 11:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Seemingly fails the GNG, as it has received only snippets of coverage. It didn't chart, it hasn't been nominated for any awards, there's no reason to think this is any more than just another album track. Not every song needs its own article. J Milburn (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? It didn't chart? Have you even looked at the article. Number 80 on the US Billboard Hot 100 and 18 on the South Korea Singles Chart (only based on digital download). The thing that doesn't have information enough (yet) it doesn't me it's not gonna be expanded. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... J Milburn... it appears you never even looked at the article and was just basing your !vote off of other AFDs you have taken part in. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right. I did look at the article, as I came here from GAC via the article. I've no idea how I made that mistake. J Milburn (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, charting is not the issue, the concern here is a lack of significant coverage from secondary sources. Till 08:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my opinion the SNG does not trump the GNG, so I usually just look for coverage in sources. The best one presented here is this one. It is not a strong source to base notability on. However the song charted quite high in South Korea. The SNG could be used to presume that this song has significant coverage in South Korea. If South Korean sources, English or otherwise, can be produced then I would be happy to keep this, otherwise I think that according to the GNG it fails the notability guidelines. AIRcorn (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't find any decent sources on the internet so here is my analysis of the 15 sources in the article.

Included in a list. No coverage.
No mention of "Wipe Your Eyes"
No mention of "Wipe Your Eyes"
YouTube video, not independent of the subject
Music retailer, no coverage.
Inlay cover of the album, not independent of the subject
Idolator is not a reliable source, it provides no editorial policy nor are we given a description of the author's credentials.
This appears to be a user-submitted review from an unknown website. Not reliable.
Gets a trivial mention as part of the album ('There are a few things here that don't fit, like the distracting background vocals on "Tickets" and the jarring nonsensical sounds in the opening and background of "Wipe Your Eyes"')
The topic received one sentence from this source. Not significant coverage.
Gets a trivial mention as part of the album ("‘Beautiful Goodbye’, ‘Love Somebody’ and ‘Wipe Your Eyes’ are also sure to be fan favorites")
Verifies a chart position, no significant coverage.
Verifies a chart position, no significant coverage.
Verifies a chart position, no significant coverage.
Verifies a chart position, no significant coverage.

Overall, the article has not received the indepth coverage from reliable sources that is required for WP:GNG. WP:NSONGS also states that even if the song charts, the topic should not have a standalone article when there is not enough material to justify such. In this case, there is only one small paragraph of significance, excluding the useless background section and the paragraph that is sourced by album notes. That is not enough to justify a separate article. Till 05:54, 1 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) 08:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article doesn't have enough information to be nominated for GA in my opinion, BUT this doesn't need to be deleted at all. It is NOT a failure of WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. WP:NSONGS states, "songs and singles may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria: has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts". "Wipe Your Eyes" charted at number 80 on the Billboard Hot 100 and 18 on South Korea's Gaon Chart. WPGNG states "notability guidelines do not limit content within an article", so to claim this is short makes no sense, seeing that many other articles are as short as this one. I'm not so sure about the sources, but some research can clearly expand and better up this article. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 04:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it meets WP:NSONGS, but am not sure how it meets the WP:GNG. BTW you missed bolding the "may" in the above quote. AIRcorn (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, sorry. I still vote keep per WP:NSONGS, but I think the article would meet WP:GNG if it had enough coverage from reputable sources. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 18:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSONG says that even if the song charts, you shouldn't write the article if it will be short. In this case, there is 1 irrelevant background paragraph, 1 paragraph containing material from the actual album (not secondary) and 1 paragraph consisting of trivial mentions and snippets from album reviews. I did not find any substantial coverage outside the article or inside the sources of the article. Wikipedia is a text-based communication site, if no third party sources of a topic exist then the topic in question should not have its own article. Till 10:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keeper | 76 00:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Age Skin Research Foundation

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

Also included in this nomination:

This set of articles constitutes a "walled garden" of highly promotional articles which do not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. All three articles were created and edited by a group of users and IPs (User:Micheal Krimshaw, User:Stibbatha, User:108.54.150.54, User:173.251.90.50) who appear to have a connection to the subjects and who have made no other contributions to Wikipedia. Peacock (talk) 15:50, 8 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 8. Snotbot t • c » 16:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertorial. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete all. Overly promotional, the foundation does not appear to pass WP:ORG (e.g. judging by the poor quality of its sourcing and the press-release-heavy coverage I can find in news sources) and the two researchers do not appear to pass WP:PROF (low citations in a high citation specialty). The check for academic impact in the case of Fox is complicated by someone else named J. L. Fox who appears to be a neurosurgeon, and has better citations, but I'm pretty sure it's a different person. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 9 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. The nominator !voting Keep? Thought I'd seen it all...and somebody please clean up this article? Keeper | 76 00:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Simpsons writers

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

It would make more sense if there were a summary of writers on List of The Simpsons episodes StewieBaby05 (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you are aiming for a merger then you are going about it the wrong way. Please see Wikipedia:Merging. GAtechnical (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a point there. I shall take it to heart. --StewieBaby05 (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's arguably excessive to list the episodes that each wrote since if the writer is notable that info can be included on the writer's own page. But many of these names are notable, and therefore a list of them is valid. Hence, this can be fixed by editing. I don't think the list of writers belongs on List of The Simpsons episodes, but am willing to consider other merge targets. I hope this isn't being proposed out of partisan Family Guy vs Simpsons warring ;) --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notable or not, even collecting mere names of notable writers puts Wikipedia (and encyclopedia) to shame. By the way, StewieBaby05 lets me tag his creations with deletion banners only when there are no other substantial contributors. --George Ho (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as no policy-based rationale for deletion has been set forth. While it might be better or more helpfully formatted, it fundamentally is a list of notable episodes, ordered by their writers. Passes WP:CLN with flying colors, in other words. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - see here for how the list looked before the nominator's sweeping (and in my opinion detrimental) changes. Gran² 11:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've obviously made a big mistake nominating this page for deletion. I only did it because George Ho is against the idea of pages sorting out the writers of television shows. And what's wrong with sorting writers from the most episodes written to the least? --StewieBaby05 (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, looking for writers and directors is already done in episode list. In this case, people seem to be favoring keeping it, while WP:articles for deletion/List of Curb Your Enthusiasm directors resulted as "speedy delete" (mainly due to author not objecting to deletion of lists) with just one "delete" vote. I still stand firm to my argument. Maybe three here wants it kept because the show will have probably 30 seasons in the future. --George Ho (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  I see that you've changed the layout of the page. ...I'm speechless. --George Ho (talk) 21:16, 9 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 Fox Sports Asia. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Sports (Philippines)

