Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 August	2 September >

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. postdlf (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Castleman

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

Procedural nomination by me after Maproom (talk · contribs) made a mistake with the template. His nomination text appears in the article history: Not a notable person. The ex-wife of Robert Lee Castleman, with "inherited notability" -- John of Reading (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:COMPOSER.-- ukexpat (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited, and this lyricist seems to fail the notability criteria otherwise. T C N7JM 01:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - highly negative, lightly sourced BLP. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steel Core

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

This is a toy created by fans that has not received independent coverage. The current citations are all from a small, focused group rather than anything noting true notability. TTN (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Should be moved to a Transformers wiki on Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:11, 2 September 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. postdlf (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recorder Beatboxing

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

Blatant promo; fails WP:NOTABILITY. Topic gets zero gnews hits, only 83 unique ghits, at least some of which do not refer to this usage. Nat Gertler (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This just serves to ramble about a bunch of non-notable recorder beatboxers. Using common sense, this should be axed. T C N7JM 01:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and TCN. GregJackP Boomer! 05:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per TCN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notability. Hoax ? Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Destroy it with fire - Non-notable hobby club. Yintan 22:51, 3 September 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. postdlf (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adin Kachisi

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

Does not pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. The awards are vanity awards. The books are self-published. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William 15:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-published books (Author House) and vanity awards. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Once nominator was informed of improvements, he withdrew the nom and there are no delete votes, and since the withdrawal there had been no further comments. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Bury You Tomorrow

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

Non notable, low budget film with no credible sources. The actors and actresses do not even have pages on here. Tinton5 (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It took some digging, but I found several movie reviews for the film. I also found some mention of the film in relation to a necrophilia case, but I don't know how well that would count towards notability. I added those mostly as an extra to the article. In any case, the sources should allow it to pass notability guidelines now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:NF, and with major appreciations to Tokyogirl79 for her editorial efforts. While certainly the nominated version had issues, Tokyogirl79's work improved the article considerably. Well done. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree with the above. Thank you for improving the page, as I will now withdraw this nomination. Tinton5 (talk) 23:28, 3 September 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. See comment below. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Javed Jaffrey

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

effectively unsourced blp The Banner talk 22:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 18:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The actor certainly meets the relevant notability guidelines, and it's a pity that this biography is completely unreferenced. For now I don't want to drop in random references from googling just to "save" this AFD, so I'll leave a note at WT:ICTF where editors will be more familiar with reliable sources for Bollywood related articles, and should be able to reference/improve it. Abecedare (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Whoosh, nothing surprises me in Wikipedia anymore. Such a notable actor and show host. One could easily save it doing a simple search. User:Abecedare, since you are attempting to find sources, please see these (this direct link may not work in Internet Explorer). --Tito☸Dutta 17:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't know the guy. But what I did see was a bad article without any sources and I responed on that. The Banner talk 18:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added 6 references. --Tito☸Dutta 18:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Obviously. Lots of references available in the web. I doubt whether the nominator, User:The Banner, even cared to do a cursory search before nominating. You don't have to know the guy, you just have to do some google search to begin with.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Such a search is not mandatory. In fact, while removing 6 links to disambiguation pages I noticed how bad and how completely unsourced the article was. The Banner talk 19:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now that at least a few refs have been added and close the nom early. The article can still be improved and better referenced but that is not the purpose of AFD per se, and can be achieved through regular editing. Abecedare (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Its utter waste of time of editors to keep discussing on this AfD. I am hence closing it. Come up with any weirdest logic and this article can never be deleted. Requesting nominator to do some cursory Google searches before AfDing articles when the article clearly has a 50+ filmography, 3 awards, link to IMDb, etc. Necessary sourcing is now done. Although one must note that sources should be present but not necessarily available at the bottom of every article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Jujutsu World Championships

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

Delete Single event entry - non-notable list of results. No other of the events have entries.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Neutrality^talk 15:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I voted keep at the earlier incarnation of this AfD discussion and I still believe this tournament has importance as a JJIF world title event. However, I was not able to find any reliable sources that verify the results and the lack of sources means this doesn't meet WP notability standards. If reliable sources are found, I'd change my vote. I don't believe the fact that other JJIF championships don't have articles is relevant (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Papaursa (talk) 21:22, 8 September 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 Eavesdropping. postdlf (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eavesdrop

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

Disambiguation page with two entries only. A perfect candidate for hatnote disambiguation. Codename Lisa (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eavesdropping per nom. Place this hatnote: For the ground around a building which receives the rain water dropping from the eaves occasionally called an eavesdrop, see Eavesdrip or something to that extent. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The code you are looking for is:

{{redirect|Eavesdrop|the ground around a building which receives the rain water dropping from eaves|eavesdrip}}

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I know the code. I just wasn't posting it so it didn't show up at the top of this page. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No need to Afd for a straightforward redirect. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid it only looks that way now. Back then, to an external observer, a simple revert would have only been observed as a non-consensual non-collegial act of an editor that seeks to enforce his own will. This AfD is a policy-supported form of a consensus-building process based on a disambiguation policy that sanctions deletion. We have unanimous support here, and I appreciate everyone's participation. But believe me: It is not a vain AfD. We should let it run its course. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect plus hatnote, as above. Snow closure? PamD 13:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow closure Create redirect. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:13, 3 September 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. I have withdrawn my nomination. Msnicki (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oz (programming language)

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY or, in the case of the benchmark source, fail even to mention the subject. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Thank you both for your efforts. I agree these are sufficient sources. Kind regards. Msnicki (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I was able to find these additional reliable sources:

Frühwirth, Thom; Michel, Laurent; Schulte, Christian (2006), "Constraints in Procedural and Concurrent Languages", in Rossi, Francesca; van Beek, Peter; Walsh, Toby (eds.), Handbook of Constraint Programming (PDF), Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, Elsevier, pp. 453–486, ISBN 978-0-444-52726-4

Discusses how the CC, Oz and AKL languages can be used for constraint programming.

Wooldridge, Michael J.; Jennings, Nicholas R. (1995), "Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages: A Survey" (PDF), Intelligent Agents, Springer

Only discussed in a single paragraph, but as this is a survey article nothing else got much more than that, either. Cited 1495 times per google scholar.