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

Same content with Asia. No need for a separate article for this. The difference between PH and Asia are just commercial ads. Better delete this article for the reason of redundancy. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 15:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fox Sports Asia No difference in content besides localized commercials and slight changes to the schedule due to local rights conflicts. Nate • (chatter) 18:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fox Sports Asia. Essentially the same channel but with different ad loads. That's it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:57, 9 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 Little Manhattan. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Ray

AfDs for this article:

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

With only one significant acting role (I can't find any evidence that she actually starred in an ensemble of "Pippin"), no awards or nominations, no major fan base (except for hardcore Little Manhattan fans), and no evidence of contributing or influencing the entertainment industry in any way, Charlie Ray fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO. The first AfD five years ago ended in Keep only because editors voted that due to the popularity of Little Manhattan. I do not know what the notability guidelines were back then, but to say an actress is notable just because she starred in a notable film violates WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because a film is popular does not mean the actors are The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I vote that the article stay in place. Wikipedia's guidelines do not require that an actor be in dozens of films or other media projects in order to qualify. It simply requires that the article be about someone notable. As to rather or not everyone would consider her notable, my research shows that she has had a lead role in a major motion picture "Little Manhattan". Further, she has appeared in episodes of Law and Order:SVU and in "Company Town", which is a television movie. These where sourced from her IMDB page. She also appeared on an episode of the Tony Danza show. All of these facts, combined with the fact that her having an article is not hurting anyone else and could, possibly, provide some research ability in the future leaves me no choice but to vote for KEEP. Lance ^Lance. 03:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ With respects to TLR, he is mis-interpreting the essay WP:INHERITED. I urge he study the applicable guidelines WP:NTEMP and WP:ENT. Participation in and positive response of a notable project in multiple reliable sources does indeed show a meeting of WP:N with no "violation" of an essay, and has nothing to do with "popularity". Also brought up at the last AFD is that Ms. Ray and her role in Little Manhattan was discussed in varying degrees of detail in such as TV Guide and other reliable sources offered by Metacitic. If the nom is instead implying that her career has not been as full as someone like Drew Barrymore, then yes we could infer that as true... but we do not require nor demand that an actor MUST be in dozens of projects before we can find or assert notability... nor do we judge by the least of roles but instead by the best. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Little Manhattan. WP:ENTsays "multiple notable films ...". I'm not even sure Little Manhattan counts as one/notable. Certainly there are not two. No media coverage that I can find. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Clarityfiend, as what coverage that is available (offered above) is for her role in that film. I agree with his analysis and have struck my "keep". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Clarityfiend. The redirect can be turned into an article again later if she becomes more clearly notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of high speed train technologies

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

It's not a list of technologies; it's a list of trains, and we already have lots of articles like that, including List of high-speed trains and High-speed rail by country bobrayner (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it is a list of different high speed train implementations presented by different manufacturers. Each manufacturer of course uses its own technologies and therefore in some wider meaning we can say that it is a list of different applied technologies. The other list List of high-speed trains contains trains in different networks across the world, however those trains can be grouped according to the common technology (manufacturer's implementation) they share. In many cases trains in this list are identical concerning the technology but they use different naming which is related to the train service company they belong to. Clicklander (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Badly duplicates content. Rcsprinter (articulate) @ 23:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This list is not relevant. It's an advertisement page for some manufacturers, that mentions only fanciful maximum speed, that are, in fact, absurd nationalist and commercial advertisement. This page is also incomplete : per example, most high-speed trains are designed and built by multiples manufacturers. And the page mix conventional and unconventional high-speed trains.
This page is a partial doublet of List of high-speed trains --FlyAkwa (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don´t see how this list can be an advertisement page. It is nothing more than listing the type of technologies which are currently in use with some basic specifications regarding the top speed, coming from different manufacturers. I also do not do not see why it is an issue if there is a mixture of conventional and unconventional trains. Each manufacturer may use different sets of technologies in order to deploy its own high speed train product. As for the argument about duplication with the list List of high-speed trains take the following example. Germany´s ICE 3, Spain's AVE Class 103, China's CRH380B, Russian's Sapsan and the European Eurostar e320, use exactly the same technology which is Siemens Velaro. In other words all the above trains are more or less the same train. That's why there is the need for a new list including only the different technologies. The concept of the list List of high-speed trains is totally different from the concept of the list List of high speed train technologies.Clicklander (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not really clear exactly what this page is trying to achieve, and unfortunately it just appears to be, at best, a poor copy of the List of high-speed trains article, and at worst, an unsalvagable hodgepodge of unsourced original research riddled with errors and inaccuracies. --DAJF (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I'd like to see is some articles on rail transport which aren't viewed through a nationalist lens. bobrayner (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

can anybody explain me how the word "nationalism" has any relation to this article?Clicklander (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list of technologies you wrote is actually broken down by country, each technology assigned to one country, complete with a cute little flag picture. Since when did couplings or catenaries carry passports? bobrayner (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are not broken down by country, they just include the country of origin. Everyone of these technologies, systems, type of high-speed trains or whatever you want to call them if you do not like the word "technology", has an origin. Is it that bad to mention it? Moreover since the research & development for most of them is done by the manufacturing companies in association with local governments and the local, mainly state owned, train service companies, I think it makes even more sense to mention the origin. I also do not see any preference to some specific country coming out from this article in order to be characterized as a "nationalist" article. There is no comparison between them and there is not any outcome by any mean. It is nothing more than listing them. Is it maybe the "cute little flag picture" that bothers you? Do you really know what the meaning of the word "nationalism" is? Clicklander (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your ranking by "Top speed for commercial use" (based on totally fanciful values, invented by salesmen), along the "country of origin", is clearly based on nationalist considerations.