Smolka, Gert, The Oz Programming Model (PDF), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1000, Springer, pp. 324–343

This is a half-step away from WP:PRIMARY as it's LNCS, and it's not independent, but it has been cited 616 times per google scholar. Given this combined with the two citations above, I think there's a good-but-not-great case for notability. I will admit, though, that notability might be easier to demonstrate if the article was moved to Oz (programming model and language).

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [1] [2] In particular the seminal Programming with Constraints: An Introduction by Marriott and Stuckey and the Handbook of Constraint Programming by Rossi et al. —Ruud 15:39, 3 September 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 Sun Microsystems. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SeeBeyond Technology Corporation

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. The only source offered is merely coverage of the PR release announcing the acquisition by Sun Microsystems. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sun Microsystems, where it is already mentioned. Per nominator's research, that acquisition appears to be the only thing that ever caused the company to receive any coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sun Microsystems. Does not seem notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:10, 3 September 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. KTC (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vendor

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

This is a case of WP:TWODAB: The page contains only two disambiguation targets. We can use hatnote disambiguation instead. I recommend deleting and then moving vendor (supply chain) in its place. Page view stats suggests that the latter is the primary topic. Codename Lisa (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One primary topic and a hatnote-in-waiting. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Until this edit on August 26, Vendor was a redirect to Vendor (supply chain) and had been without any fuss since at least February 2008. Restore the redirect and then separately propose moving Vendor (supply chain) to Vendor. older ≠ wiser 12:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can I suggest an amendment? It we do exactly as you suggest, we need a second deletion discussion! But if we delete and move, the effect would still be the same as you suggest, right? Just the closing admin here would graciously do the move too. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware that moving an article is a common outcome from AfD discussions. Editors that pay attention to requested moves might not pay attention to AfDs. Unless there is wide participation in these AfD and strong consensus develops to both delete and move, then there might be basis to question the move as out of process. older ≠ wiser 18:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Myself, I'd have slapped a speedy deletion db-move template on it per G6. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to but I am afraid it would have not been granted. Someone reversed the redirection. Assessing admin would have taken that as a sign that a speedy-deletion per G6 is not a non-controversial technical move. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support whatever process will end us up with an article at Vendor (the one currently at Vendor (supply chain)), with a redirect to Arkansas. Probably simplest would be to withdraw this AfD and then do a WP:RM to move this article to the primary topic title. PamD 13:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi. Normally, a WP:RM would be rejected on the grounds that it is not a technical non-controversial move. A requested move discussion can also not be held because this is not about renaming a page to one that is already held by its redirect. The correct course of action is this AfD: We already have WP:TWODAB as a valid reason for deletion. Once it is deleted, any autoconfirmed user can move Vendor (supply chain) to Vendor.

What amazes me most is that everyone here supports the intended result (meaning that we have a consensus) only some insist that I travel a longer bureaucratic way. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:13, 4 September 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 Withdraw. Non-admin closure. TTN (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FCEUX

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

This program does not establish notability through detailing its cultural impact with the inclusion of reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of technical details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crap, I hadn't meant to do this one. TTN (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libertree

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

No evidence of notability, no independent references. The creator removed a prod tag, giving (in his own words) links to "four german blog posts", none of which would seem to constitute a reliable source. He also mentions that there is an article on the German Wikipedia, but again this does not constitute a reliable source. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was not able to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Blogs don't count, and neither does an article in another language Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I can't find any sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it is notable. I have found five blog posts, a screencast from a well known internet radio and an article in an authors web portal. My arguments standing all an the talk page of the article. --Deadlyhappen (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. In particular, blogs do not - see also Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. I don't read German well enough to be sure, but theradio.cc also seems like a self-published source. I can't see what you mean by the 'article in an authors web portal', but again that doesn't sound like a RS to me. AndrewWTaylor (talk)

Response TheRadio.cc isn't a self-published source, it is a free online radio which streams music which is under the creativecommons license (proof here).
This portal is called Pagewizz, it is a platform where writers can put there article on to earn money trough advertisement (proof here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadlyhappen (talk • contribs) 15:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the definition of "self-published"? None of your links establish notability, as they're all non-RS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ because the article, was viewed over 254 times in the last 30 days, so it is notable though. (proof here) --Deadlyhappen (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't get to !vote twice, and the number of times a page has been viewed has nothing to do with whether it is notable. postdlf (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEBCRIT. Carola O (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:RS found to meet WP:WEBCRIT. EricSerge (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—per WP:NSOFT, WP:TOOSOON. If the software takes off they'll be plenty of reliable sources to use then. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:33, 9 September 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 List of Forgotten Realms deities. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uthgar

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Forgotten Realms through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of unnecessary plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Non-notable cruft better suited to Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Forgotten Realms deities. Web Warlock (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Forgotten Realms deities. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to some fanboy site that loves trivia. The only sources are primary so the article fails WP:N and should either be deleted or if there is appropriate target, merge any appropriate content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remain civil. 'Fanboy' is a pejorative term and is entirely unnecessary and gratuitous in the context of your statement. Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 7 September 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. Even discarding the SPAs, there just isn't enough of a consensus here to support a keep or a merge. A new merge discussion can be opened at any time though. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Society for Human Life

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)

Non-notable state affiliate, nearly all mentions in reliable sources are routine announcements (paid listings?) and trivial pull-quotes in articles that are about events. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect to National Right to Life Committee (an appropriate destination because this is a state affiliate of that organization). This organization seems to be associated with several notable topics, but I don't see evidence of notability independent of those topics -- and notability is not inherited. The article content that is actually about the organization is self-sourced or sourced to dead URLs. The article cites a Washington Post article about Virginia's abortion law, but it turns out that this organization is not mentioned in the article (at least not that I can find). The article also has some third-party content about a federal lawsuit that the organization filed; the decision in the case may be notable in the context of US law for nonprofit organizations, but this organization appears to have had little (if any) role in the decision. Additionally, my Google search finds indications that this organization endorsed certain political candidates -- some of the candidates and elections are undoubtedly notable, but this organization's endorsements of those candidates don't make the organization notable. Notability is not inherited, and this organization lacks notability of its own. --Orlady (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added "merge" to my !vote. I note that this organization is already briefly mentioned in the proposed destination article. --Orlady (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been alleged on this page (in a template that has been deleted) that my comments here were canvassed. Lest the accusation should arise again, let me say that this is an absurd allegation with no basis. As best I can recall, I noticed this brand-new AFD when I was reviewing the background behind a contentious discussion on one of the Administrator's Noticeboards, looked into it, and commented. --Orlady (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough for the NYT at [3], [4], [5], [6]. thus passing my "If the NYT mentions a non-NY organization in a non-trivial way in multiple articles, the organization is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. [7] mentioned as the primary plaintiff in a major legal case in an RS book. [8] a minor RS book mention. In fact, it appears to be in several hundred book mentions. [9] shows the importance of the law case. In short - easily passes the Wikipedia notability guidelines, and the number of sources well ought to have been noted by the persons proposing deletion. It is stated in multiple sources to be the first such group, which does not make it a "non-notable state affiliate". Questia finds five books which are RS for the purposes of Wikipedia, and a score of articles mentioning the group. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See, I have access to those NYT sources, and I think it's extremely disingenuous of you to claim that a reference is non-trivial when most other users can't check for themselves. Users interested in those sources should know that Collect evidently considers a one-sentence mention in a longer article on something else "non-trivial". Most would disagree. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um -- do you really think this page is designed for personal attacks? Such argumentation rather weakens your case entirely, and reduces the opinion others might have of you. I provided the proper links, and trust that others actually have mouses on their computers to see the articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think this page is designed for the discussion of the topic and the sources, and since the sources are paywalled, it's not easy for most users to tell that you have an extremely idiosyncratic definition of "non-trivial." Now they know, and we can all proceed with more information. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - And calling someone "extremely disingenuous" is what then? Cream cheese? That sort of comment is a comment on the editor, and not on the sources. Meanwhile, no one disputes now that it [asses GNG with flying colours. And I would note that there are literally thousands of refs using the New York Times, and that since no one would doubt that it is a "reliable source" your accusation that I deliberately shoes a "paywalled" source is risible. I would also note that the book sources, which you seem to elide, are not "paywalled." Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Breathe. Keep calm. I dispute that it passes GNG, since I have a definition of "non-trivial coverage" that excludes single sentences - yes, a single sentence is trivial even in a reliable source like the NYT or a scholarly book. I think we could all have saved some time if you'd simply explained in your comment that you have this unusual view of "non-trivial," so that no one would wrongly assume that a source they couldn't personally access did in fact contain significant coverage of the group. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I note you did not take back your personal attack on me for being "extremely disingenuous" for daring to use The New York Times as a source. "VSHL" is at the center of a major legal case - and your apparent argument is that Marbury would not be "notable enough." Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        If reliable sources had given VSHL the amount of coverage they give Marbury (in what is, understatement, a more important case), this AFD wouldn't exist. There are any number of parties in much, much more important cases who don't have articles because the sourcing isn't there - Orlady's mention of WP:NOTINHERITED is relevant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        For the record, what I learned about this organization from those four New York Times references was that: (1) this organization, described as "Roman Catholic-oriented", had testified against passage of a liberalized abortion law that Virginia enacted in 1970 and (2) in 1980 this organization asked the Virginia state government and the U.S. federal government to prevent the opening of the first U.S. in-vitro fertilization clinic, but were told "no". (Three of the articles are about the second item.) --Orlady (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references noted above; passes WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk)23:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per WP:NGO. It's a local organization and while we can confirm it exists and it may meet GNG, it isn't recommended. Lack of widespread coverage raises the specter of effectively evaluating WP:UNDUE, a very important consideration when dealing with activist organizations. Merging it to the court case might make sense if that's the major cause of notability and it's a WP:BLP1Eish situation.166.147.88.49 (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC) — 166.147.88.49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per Collect's sound analysis. The organization predates the national group it later affiliated with and has notability independent of its association with that group. Oldest organization of its type and plaintiff in important legal case are distinct claims of notability, so the BIO1E analogy is inapposite. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Collect. GregJackP Boomer! 01:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Collect, StAnselm and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (What Wikipedia needs is a rule that prohibits agenda-driven editors from deleting, or nominating for deletion, articles about people or organizations they don't like.) --108.45.72.196 (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment, no, what Wikipedia needs is a rule that prohibits pointless "per nom" votes being used in a deletion discussion— all it has instead is this guideline. Are you familiar with these guidelines? Also: I don't believe the nominator's reason for nominating for deletion was "I don't like it"— that would have been a violation of this guideline, which the nominator probably read. KDS4444^Talk 06:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (but be sure not to salt) - First, the article creator's account has been suspended indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Article should have been speedily deleted per CSD:G5 and not even discussed here (but I guess that didn't happen for whatever reason, and it is no matter now). Second, I have gone over all of the references included in the actual article— all have either failed verification, are primary sources, are dead links, or say nothing about the organization in question (see my tags). It's almost like the person who added them wanted this article to get nominated for deletion. If other editors have other published third-party sources that they would like to add to the article, I would strongly encourage them to do so, paywall or no, so that the article can stand a chance at survival— and if you aren't willing to add them to the article, then... then why are you here? I am moving for deletion, but I believe that the article's subject may some day meet the criteria for notability (if it does not already)— the article's title should be readily available for an article if/ when that day comes, so I recommend: be sure not to salt if deleted (no one is proposing that, I know, but just as a statement). KDS4444^Talk 05:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI to User:KDS4444, CSD:G5 calls for deletion only if the creation of the article creation was a violation of the user's block or ban. --Orlady (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This is basically a state chapter of a national organisation. It being mentioned here and there in sources isn't, therefore, enough for it to get a standalone article. Just the same as we don't normally need articles for individual Scout troops, branches of Starbucks etc etc. Formerip (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to National Right to Life Committee per Formerip's analysis (and per Orlady, too). It appears the most reasonable outcome beyond the opposite agendas and when a compromise is so easy, I don't see the need to fight. Cavarrone 05:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a weak article and needs a lot of work but I don't think that's a reason for deletion. A lot of the "delete" arguments seem to me to be pointing out the weaknesses in/problems with the article and don't really put forward a sensible case for deletion. Tigerboy1966 00:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is historically significant as it is the Oldest Right to Life Organization in the Country according to several sources including the Standard News Wire. It needs more work but that does not constitute a reason to remove it. It is also notable given all the coverage it receive in the press and legislative activities it is involved in Virginia. It is also a well known organization in Virginia. The article is also close to being a C class article now.208.54.40.177 (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)— 208.54.40.177 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 208.54.40.177 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- "VSHL says, via a press release, that VSHL is important" is not a strong case for notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Additional refs:

Lawsuit planned to stop clinic opening by VSHL. "'Test-Tube' Clinic Approved". Science News. 117 (2): 23. Jan 12, 1980.
VSHL intervened in a case involving a newborn baby. Culliton, Barbara J. (Apr 11, 1975). "Intensive Care for Newborns: Are There Times to Pull the Plug?". Science. 188 (4184): 133–34.
VSHL first state-wide organization formed. Risen, James (1998). Wrath of Angels: The American Abortion War. Basic Books. p. 19. ISBN 9780465092734. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
VSHL first state-wide organization formed. Michael L. Coulter; Richard S. Myers; Joseph A. Varacalli, eds. (2012). Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Thought, Social Science, and Social Policy: Supplement. Scarecrow Press. p. 308. ISBN 9780810882669.
VSHL first state-wide organization formed. McBride, Dorothy (2008). Abortion in the United States: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. p. 119. ISBN 9781598840988.
Significance in Virginia politics. Feldman, Glenn (2005). Politics and Religion in the White South. University Press of Kentucky. p. 258. ISBN 9780813123639.
Virginia the birthplace of the religious right. John Clifford Green; Mark J. Rozell; Clyde Wilcox, eds. (2003). The Christian Right in American Politics: Marching to the Millennium. Georgetown University Press. p. 44. ISBN 9781589014299.
How VSHL vets canidiates. Aistrup, Joseph A. (1996). The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-down Advancement in the South. University Press of Kentucky. p. 152. ISBN 9780813119045.
Use of negative campaign ads in Virginia gubernatorial race. Karen S. Johnson-Cartee, Gary Copeland, ed. (1991). Negative Political Advertising: Coming of Age. Psychology Press. pp. 134–35. ISBN 9780805808346.
On of first anti-abortion groups founded, in 1966. Doan, Alesha (2009). Opposition and Intimidation: The Abortion Wars and Strategies of Political Harassment. University of Michigan Press. p. 71. ISBN 9780472023028.
Opposition to test-tube babies. Wishner, Nan (May 13, 1980). "Human life society outlines opposition to test tube babies". The Free Lance-Star. p. 28.
Opposition to test-tube babies in Massachusetts. McLaughlin, Loretta (Mar 9, 1982). "Mass. lawmakers hear arguments in plan to allow test-tube babies". Boston Globe. p. 1.
Intervention in newborn baby case. Colen, B.D. (Feb 10, 1975). "Agony with no hope: Baby was doomed from birth". The Citizen (Ottawa). p. 4, Women's news.

These are only a few of the literally hundreds of sources available for this organization. It is clearly notable for a number of reasons, not the least of which is widespread coverage in newspapers and books. I didn't even have to get into Hein, EBSCO, Lexis, etc., to find these. AGF, I can only conclude that Roscelese failed to conduct her WP:BEFORE checks for sources, as I know that she would not nominate a notable subject for deletion on political viewpoint grounds. I'm sure that she will exercise greater care in the future. GregJackP Boomer! 12:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But showing that there are sources, particularly when those sources are not primarily about the topic, is not always enough for a standalone article. For example, there are plenty of sources on Pippa Middleton's bum. However, we do not have an article about it. Instead, we have one article covering all the constituent parts of Pippa Middleton. What I am not seeing is any source that indicates that a separate article is needed in this case, as opposed to putting whatever encylopaedic information there may be in the broader National Right to Life Committee article. Formerip (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, these simply do not show notability if they don't have significant coverage because that's not how our notability guideline works. "Among other social conservative groups that have been active in the state are Concerned Women for America, the Virginia Society for Human Life, and the Madison Project." (in several sources) "'People just don't understand what's involved,' says Sugarman, of attempts by the Virginia Society for Human Life to have prosecuted whoever ordered food withhheld from the Norfolk baby." That's the caliber of coverage in these. It's not a failure of WP:BEFORE, it's a demonstration that I understand our notability policies and that "It gets a lot of Google hits" isn't one of them. (Being first doesn't mean being significant if the sources don't a. give it any coverage or b. say that it influenced the formation or activities of other groups.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that many of these sources have significant coverage of VSHL. When an organization is covered by multiple national newspapers (Pittsburgh, USA Today, Boston), internationally (Calgary, Ottawa) and other media (Fox, NPR), law review articles, etc., on multiple issues (oldest state org, test-tube babies, political activism, free speech lawsuit, etc.). Unless, of course, you are arguing that this heightened standard that you are proposing, over and above GNG is applicable to all articles, including those on the other side of the political spectrum. FormerIP's argument is disingenuous, as VSHL is an affiliate, not a "branch" of the national committee. To use that logic would require that all NFL team articles be merged into the main NFL article. Roscelese, like I said, it's either a failure of WP:BEFORE or it approaches WP:PUSH. GregJackP Boomer! 19:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" ("more than a trivial mention") is hardly a "heightened standard"; it's part of the general notability guideline. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Since there is significant coverage in several that were mentioned, which you are erroneously claiming is merely a trivial mention, you are in fact asking for a heightened standard. For example, 35 Ind. L. Rev. 769 discusses both VSHL and Buckley, and the entire article covers the issues brought up by VSHL. 190 A.L.R. Fed. 169, 13B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3532.5 (3d ed.), and 2002 Utah L. Rev. 381 covers it in depth also, perhaps because VSHL has been involved in two highly reported free speech & campaign law cases. GregJackP Boomer! 21:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the Indiana Law Review article right now and it does not discuss the group at all (it briefly quotes the case). If you believe that the case is sufficiently notable to support an article, I encourage you to create an article on it. But I've already pointed out that being a party to a notable case does not automatically confer notability; inheritance doesn't work that way, and trying to claim that a single sentence or less is non-trivial coverage because you want the article to exist for other reasons isn't consistent with Wikipedia policy or practice. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remain baffled by the argument that coverage of a group's activities is not coverage of the group. It reminds me of the argument that Professor So-and-so is not notable because his work is covered in great detail rather than his personal life. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cases such as this often ultimately have very little to do with the actions of a party involved. Sometimes is just works out that way because our court system allows groups who aren't affected by a situation to file suit anyway. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely and totally incorrect. In federal courts, the plaintiff must establish standing in order to proceed. That is the reason SCOTUS kicked out the Prop 8 case, is that the plaintiffs did not have standing to proceed. In both of the VSHL cases, standing was present. I can recommend some reading on standing and justiciability, if you would actually like to learn about the issues involved in a court exercising jurisdiction over a case. GregJackP Boomer! 13:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm more than familiar with the concept of standing. However, standing doesn't, in fact, always indicate that the plaintiff is central to the situation (to sum up the case in a sentence: FEC regs prohibited 501(c)(3)s from doing something VSHL wanted to do, the district court enjoined the rule generally). I was hoping to sum up briefly, for editors who might not be familiar with the courts, that unlike, say, criminal courts or popular court TV shows, such cases aren't decided merely on the personal merits of the parties - VSHL happened to be the plaintiff, but was ultimately incidental to the decision - however, "affected by the situation" was poor wording on my part, and did give the wrong impression of what I was trying to convey. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No prob - I'm sometimes a bit on the anal retentive side on verbiage dealing with legal process (which is interesting because I often choose poor wording myself). GregJackP Boomer! 14:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP GregJackP has made sound arguments to include notability and has shown strong arguments for such. He has also pointed to a likely failure to conduct a sufficient WP:BEFORE. The possibility of a WP:PUSH by the initiator is also illustrated and reading the arguments made by the initiator I second that possibility. The initiator has failed to logically address these points with sound arguments. Therefore the stronger and sound arguments for keeping the article should prevail. I am glad the info in the article was there for me and was surprised to see someone wanted to delete it. That is a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.11.184 (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC) — 172.56.11.184 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP Obvious example of someone with an axe to grind. A case of someone attempting to remove something because their views cloud good judgment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.248.116.243 (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC) — 204.248.116.243 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep It's definitively a notable organization. I will also point https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&oldid=565972868 to show that Roscelese has been accused of promoting an agenda by others and I would agree that their seems to be a definite trend to delete organizations opposed to abortion on Roscelese's part. I would also question the collaboration on the MOMS article between Roscelese and KDS4444 on Sept 5 2013 and the arrival of KDS4444 immediately afterwards to suggest deleting VSHL as evidence of a possible outside canvass between them.208.54.40.153 (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)— 208.54.40.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Gosh, article collaboration, how horrible! If KDS chooses to follow my edits for non-harassment purposes, it is no concern of mine, and I've removed your claims of canvassing, as you're obviously just trying to smear users you disagree with. @Orlady:? Really? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Passing mentions, PR releases, routine "Group X showed up to oppose Y today" coverage for the actual state chapter, nothing more. Not opposed to a redirect to the parent organization as long as there is some mention of this state branch in the main article. Tarc (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Collect/WP:GNG.--v/r - T P 20:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IQRA Promotions