In the List of high-speed trains, the list is ordered by train name, mention the "design speed" and the more-serious "operated speed".

Anyway, the title is false : your list is about Families (or commercial brand name) of High-Speed trains, not technology.

Per example, there is no "Shinkansen Technology", there is as many "Shinkansen Technology" as "Shinkansen Trains" (who are very different each other).

Did you speak about "Peugeot technology" or "Ford technology", or even "Peugeot 508 technology" ?

--FlyAkwa (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to see nationalist meanings inside an article he/she will see them no matter what the article is about. You can also find racist, sexist or any other kind of discrimination meanings behind this article if you really need to. Nationalism is more in your head rather than in this article!

The reason I sorted (and not ranked) the technologies by the commercial top speed is just for convenience to the reader so that he/she can easily see how far today’s technology can go. And of course the faster does not necessarily mean the better. Any person with basic human intelligence knows that. Nevertheless I have no problem the list to be sorted in alphabetical or any other order. Anyway the table is manually sortable by the reader to any desirable way.

As for the naming perhaps you are right. I am not sure if ¨Technology¨ is the correct term. I used this word because to my understanding there is an extensive R&D behind each one of these systems, but there might be a better term to describe it. I never said that this article cannot be improved further.Clicklander (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you want to do is impossible. First, forget the "top speed for commercial use", that is only a commercial claims, without any serious reality. Then the "manufacturer" column is really incomplete. And the "country of origin" is also dubious : per example, the Pendolino was built by Fiat, and is now built by Alstom, then what is the origin's country of pendolino ?

Finally, if you correct all these failures, you will finally duplicate the List of high-speed trains. --FlyAkwa (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I started this article it was because I was looking for different types of high speed trains according to manufacturers and technologies and see what exists today around the world. As I said before, the List of high-speed trains was confusing for my research because many trains in this list are actually the same train with different naming which is based to the operator and not to the technology/manufacturer. So I thought that a list like this will be helpful for other readers like me to easily see all these different types listed together. That's the difference between the two lists and that's why they will never be duplicated. The commercial speed is what it really matters it this case because this shows what each technology can potentially offer as a service, even though some of those values apply only in theory. That's why I put a note for the values that are not yet certified for commercial use but are only published in the data sheets of the manufacturer.

Regarding your example with Pendolino, your argument is invalid. First Pendolino is not a high speed technology for speeds over 300km/h and anyway will not be included in the list. Secondly there is a different naming for the two types you mentioned. Pendolino is Italian and New Pendolino is French.Clicklander (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Your reasoning is wrong, and I'm afraid your page will be deleted.

To know the high-speed trains families, you only need to sort the List of high-speed trains by families, the column is here for that.

Then, your "over 300 km/h" selection is totally subjective, because official "high-speed trains" definition include all trains above 200 km/h with specific qualities of service.

I repeat that your "top speed for commercial use" is a commercial claim, not a real ability (until there is proofs that they can sustain 380 km/h in commercial service), and this information is not relevant, except for a nationalist consideration along the "country of origin" to create a false ranking.

And you are not good faith, otherwise you will add (and sort by) the operated speed, that is real fact.

All your page is false :

* Title is false

* Manufacturer column is false

* Maximum speed is false

* Country of origin is not relevant

* year of introduction is not relevant

* Ranking is not relevant

* Selection of "300km/h or higher" is not relevant

--FlyAkwa (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are keep talking about nationalist issues and rankings. I explain you very well the practical and encyclopedic use for this list but you are refusing to see it maybe because your mind is stacked into your imaginational nationalism. I show you trains and you see flags. Sorry but that's your problem!

The threshold of 300km/h is used for simplicity. There is no need for a long list including every old or obsolete technology when we are talking about the today's fastest high-speed trains. The concept of high speed train is after all something relative and changes over the time. A few years ago 200km/h was considered as high speed, today as high speed train everybody understands speeds around 300km/h or more and there is a trend towards to even higher speeds for the near future. The whole high speed train industry is booming right now, more and more new technologies appear and dynamical lists like this make now more sense than ever.Clicklander (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with FlyAkwa and with some other guys is that you are looking at lists like this from a wrong perspective. The purpose of Wikipedia and any other encyclopedia is to provide general information to the reader. It is not to analyze and come to conclusions. Therefore lists inside encyclopedias do not aim to make comparisons but just to give an overview to the reader. In this specific case the reader just wants to see all the available technologies listed together and have a general overview of what each one is about. If somebody wants to find out which is the best train technology or which one is the most appropriate for his/hers needs, encyclopedias are not the right way to go. It is needed a deeper research to get more technical or statistical information from various more specialized sources. In this sense, the reader don't expect to see the actual top operated speed in such a kind of list. The official top commercial speed provided by the manufacturer, the speed that the train is designed for, is enough to give an idea to the reader about the technology, no matter if this value applies in reality and no matter how reliable is the specific technology to sustain its advertised top speed in long term services. Those are not encyclopedic issues.Clicklander (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with above, Its title is quite vague. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 18:49, 15 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 Born–Oppenheimer approximation. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 07:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Born-Oppenheimer equation

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

Appears to be unpublished WP:OR that has no place on Wikipedia. ukexpat (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur. — raeky t 14:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 14:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, but with a significant overhaul. I can't make any sense of the current article, but the equation appears to be a genuine tool in chemistry - UC Davis' chemwiki entry gives a better idea of what the equation actually is. Google Books turns up plenty of uses for it, so we do need an article on this subject - but it needs seroius attention from someone who knows what they're doing. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, scratch that. Delete: looking over the article again I realise that this is basically someone's term paper; there's nothing about the (as above, probably notable) equation itself in there. Blow it up and start again. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And we have an article on it already, Born–Oppenheimer approximation, well the real one not someones OR of it. — raeky t 15:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, I did a search for "Born-Oppenheimer approximation" and didn't find that article - must have mistyped it or something. Anyway, given that this article adds nothing to people's understanding of the B-O approximation, there's a good case for a speedy deletion under WP:G10. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be covered properly in existing article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is nobody's term paper; it is a summary of results in the references, most of them journal articles in peer-reviewed chemical physics journals. That said, there are some serious problems here.