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

Non-notable organisation. No secondary sources in article, and none showing notability can be found. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references, and no sources to speak of. WP is not a directory. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find mentions of subject in reliable sources. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Looks NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. Neutrality^talk 15:07, 6 September 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 United Kingdom Independence Party. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UKIP Gibraltar

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

Prod removed, so bringing this to AfD. Article is for a branch of UKIP and anything useful could be merged into that article. Most of this article's content is repeating content about UKIP, and not actually about UKIP Gibraltar. UKIP Gibraltar haven't, as far as I can see, participated in any elections and coverage specifically of them is minimal. See Talk:UKIP Gibraltar for more. Bondegezou (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per OP. Notability is not inherited, and so far this particular extension of UKIP has done nothing to earn notability. — Richard BB 18:08, 1 September 2013 *(UTC)
~~Bad-faith~~ Unnecessary nomination- OP suggested "merge" on the article's talk page, which would certainly be more appropriate. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't quite suggest "merge" on the article's Talk page, and there appeared not to be consensus for a merge there. I don't think there's much in the article worth merging, but I have no objection to merging what there is and re-directing if that is the conclusion of this AfD. Bondegezou (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You wrote, "Wouldn't a section in the UKIP article be more sensible?". How is that "not quite suggesting merge"? Joefromrandb (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I feel an AfD is the best way to resolve what to do with this article in a consensual manner. I'm sorry you feel I have handled the process wrongly. So far, nobody here has suggested keeping it (although I note one person on the article's Talk page did argue for that in response to the PROD). If re-direct &/or merge is the final conclusion of this process, I am happy to assist in preserving any useful content, although I can't see that more than one or two sentences in the UKIP article would be appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge, depending on whether any useful content exist. I see no good reason for making this a redlink. Nyttend (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United Kingdom Independence Party of which this is a branch. Gibraltar votes in Euro-elections in a UK constituency. Until there is some prospect of the party getting seats in the Gibraltar legislature, the branch will be NN. If it gets one seat, we might redirect to the member. Alternatively, delete the content about the UK party, leaving just the statement that UKIP formed a Gibraltar branch in 2013 to contest elections in the territory. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:44, 5 September 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 Dynamo Dresden#Supporters. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ultras Dynamo

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

promo, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 15:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dynamo Dresden#Supporters as likely search term; not independently notable. Giant Snowman 12:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dynamo Dresden#Supporters as likely search term; not independently notable. I agree with GiantSnowman.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: The chronology is too big for a section of the article Dynamo Dresden. If you would put this article into an other you must do the same with all other ultra group articles.--Conformuser (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a problem for me to show the situation of the real Eastgerman soccer fans. Iam planning to create the Ultras Dynamo article and the pre Ultras Dynamo era during the 1990'ers and GDR. But if you want to have the informations mixed within the sports matter it would disturb the readers. You are having the Dynamo Dresden template and Categories. If you want to write about the fans of the Dynamo Dresden club, you need an extra article for ultras, fans and hooligans of Dynamo Dresden. It would being not true, if you would say the Dynamo Dresden hooligans, ultras and fans are the same, because the fans are peaceful children or families or vip... . 4:1 The next problem is: You are having none DSL internet connection in whole Saxony as well and therefore the most peoples are doing not using the internet here. It is true that English is not my mother language. And I was cheated by teachers with confusing reasons what is still the problem to have the ideal grammar.--Conformuser (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