First, there is likely COI, as most of the papers include an M. Baer, which is close to the user name of the originating editor, Baemic. The COI means that this article is POV pushing and non-neutral with what looks to me like undue weight ascribed to the author's approach. The discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk#HELP NEEDED TO PRESENT A CONTRIBUTION IN WIIKIPEDIA TO BE SEEN ON GOOGLE seems to confirm the blatant desire to advertise his theory.

Second, this article has considerable overlap with Born–Oppenheimer approximation. Born–Oppenheimer approximation uses time-independent electronic bases and this article extends to time dependendent electronic bases, but they rest on the same foundation and both cover the time-independent case in depth. The time dependent basis deserves a modest section in the Born–Oppenheimer approximation article, but the topic of this article is wholly redundant with Born–Oppenheimer approximation.

Third, it is off topic, but I'll note that the editor has inserted his stuff after the references in the Diabatic article. This article needs cleanup, too.

Because of the redundancy with Born–Oppenheimer approximation, the conflict of interest WP:COI, the non-neutral point of view WP:NPOV, the undue weight WP:UNDUE and the blatant advertising WP:ADVERT through WP:REFSPAM, this article should be deleted per WP:TNT. --Mark viking (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Born–Oppenheimer approximation, a much better article on the exact same subject. Grandmartin11 (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as COI fork. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Born–Oppenheimer approximation. This is a rather transparent content fork to push a particular POV. --Guy Macon (talk)

Well we should delete without leaving a history - nothing worth keeping; happy to have a redirect re-created once this article is deleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:42, 9 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 Breakfast Serials. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salad pig

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

Links do not mention the company at all. Lack reliable sources. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 13:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable (can't find anything on Google or Google Books). Not even convinced this group exists: neither IMDb nor the BFI Film and TV Database mention Salad Pig, and I can't find anything on the BBC website. We could redirect to Breakfast Serials, if this is confirmed to exist and nobody wants to AfD Breakfast Serials. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 16:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Breakfast Serials apparently existed; I find it hard to think that anyone would create a website about a hoax TV show just to pan it. Whether a badly received single season children's show is notable I don't have an opinion about now. Note also that there is a "Breakfast Serials" with a much higher profile, that's apparently a children's literacy program of some sort. I gather this isn't the first time the name has occurred to someone. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect as above. A NN short-lived syndicate. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, or as a bare minimum redirect to Breakfast Serials, which seems to be their only tenuous claim to any significance. If this was a notable group or notable writers, we'd expect to see a lot more outbound wikilinks from this article.

I'm also considering AfDing Breakfast Serials itself. Its main claims to fame are either as having simply existed or as being Russell T Davies juvenilia. The sourcing that is in there is far from complimentary and none of this seems to be at a level that indicates or conveys notability. We don't need an article that says, "TV screens weren't actually blank for this period, but there's nothing worth saying about what was broadcast". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 18:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of fighter aircraft

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

This is simply WP:Listcruft Roger (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have not dug into the history of this article, but it seems like a properly formatted table like this might be useful in some other article. I agree that it's not suitable for its own, but maybe as part of Fighter aircraft or some such? Of course, there's that whole referencing thing... UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did
Comment Could it be merged to List of fighter aircraft? Not being sourced is a problem, but most of the info is in the articles on the individual planes. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails as OR, no given criteria for selection or whether what is being compared is comparable, nor if Reliable sources would compare. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my recent but removed prod comment Unreferenced and random comparison articles are not really encyclopedic also note it is unlikely to be of any use anywhere else either, MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete - what are we meant to compare? Wingspan? What is there to compare among aircraft designed at different times in the last 40+ years to do different jobs for different military forces? The reader is left to do all of the comparing, but there is no context. YSSYguy (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete inappropriate OR. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes ma'am, the data on the MiG is inaccurate [...] we happened to see a MiG 28 do a 4g negative dive."

—Maverick, Top Gun

Snow delete - why no comparison of pilot comfort? Or of cabin paint colour? What about ease-of-access? Or appropriateness of use as a subject in photography? What I want to know is; which is easiest to park? Stalwart111 00:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That'd be the Tomcat. Swing-wings, baby! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See, that seems logical, but then I saw Arnold Schwarzenegger land a Harrier Jump Jet in a busy public street in True Lies, so now I'm not so sure... Stalwart111 23:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination Nick-D (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a helping of WP:SNOW. Articles exactly like this have been deleted before on exactly the same grounds: WP:OR/WP:SYNTH-ish cruftiness. It's a good idea, but impossible to properly compose while meeting V, N, and RS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced and falls afoul of WP:Listcruft and WP:Indiscriminate. - Ahunt (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - random assortment of aircraft with abritrary statistics, it is a simply cruft list. Kyteto (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meaningless OR list.--Staberinde (talk) 16:01, 11 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. no indication of importance; just an attempt at short advertisement listing DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usability Sciences

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

Corporation with no obvious notability Le Deluge (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: obvious advertising and no assertion of minimal significance. So tagged. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:25, 8 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. First off, it's silly to nominate deletion of the "2080's" but not the surrounding decades. Arguing that the years may not happen is really pointless -- because if they don't happen, we won't be here anyway, and there won't be anyone to point out that Wikipedia had an article about a time period that never actually happened. The article isn't baseless and provides information about lunar events, milestones, etc scheduled to happen. Presumably, as we get closer to 2080, more events will be added. The article could use more references for some of the information. Improving the article to look less like WP:CRYSTAL and be more informative would be a better solution than deleting it. Any admin that feels this closure is inappropriate is more than welcome to reverse it and speak to me on my talk page. (non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2080s

See previous (group) nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010s. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Though it may sound absurd, I'm testing the boundaries of WP:CBALL here. Are we really certain this period will take place? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 2080s will take place, regardless of whether anybody is there to see them, as will some of the events listed (and others are 2080s in fiction, which have already taken place). Is this a joke? Is there a reason you're AfDing this and not 2090s? --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a large consensus to delete, I will be nominating the other future years. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article violates WP:SPECULATION. Dr meetsingh Talk 14:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Considering we are what 67 years away from this it's way too early. Mean we know the Olympic Games of 2028 will in all likelyhood happen but we haven't got a stub on that. GAtechnical (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes we have. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Part of a bigger scheme. The predicted scientific events easily pass WP:CRYSTAL - IE notable events that will happen. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I could understand merging 2100s through 2190s into 22nd century, but the individual astronomical events here are clearly not WP:CRYSTAL, and are probably sufficient to warrant the existence of the page. Also, part of a larger pattern. If 2190s (the last decade with an article) were to be nominated for deletion, the "part of a pattern" argument would not be as signficiant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: WikiProject Years has been notified. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why not delete 2030s, 2040s, 2050s, 2060s, 2070s, 2090s, are we sure if even 2014 will happen. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's crystal ball gazing and then there's this. Obviously as we get closer, more and more things will be given 2080's deadlines. I wouldn't be excited about date-specific events in the 2080s being given stand-alone articles, but I think an article encompassing the entire decade-to-be is probably okay... for about the next 50 years or so. Even the year-specific fictional stuff is probably enough to justify an article as far as I'm concerned. Stalwart111 00:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may happen and then again, it may not happen. It is a long way off. Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 02:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — it's "gonna" happen — and significant (even if only science-related) events are "gonna" happen to... if for some bizarre reason it doesn't then we aren't going to be around to snow delete it, anyhow. ;) —Theopolisme (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - but remove any entries failing WP:CRYSTAL. Needing cleanup in no reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 20:25, 15 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. Common Core could be recreated as a plausible redirect to Common Core State Standards Initiative, however, that makes sense. Keeper | 76 00:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Common Core

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

Non-noteworthy college curriculum. Can likely be handled in a small section at University of Chicago. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Common Core State Standards Initiative. RNealK (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion about this notability of this subject, but this article is about the University of Chicago's great books program, which has nothing to do with the CCSSI program (which is all about high school). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point of redirecting is because the common usage of "Common Core" is not the University program, but the Common Core Standards. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the article does not even begin to explain why it's notable. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 14 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Break the Silence (van Canto album)

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

Non-notable album, fails WP:NALBUM. The only refs are to the band's own website and to its sale listing on Amazon.com. The Amazon ref probably shouldn't be there at all, and neither ref does anything to establish notability. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some reviews: it's reviewed in Metal Storm and AllMusic, both of which are reliable sources by Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites, as well as on 2 big German review websites, laut.de and metal.de. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or redirect to van Canto at a minimum) - Merging too many album articles losslessly (track listings and personnel included) into the ensemble article would be messy. The number of albums with full track listings and album info to be merged into a musical ensemble or artist page was discussed here. Are we going to now start a mass deletion campaign of all non-notable albums? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colapeninsula's changes. Between the reliable critical reviews and the note of it charting, it longer fails notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Smashing Pumpkins discography. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Chicago 23.10.95

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

I haven't been able to establish this as Wikipedia-notable Lachlan Foley (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why delete instead of redirect? This user has created about a dozen of these album deletion requests and has yet to explain why they should be deleted and not simply redirected. Note that if they are redirected, the categories should remain and {{r from album}} should be added. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why this should be deleted at all considering it is a real album Mebored81 (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Smashing Pumpkins discography. It's a live EP given away as a promo, so you wouldn't expect much coverage. I can't find any reviews, although since it was released in 1995, that's another reason for the lack of coverage. There is a paragraph on OV Guide[23], but that's it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Smashing Pumpkins discography. Limited promo release with no significant coverage found in reliable sources; it's listed in the "Live albums" section of the band's discography page and that should suffice. The tracklist can be incorporated there easily enough if desired. Gong show 20:19, 9 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 07:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miki Agrawal

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:V guidelines. WP:GNG states "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". Out of the 5 references used for this page, reference 1 is from the website of the person the article is about, reference 2 is from a speaking company that represents the person the article is about, reference 3 is from a very small online publication and reference 4 and 5 are the same link to a harpercollins page for a book that has yet to be released. There are not enough secondary sources as per WP:GNG. Furthermore, majority of the article cites to reference 2 which comes from a biased source and therefore does not meet the WP:V guidelines. Fort Du Quesne (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete — Not a notable person. Its seems that the page is created for self and business promotion. Jussychoulex (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's some media coverage about her and her pizzeria[24][25][26][27]. However I'm not sure whether it quite establishes notability of either her or the pizzeria. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not think that press on one restaurant would establish notability for its owner. Otherwise there would be plenty of articles on small restaurant owners based simply on some press for the restuarant even if it was one small relatively unknown establishment. That was nice of you to add those references however.Fort Du Quesne (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 09:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe all comments leaned in favor of deletion. I vote for deletion not sure how to reach a consensus though. All issues were covered in previous comments as to why I proposed deletion in the first place.Fort Du Quesne (talk) 02:57, 9 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rainwater Creek Massacre

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

Courtesy nomination. Original article author wants it gone, but too many edits from others for G7 deletion. PROD was contested, so to AFD it goes. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Unless reliable secondary sources can be obtained. Article seems to rely on primary sources. notability and verifiability cannot be met. Dloh cierekim 18:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article cites three references, but it's unclear if they're available on line. Pburka (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for now. Seems like sources are available just that no one seem to bother placing them in the article. disagree tha tthe current sources are unreliable.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable crime that fails WP:N/CA. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be a very regional, very minor historical event. Not mentioned anywhere in Google Books. Sources provided in article are skimpy and do not come close to demonstrating notability. Appears to be primarily OR or just local recollections. --Noleander (talk) 05:53, 13 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Dormouse

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

Completely unable to find WP:RS refs for this on Google or Google News. Trine Day is a notoriously unreliable publishing house, the other references are blogs. The pdf from GWU completely fails to mention "Operation Dormouse" anywhere at all. [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 04:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obscure to the point of non-notability. Bearian (talk) 23:13, 6 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) 09:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There do not seem to be any Reliable Sources about this supposed project. There's not even enough evidence to warrant a redirect to Project ARTICHOKE. BTW if the article is kept, the references to Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld should be deleted; there is no valid sourcing for the accusation against them, so it violates BLP. --MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 13 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trick Flow Specialties