90% of your article is pure fancruft and can be removed nwithout trouble. / 90% der Artikel ist reine fancruft und kann ruhig entfernt werden. The Banner talk 20:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Nicht deutsch, aber niederländisch-irischen.[reply]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (The club Dynamo Dresden makes headlines with their Ultras and hooligans for decades or by huge choreographs, and pyro shows and has a lot of members. ) --Conformuser (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC) It totally nonsense that after the match today, Westgerman spies here want to delete this article, with over 150 sources from Media in Germany and a lot of interest for this ultra group, fan utensils by Ultra Dynamo. It is a clearly discrimination against groups, due on every other ultra-, hooligan, or fan group from Oriental societies you can find articles in Wikipedia, with less or even none interest. Even about an article for an Oriental Ultra club for an unknown soccer club. You can even find articles for only private persons. The reason is that this one person is a normal priest. Conformuser (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC) If you will delete this article (which is finished in perfectly English), you must delete also all other ultra group articles (mostly with less information, only grounding dates and locations, logos) on Wikipedia (the free censorship encyclopedia). It is not a fan view, but a chronology! And this is allowed; and I used real sources. Iam writing none fairy tales! Hard stuff. THe fans, ultras and hooligans are forming the club and not the state with his chosen players for a short time!! You can not understand Dynamo Dresden without thousands of ultras!!!!!! Forza!!!!--Conformuser (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Per above, perring through the hundred you tube links, there does seem to be some reliably sourced information from decent German sources, but the article is overly long, written like a fan page and the useful information can readily be contained within a couple of paragraphs in the club article. Fenix down (talk) 07:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stay. It is wrong and not true again, if you are calling Youtube sources not interesting. A source is a video, photo, document, book. It is not right that here in this article are being over 100!! At this moment the article has exactly 39 Youtube sources. Youtube means video portal. And this videos are not faked. It is not real what you are talking. That are your hopes. Your next untrue hope is that this article would being a written fan view. I repeat: I t i s a c h r o n o l o g y . On opposite what is written there has real taken place and is only sourced by following news agencies Financial Times, ZDF, Sächsische Zeitung, Bild, Morgenpost, RTL, Die Welt, Die Zeit, Deutsche Welle, Dresdner Neueste Nachrichten, Focus, Spiegel. That are stories from reports and none fan views that you can read: "I was there and was so happy to watch...." And these journalists are professional, state conform and I wrote only reports from these in a nutshell into a chronology. Over thousands of Wikipedia articles are being longer than UD. Conformuser (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And UD is a own and other club and is supporting two other soccer clubs. Conformuser (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iam not against democrazy but you have not the right to offend against Wikipedia guidelines, within of votes. It is not the right thing.Conformuser (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it would look as redirected long article

--Conformuser (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: content (pro-forma merged article) removed as being too disruptive to this and other current AfDs. Full version can be seen in this version. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (notional merge). The above attempt at merger presupposes that all the content of the Dynamos article is encyclopaedic and worth keeping, but that is a false premise. Much of it only caters to fans, but they already know where to find all this information. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, due others are may use the extra article about ultras with categories and templates. Your untrue hopes. That is all what you can. And it is still a violation against Wikipedia guidelines. About normal Dynamo Dresden fans you may only write about statistics, because they are having normal behaviors. And what you don not know again is: ultras, hooligans, fans are having a clear difference. The next is, the article is written about Ultras Dynamo und is is a clear discrimination that normal families, friends which are getting tickets for the stadium are being the same like ultras. Otherwise you are hoping to say that all peoples of Dresden are being ultras, hooligans, nazis. That is your goal, to have more economically success for your state. Unfair. That is what you are calling clarity. All are would do the same. The next problem is you are hoping and wishing that would not being good enough for your Wikipedia niveau. Look on your own. --Conformuser (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The next is that this chronology would being wrong within the Dynamo Dresden article, due the club Dynamo Dresden has none responsibility for Ultras Dynamo after German law it is autonomous and is supporting two other clubs. About fans you must begin since 1953, which is uninteresting due the normal fan behaviors at this time. The Ultras Dynamo had been founded in 2000 and not in 1953. That is a huge difference. They did change the fans of Dynamo Dresden and had begun a new era not for 5 or 10 but for media and thousands. An ultra is a fan who is using violence, propaganda (internet, videos) is visiting all matches for several clubs, calls the shots in the stadium for the fans, with banners, fence flags,... . A normal fan is a simple visitor or tourist and is at the same club for a time. A hooligan is from certain clubs and is organizing meetings for fights and is mostly interested for riots and wears often none fan utensil. The next is: The Ultras Dynamo will exist more than a few decades. If you are having a soccer club in Germany it will exist for at least 80 years. It is not such as in the USA where a club is closed after 6 years again. The article would be too long in 2020. The founder years for soccer clubs are gone in Germany. Therefore you must create extra articles for Ultras Dynamo, Hooligans Dynamo, Dynamo Dresden Fans. That is my goal. But I waste my time.--Conformuser (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fancruft. Wieso bleibt Ihr nicht bei eurem Fanzine? Webseite habt ihr auch, das muß reichen. Es muß nicht jedes Fan-Projekt auf Wikipedia. Eure Wahrnehmung in der Öffentlichkeit ist noch nicht einmal Deutschlandweit , in der englischsprachigen Welt gibt es euch gar nicht. --Ben Ben (talk) 19:59, 7 September 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. Michig pointed out my mistake. reddogsix (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Daughter (band)

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

Non-notable band lacking GHtis and GNEWS of substance to support inclusion into Wikipedia. References are single line mentions or lack independence. Article was created by their record company and CSD was removed by a user that was created to specifically remove the CSD. Fails WP:MUSIC. reddogsix (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found all these: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], and then gave up searching as there was so much coverage. --Michig (talk) 15:30, 1 September 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. postdlf (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yonder (comics)