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

This company does not appear to be notable to me, and the article seems to be a puff piece. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:37, 22 February 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 February 28. Snotbot t • c » 01:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This business makes engine parts for US domestic cars. Google News finds only a handful of press releases and notices of local sponsorships and the like. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage to pass guidelines of WP:CORP. Stubbleboy 14:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Stunkard

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

I declined an A7 nomination because the article contains citations to four articles from an apparent reliable source, Tulsa World, though the text did not give me great hope this could meet notability on the merits. I was able to locate one of the four Tulsa World articles in that newspaper's online archive, and have linked it in the article. As you can see, though it's cited eight times in the article for all manner of specific detailed content, it miserably fails verification, containing seven words about him. This makes me trust the use of the other cited sources not at all. Meanwhile, I have performed Google Book and News Archive searches and found nothing at all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was I who tagged it, on the basis that the sources cited were about activities that would not rationally make anyone significant. "Truck Driver of the Year" might sound possible, were it a national award, not a state award by the Oklahoma Motor Carriers Association. I admit I did not check them; Fuhghettaboutit properly declined my A7, and did check them, with the results he reports. I think the principle involved is NOT MEMORIAL. The ed. who accepted the AfC did the author no favor by accepting--our usual standard there is not just passing speedy, but not likely to be challenged at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem a particularly notable individual. Winning some regional contest doesn't pass guidelines. Rcsprinter (natter) @ 23:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that it probably doesn't meet speedy criteria, but notability seems nonexistent. The article seems to be little but praise of the individual's life. Ducknish (talk) 00:48, 12 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. JohnCD (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive physician

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

dictionary definition for phrase coined in 2012. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This appears to be a fairly widely-used phrase that means a physician that is disruptive or obnoxious in any way. I see some references before 2012, so it was not coined in 2012. Google indicates that it is fairly widely used in the medical industry to mean a physician that is a jerk and not a team player. So, it is a legti term. But does it belong in Wiktionary instead? Here is a source from 1997 that uses the term, and it is used steadily from then to the present; so not a neologism. I'm seeing over 1,000 hits in Google Books alone, and it looks like it deserves more than a mere dictionary entry: there is a large amount of literature on how to deal with disruptive physicians (treatment, management options, etc). --Noleander (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mere dictionary definition. Otherwise we will need "Disruptive engineer," "Disruptive accountant," "Disruptive lawyer," "Disruptive wine steward," etc.Also occurrences in books may be merely the use of the term "disruptive physician behavior" rather than the deliberate employment of the coined term "disruptive physician." There is a difference. Edison (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem sure what the books say. Please use the search links above to check such speculation as uninformed opinion adds little value to the discussion. Warden (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noleander makes a convincing argument. If its commonly used in the medical industry, it deserves an article. Or if someone creates a list of commonly used terms in the medical industry later on, it can be merged there, unless it grows large enough to stand on its own. Dream Focus 19:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Our policy WP:DICDEF explains that "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent." I have made a start on expanding this notable topic to help dispel this confusion. Warden (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - non admin closure, nomination withdrawn. ukexpat (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Chinese Culture and Health Sciences

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

This may sound crazy, but yes I am nominating my own article for deletion. I am acting in good faith because the article is non-notable and instead of requesting speedy deletion, I would like fellow editors to discuss it. Thank you. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 03:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, since this is basically a "G7" You showed excellent good faith in requesting this deletion, altho some may differ with my opinion because it takes up editors time to comment (not my feeling, mind you) and an administrators time to close it. In short, almost any article without secondary references is going to be non-notable. I am not completely familiar with the rules for colleges, but for high schools, as long as you have a reference proving its existence (even the school district's or the school's website), it is notable. If the same rules apply to colleges, then this article would be notable. This is in reply to your question at Teahouse. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help. In that case, could someone please CLOSE this dicsussion. Thank you. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 11:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team Nogueira vs. Team Mir. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Bruchez

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

Subject is an MMA fighter that has no significant independent coverage and fails WP:NMMA. I recommend a Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team Nogueira vs. Team Mir as less drastic than outright deletion. Papaursa (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team Nogueira vs. Team Mir. Luchuslu (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team Nogueira vs. Team Mir sounds good since he fails WP:NMMA. CaSJer (talk) 12:54, 12 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Floresvillar

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

I do not see how it meets the requirements of WP:CREATIVE DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I used google.com.mx to see if I could get enough sources to get past WP:GNG without success. Perhaps a good example of WP:TOOSOON. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources to indicate that the subject of this AfD is notable per WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:58, 12 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 07:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Poonen

AfDs for this article:

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

Zac Poonen was deleted in 2006 after the first nomination, due to lack of notability. It was deleted again in 2010 for the same reason. The current version still has no reliable independent sources to verfiy/substantiate Poonen's notability as per Wikipedia policy. Google searches will reveal many self-published hits (books, blogs, own media), but there are very few, if any, secondary sources where independent sources are talking about him. The information in the article, therefore, cannot be properly verified and therefore also fails Wikipedia's verifiability requirements. Wikipeterproject (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced BLP and already a two-time loser at AfD. Carrite (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear vanity BLP with no substantive claim to notability. Three failed AFDs also probably mean the closing admin should salt the title. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per above. Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 02:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Wiki editors shouldn't have to waste their time deleting the same articles for the same offenses over and over.METOKNOWONLY (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to write an article on an Evangelist Zac Poonen. He is quite famous for his Ministry and through his churches world wide. I dont understand why is it getting nominated for deletion with an invalid reason "lacking notability". He has written more than 25 books for which he doesnt ask for any royalty. I understand that Wikipedia's notable guidelines are different and stringent inorder to avaoid unnecessary content on the web. But I believe Zac Poonen definitely deserve a page on Wikipedia. I came to this conclusion based on the other articles I see on famous persons on Wikipedia. I urge whom so ever concern that Zac Poonen is also as famous as other Evangalists listed on Wikipedia.

Please help me how to get the Page about Zac Poonen get published on Wikipedia permanently without any debates or hurdles. I respect the intention of the reviewers and the deletion policy. At the same time, I need the page to be published avoiding nominations for deletion by the editors. I understand editord do not have the time to review the article again and again. I am sorry for troubling them. But please help me. Thanks, Abhinesh

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 Snow Keep/withdrawn. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Annemarie Kremer

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

Creation of advertisement by COI account, since whittled back and properly sourced; ~~but seems to me to be a case of WP:TOOSOON~~. Orange Mike | Talk 02:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawn by nominator - with a profound molte grazie! to Vocedinotore. Can somebody do the formalities? I'm on break and don't have time or facilities to do so. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Mentioned a few times in articles, but does not have anything written specifically about her - in other words she, herself, is not the subject of widespread reporting or reviews. Wikipeterproject (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Wikipeterproject says, there is no coverage for her specifically. All the material I could find (and indeed all the material in the article at this point) are reviews of operas where she has participated. She is mentioned in step with the other performers. I cannot find significant recordings by her or any other material that could get her past WP:MUSICBIO, and she does not seem to meet WP:GNG either. It is a shame that we don't have a guideline specific to opera that could help us keep this. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC) - Keep Thank you Vocedinotore! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure it is enough yet, but there is coverage by reliable sources (and hers is a career that is obviously building). She certainly sings a lot of title roles in important works, and in major venues. I know that arguing against the wiki-rules means that (as always) I lose, but it would be a pity if WP wouldn't be able to provide information about this singer (if the page is deleted). Anyhow, over to the powers that be. GFHandel ♬ 04:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lengthy article on her in Volkskrant, another here in Die Presse . Articles here and here (and probably more) on Radio 4 (Netherlands) . Radio program devoted to her on Ö1 (ORF) . This last one alone gives her a pass on Criteria 12 of WP:MUSICBIO (has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.) In my view opera singers at that level also consistently pass the spirit of Criteria 4 (is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles). MUSICBIO is entirely written with pop musicians in mind, but if you translate this to opera singers, leading roles with notable opera companies is the same thing, and frankly, a lot harder to do. In her case, it's Norma and Vitellia with Opera North, Salome with the Vienna Volksoper, and several more, e.g. Staatsoper Stuttgart, Leipzig Opera, etc. Voceditenore (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add that she is also the featured soloist on several recordings with the Brilliant Classics record label and at least 1 on Challenge Records. Both are Dutch labels, but both are notable and established classical music labels. Thus, she also passes Criteria 5 (has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels). I wouldn't say that she is just at the start of her career. People here are simply basing this on her appearances in the UK. She's 44 years old and has had a significant career in the Netherlands and Germany for quite a long time. Voceditenore (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Voceditenore. I issued an early PROD on this, then found sources and declined my own PROD. It think it is very early in her career, but not quite too early. She has sufficient verifiable notability for the rules. Intellectually she is notable. Emotionally it feels too soon. Intellect trumps emotions. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment Voceditenore added the indented material after I entered my ¡vote. I agree with the further assessment. I believe that the UK elements of her career are sufficient to assert her notability. The Netherlands aspects do it completely. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Voceditenore, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Voceditenore. Kremer's opera career also includes work in France and Brazil, and she has recorded the title role of Agrippina on DVD. --GuillaumeTell 12:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep singing Elvria in the Concertgebouw probably does notability singlehanded almost-instinct 14:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets at least criteria 4, 5 and 12 as noticed above.--Smerus (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 01:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diogo Morgado

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

Non-notable actor getting some press as a result of History Channel series, but lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Diogo Morgado has the largest role, Jesus, in the ten hour miniserse that has had the largest cable audience for any program as yet for this year (The Bible). He also is appeared in the programs named for these preexisting Wikipedia articles:

2002 - The Forest (2002 film) -- as LEAD
2002 - O Quinto dos Infernos‎
2010 - Lua Vermelha‎
2010 - Laços de Sangue‎ -- as 2nd LEAD
2013 - The Bible (TV series)‎ -- as LEAD

And thus he "Has had significant roles in multiple notable... television shows... or other productions", per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers. tahc ^chat 03:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Beyond considering his many Portugese films noted above by User:Tahc, we have an overwhelmingly meeting of WP:ENT through (just list a very few of his many projects through 2011) 130 episodes of Terra Mãe as Miguel, 21 episodes of A Lenda da Garça as Manuel Domingos, 150episodes of Ajuste de Contas as Francisco, 178 episodes of Tudo Por Amor as Pedro Castelo Branco, 74 episodes of Floribella as Dinis, 217 episodes ofVingançaas Santiago Medina, 22 episodes of Aqui Não Há Quem Viva as Fernando, 33 episodes of Lua Vermelhaas Artur, and 315 episodes of Laços de Sangue as João Caldas Ribeiro. I would think that the sheer length and depth of this actor's career since 1996 is a strong indicator that he has Portuguese-language coverage unavailable in the United States or in English. Further, I think it safe to AGF that such coverage exists, and in addressing an unfortunate systemic bias, I will await the attention and input from Wikipedians able to read that language. Notable In and TO Portugal is perfectly fine with en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep While WP:BEFORE may not be a "must" requirement, the nomination most likely did not bother searching for sources prior to nomming this. Notability has been established and I suggest we speedily close this. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MichaelQSchmidt, Bonkers The Clown, etc. --Cuoralho (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Jake Wartenberg, CSD G7 Author requests deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Curb Your Enthusiasm directors

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

This list is a derivate of List of Curb Your Enthusiasm episodes. Well, it looks useful, but this list belongs somewhere outside Wikipedia. I did try to discuss its creators to come into his senses, but they went to no avail. I know that merging it is an alternative, but why should we archive history log? Even though I'm nominating List of Frasier writers for merging, this nomination is a test to find out whether all pages titled "List of... writers/directors/etc." should go. It was discussed in WP:VPP, and it was discussed in the page creator's talk page. One of my mentors approves this nomination. George Ho (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopedic list cruft RadioFan (talk) 02:32, 8 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Electric

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable band, no reason to suggest notability. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I argued in the previous AfD, they pass WP:GNG, with coverage in reliable music publications (written by expert jazz journalists), both English and Danish language. Since the article had 3 references when AfDed (I just added 2 more based on links given in the previous AfD) I would expect the nominator to explain why those references do not meet WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm wrong nothing of their's has charted, I also didn't say they didn't meet WP:GNG I said ther weren't a notable band JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With coverage of the group and their work in multiple professional publications, the subject appears to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BAND #1. Gong show 22:09, 8 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 Mattel toys. No sourced content in the article so nothing mergeable. Jenks24 (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Meebas