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

Does not pass WP:NBOOK. The refs to USA Book News is a vanity award pay-to-win marketing. The comic is self-published and does not appear to have reviews in reliable sources. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per "anyone can register for $69 to receive a 'USA Book News' recognition and then declare that they are an "award winning" author". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. I'm beginning to hate that USA Book News thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. Neutrality^talk 15:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding of Princess Helena and Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein

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

This wedding is not a notable event. Everything that can be said about it can fit nicely into articles about Helena, "the third daughter and fifth child of Queen Victoria", and Christian, "a minor German prince". Needless to say, there have been numerous weddings in British royal family, but not all of them are notable. The coverage in sources certainly doesn't indicate that this one is notable. Surtsicna (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources supplied satisfy our notability guideline. Warden (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG. That said, article is nobility-cruft, and the "dress" article needs to be merged into it, as that fails notability. Ansh6 6 6 22:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, merge any relevant, sourced info (so not the guest list, etc.) to the pages of the bride and groom. Ansh6 6 6 09:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Two newspaper announcements of a marriage does not establish notability. There are tens of thousands of marriages every year that have published announcements in prominent newspapers. That may make the individuals notable, but the marriage is just one event in their lives. Agricolae (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Heck, even the British newspapers seem not to have noticed. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think that the wedding and dress are notable in themselves, and suitable edited the content belongs in the article about Helena where some of it is already. The event seems to have been largely a private affair and the bridal party and guest list (which is probably the reason it was spun off in the first place) not obviously worth inclusion. It is appropriate to say in the main article that it was a big family event and to comment on who was and wasn't there (where was Bertie?) but in an encyclopaedia we cannot include everything. As for the dress, I am one of those who urges far better coverage of such things in Wikipedia and descriptions and illustrations are the only useful way of doing so, but this is not one that was (so far as I know) preserved and on public display, widely commented on or used as a model by others. As such it is not interesting in itself (ie notable in Wikipedia terms) unlike her mother's or her sister-in-law's and so deserving of its own article. Perhaps somebody will one day write an article on wedding dresses in Victorian Britain, or royal weddings, because there is no doubt as to their notability or continuing interest. --AJHingston (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor royalty, light on sources. Not many "royal weddings" are sufficiently notable to warrant encyclopaedic coverage, and this one appears to fail the test. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- What we have will not do. We have a hierarchy of articles one of Prince Christian (described as a minor German prince, but probably a minor scion of the Danish royal family, since Schleswig-Holstein was a possession of the Danish crown in Germany; then one on the wedding; finally one on the wedding dress. The latter seems to be the result of there being a book on wedding dresses. We do not seem to have an article on Princess Helena herself. The naswer may be to merge the wedding dress into this article, or to repurpose this article as one about her. A wedding at Osborne House sounds like a family wedding of the royal family, not a state event. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We do have an article about Princess Helena; in fact, it is a featured article. I agree with your assessment, though; the wedding was not a state event, or any kind of notable event. Surtsicna (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Royaltycruft. Neutrality^talk 15:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sink or Swim (Reality TV Series)

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

Can not find any info on this as of September 2013 Murry1975 (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only unrelated concepts or the BBC 80's sitcom found; another one of many reality concepts that didn't get past the pilot stage. Nate • (chatter) 21:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. No sources at all. Maybe a hoax. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. If not a hoax, it would still violate WP:CRYSTAL. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:37, 3 September 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 Over the Hedge. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RJ (Over the Hedge)

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

The subject does not meet WP:GNG for a stand alone article. It is just a biographical article about a fictional character in the cartoon Over the Hedge. Anything encyclopedic can be added to the main article. EricSerge (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Over the Hedge (film)~~ Over the Hedge. None of this is encyclopedic information. The character doesn't display enough notability for his own article. T C N7JM 01:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, the movie is based on the comic strip, so it's probably better to redirect to the comic strip's article. T C N7JM 01:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either existing the character description at Over the Hedge#RJ... or, as this article spends so much time speaking toward RJ's action in the film, it could point to Over the Hedge (film)#Plot. Lacks the independent notability to merit a separate article.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure the unencyclopedic content of a deleted article should be the qualifier in determining where the redirect is targeted. I think your first target seems most reasonable. T C N7JM 05:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either is fine with me, and the latter was only a nod to the film's popularity. All depends on which "RJ (racoon)" is the most searchable... the one in the comic strip or the one in the film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand,but why don't you edit this page to make it more encyclopedic? Typo385.5 (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Over the Hedge, because that came first and has more info on the character. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 13:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with redirect acceptable. Nom says it all for me. Fiddle Faddle 16:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. However I can see slight merit in a redirect to the film or comic strip article. Fylbecatulous talk 18:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Over the Hedge. The character has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to support a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangoondispenser (talk • contribs) 16:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abdallah Yaisien

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

Contested BLPPROD, ref added, but player still fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTY. Article states he played for PSG, but soccerway shows this to be the reserve team. Player has essentially played neither at senior international level, nor in a fully professional league. Fenix down (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:35, 1 September 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) 14:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:24, 2 September 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 Over the Hedge. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hammy (Over the Hedge)

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

This is not a encyclopedic article. The subject does not meet WP:GNG. It is just a biographical article about a fictional character in the cartoon Over the Hedge. Anything encyclopedic can be added to the main article. EricSerge (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Over the Hedge. This page does not consist of any encyclopedic information, and this particular character does not seem to pass notability guidelines for his own article. T C N7JM 01:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either existing the character description at Over the Hedge#Hammy... or, as this article spends so much time speaking toward Hammy's action in the film, it could point toOver the Hedge (film)#Plot. Lacks the independent notability to merit a separate article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing my concern from here, I don't think we should redirect to the plot section because the content from an article that is going to be deleted or redirected shouldn't really decide the target of a redirect, the title should. T C N7JM 05:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either is fine with me, and the latter was only a nod to the film's popularity. All depends on which "Hammy (Over the Hedge)" is the most searchable... the one in the comic strip or the one in the film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In-universe fictional character with no significant cultural impact. Carrite (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with redirect acceptable. Nom says it all for me. Fiddle Faddle 16:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Over the Hedge]. Someone could copy it to Wikia, but it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Over the Hedge. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Over the Hedge. The character has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to support a separate article. Rangoondispenser (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Ring