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

These toys seem to have gone completely unnoticed by the press and the bookpublishing industry: zero reliable sources to be found that discuss the topic; delete per GNG. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - I copied this article to Wikialpka for backup in case it gets deleted here. Enjoy! Mathewignash (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge - ~~Delete~~ - These were toys that were on the market for only a year or two (2008/9) and they apparently were not a success. As mentioned above, virtually no sources refer to them. I cannot find a List of Mattel toys article to merge it into, unfortunately. --Noleander (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes ... how did I not see List of Mattel toys. It does indeed exist, so a merge is appropriate. --Noleander (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to List of Mattel toys, the only reliable source I found was this reuters article, and we need more than one source to establish notability. These toys seem to have attracted a devoted following, however. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:06, 14 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 Colombia–Malaysia relations. Jenks24 (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Colombia, Kuala Lumpur

(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) 00:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Colombia–Malaysia relations. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Per IIO. --Noleander (talk) 05:33, 13 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. There has been less participation in this AfD, but essentially the same arguments apply as advanced in [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Colombia, Seoul]]. It would therefore not be constructive to relist this debate. Creation of Colombia-Kenya relations is a matter of eidtorial decision outside of AfD but I will happily userfy the deleted article for anyone wishing to use it as material for such an article. Spinning Spark 18:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Colombia, Nairobi

(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) 00:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Colombia-Kenya relations and broaden scope. (cf. Ambassador of Kenya to Colombia Ambassador of Colombia to Kenya) In ictu oculi (talk) 06:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move/Create - Per IIO. --Noleander (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. The argument that embassies are inherently notable has no basis in policy. That argument would carry some weight with me if there was overwhelming consensus for it - after all, policy is merely the expression of consensus here. However there is no basis for it in either policy or consensus. The request to create Colombia-South Korea relations is not a matter for AfD, but I will userfy the deleted article on request for anyone wishing to use it as material for such an article. Spinning Spark 18:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Colombia, Seoul

(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. being located near other embassies or a book store does not add to notability. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to create Colombia-South Korea relations and broaden scope to include http://www.sice.oas.org/TPD/Col_kor/col_kor_e.asp. see also Google Books on Colombia being the only Latin American country participating with the United Nations Forces in the Korean War. Did you know this when nominating for AfD? In ictu oculi (talk)

no, because the AfD is about the embassy. LibStar (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and what is an wikt:embassy? It isn't the physical rented space in an insurance building. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move/Create - Per IIO. --Noleander (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

1) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

2) Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple,[1] third-party, independent, reliable sources.

mijotoba (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't supplied any sources. LibStar (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been supplied.... mijotoba (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also if this embassy is deleted, you also have to go through and nominate and delete all pages related to embassies like Embassy of the United States, Juba mijotoba (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No but WP:WORLDVIEW is. We have to make some allowance for there being less easy access to sources in Spanish and Korean. In any case this is now moot. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I think this article is being targeted because is a Colombian embassy in an unrelated country with "few bilateral relations" country, but had this been an American embassy in an unrelated country with "few bilateral relations" like the Embassy in Juba, there wouldnt have been any scrutiny (and there wasnt on that particular article). So I find the delete and move options biased since all countries need to be treated similar. mijotoba (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no inherent notability for embassies. Each should be judged for satisfaction of WP:ORG. This one does not appear to have the required significant coverage by multiple independent and reliable sources needed to satisfy the notability guideline. "Article X also exists and would have to be deleted" is not a convincing Keep argument. Edison (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, can you comment on the Korean war content please? Delete is no longer an option since the notability here is already massively proven for Move to create Colombia-South Korea relations. The only thing deleting achieves at this point is disrupting article history and effecting a cut and paste which breaks copyright law. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you derive the authority to announce, in the middle of an AFD, that "Delete is no longer an option." I strongly reject your claim that this AFD cannot result in the deletion of the article. There is no guideline which says that embassies are inherently notable, and there has not been "massive" proof of notability. The fact that the Korean War occurred, or that Columbia had some relationship to it, does not prove that their embassy is notable. Notability is not inherited. Edison (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it can still be deleted, why not just create the article now? LibStar (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Independent reliable sources have been used, what more than the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of both Colombia and Korea and legislation regarding its accreditation.mijotoba (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I stand on the position that embassies are inherently notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

they are not inherently notable, just because you say so. That is a poor reason for keep. Some of these have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a keep. Move was a compromise. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see embassies as inherently notable, international in scope, subject of news articles, meets WP:ORG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

embassies are not inherently notable. 3 of the sources refer to its ___location, 2 to how the embassy is accredited for elsewhere, thats not indepth coverage. and 2 more related to bilateral relations. Have you even looked at the article. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the current sources are less than ideal but, in my view, their lack of quality is not sufficient grounds for deleting the article. It is likely there are good sources out there to be found and that there will be even more in the future. Relations between nations is an important subject; so is diplomacy in a general sense. Embassies are often in the news, with stories about asylum seekers, diplomatic rows, unfortunately sometimes attacks; this information becomes more important if there are any conflicts or incidents between these two nations. Journalists, government officials, persons seeking to change countries, architects -- many will need encyclopedic information on this subject.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a guide for what an embassy can do. WP:NOTGUIDE. This embassy has not featured significantly in the news so fails WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 11:57, 15 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faultline Journal of Arts and Letters

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

Article about an academic journal that does not seem to meet any of the minimum criteria of WP:NJournals. Unable to find any reliable, independent sources. - Mr X 03:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence to meet WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALS. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources. --Cerebellum (talk) 20:59, 14 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of the Air (TV miniseries)

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

this miniseries is still in development and well from being released or done, should be put in incubation Lady Lotus (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CRYSTALBALL generally prohibits discussion of future events/productions unless there is a tremendous amount of independent discussion and/or production has begun & is well documented. There is nothing here except a few self-published press releases. --Noleander (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears to be promotion of a show that hasn't been aired yet.METOKNOWONLY (talk) 02:57, 14 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.