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

Contested unreffed BLP. Refs added, but still no indication of notability to pass WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:38, 1 September 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) 14:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, so fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 05:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficiently notable. — O'Dea (talk) 18:29, 7 September 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. postdlf (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Chuklin

AfDs for this article:

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

Sub and Local racing categories are semi-professional to non-professional, only the main category could be named as professional. Argento1985 23:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete Fails to meet WP:NMOTORSPORTS and WP:GNG. Coverage consists of routine race results and statistics. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:21, 20 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Firstly, why did no one bother to notify me of this, given that I rewrote the article and republished it? Secondly, the European F3 Open is a continental Formula 3 series, and is thus enough for notability. The nomination statement is incoherent as well, and could easily be read as "this guy's latest series is notable" - as I read it, that's what it says. Finally, I strongly feel that this is a WP:POINTy nomination, after I previously AfDed Constantinos Laifis, where Argento1985 made several unfounded personal attacks towards me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - now, but recreate when Chucklin is further up the career ladder. Store your excellent article work for now and augment to recreate article after Chuklin advances in sport.Tammytoons (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Tammytoons[reply]

If it has to go, then by all means stick it back in my userspace, and I'll accept the consensus until he moves into a higher series. I still believe he meets the guidelines, as he competes in a continental F3 series, and I still believe this nomination is an attempt at payback. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Often happens. Most editors here are not petty & spiteful, but the ones who are, REALLY, are. Don't let them bait you, ultimately, as in larger society, they cannot stop others industry and initiative, just slow it down. The F3, though, is just a rung in the ladder to F1, but just a few more steps for Chucklin.Tammytoons (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Tammytoons[reply]

The full European F3 Championship has always been enough for notability. The national-level ones are a grey area. The European F3 Open is in the middle of the two, but I believe that it is enough :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, so at worst its just one more step for Chucklin before you recreate the article. As one less experienced than you in this area, I'll have to accept your info that the full European F3 is the established summit for notability and continue to recommend the article is not created until then. Good luck. Please, don't think me rude if I don't respond again. just on to other matters. Good luck again. Tammytoons (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Tammytoons[reply]

Keep. IP 204.xxx is wrong about WP:NMOTORSPORT. Chuklin meets the requirement by driving in the European F3 Open Championship. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 28 August 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, Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale appears to be a disconnect between editors as to whether the European F3 comfers notability - more discussion required. Black Kite (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's an assertion that the subject meets WP:NMOTORSPORT and nothing (including in the nomination) to suggest otherwise. If consensus is that the F3 Open counts then he's notable by our standards. Unless there's something to suggest otherwise... Stalwart111 14:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He's not even driving in the top level of European F3 racing. I found an article that says it takes 500,000 to 1,000,000 euros to field a car and driver for an F3 season and I didn't find anything that shows there's enough prize money to cover that. WP:NMOTORSPORT requires "prize money is not trivial compared to the cost of the series". If that can be shown, the series is notable and so are the drivers. I also noticed he's not listed among the drivers for his team on the series' website. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do not base an AfD on whether a sport is profitable, so the difference between the cost and the prize is not relevant.
Chuklin is listed as a member of Emilio de Villota Motorsport... he is listed as a top 10 entrant in this official Villota blog. The European F3 Open website lists Chuklin here, and they have a brief info page about him. Furthermore, back in January they published an announcement of Chuklin joining Emilio de Villota Motorsport. I don't see any basis for your conclusions. Binksternet (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at WP:NMOTORSPORT? I quoted the section of the motorsport criteria that says whether or not driving in a particular series confers notability. It's the only section which might make Chuklin notable. So the prize money is relevant.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misread Binksternet's statement. He made the valid comment that NMOTORSPORT does not say a series needs to be profitable, merely that it needs to have a decent amount of prize money compared to the series' costs. After all, most F1 teams won't be making a profit from Formula One's prize money alone; they need the multitude of sponsorship deals to do so, and sometimes even pay drivers just to stay afloat. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Luke.
We are left with the question of whether a driver is notable for participation in the European F3 Open Championship. Some other driver biographies top out at that level, such as Arturo Llobell, Nico Verdonck, Kristján Einar, Carlos Iaconelli, Roldán Rodríguez, Victor Corrêa, and Alejandro Núñez. To me, it looks like the F3 has been accepted as giving notability. Binksternet (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bombay Jews

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

I do not see this as a topic in its own right, but present it to the community for discussion about its eventual position here. Potentially a merge target may be found? Fiddle Faddle 12:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WIthdrawn. The article has been fleshed out form the single sentence original. AfD is no longer appropriate. Fiddle Faddle 10:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure whether this deserves deletion. As per, thisThe Bene Israeli Jewish community of Bombay, are believed to be the descendants of the Jews of Israel who were shipwrecked off the Konkan coast, probably in the year 175 BCE, during the reign of the Greek ruler, Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

Jewish historian Schifra Strizower has written a book dedicated to the community, The children of Israel: the Bene Israel of Bombay. Xavier449 (talk)

Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "...fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - because the two sources highlighted above substantiate significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Stalwart111 14:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and after this debate is closed, move to "Jewish community of Mumbai", as is the standard naming practice for such articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:55, 1 September 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 Page has been userfied, and I fixed the redirect back to the article. . (non-admin closure) ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 16:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oggy (character)

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

This is not a encyclopedic article. It is just a biographical article about the main fictional character in the cartoon Oggy and the Cockroaches. Yann98 (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This fictional character doesn't seem notable enough, as per the notability guideline, for a stand-alone article. If there was any encyclopedic content, it could be merged with the article on the series, but there isn't any such content. The page, as it stands, is not encyclopedic. --Technopat (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG for a stand alone article. EricSerge (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article contains mostly OR and trivia on top of what's already in Oggy and the Cockroaches, and seems unlikely that it would ever justify the split. — daranz [ t ] 13:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Page userficated I have userficated the page to User:Typo385.5/Oggy and the Cockroaches.Please close this discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Typo385.5 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you have the page in your personal space, you're free of doing whatever you want in your page.--Yann98 (talk) 16:30, 2 September 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. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 02:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael T. Scott

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

This may seem to meet CSD, but I would rather have this go through this process. The man seems reasonably well-known in his field, and Google hits can be found, but none of the sites are reliable sources. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- I've added more reliable sources to page, and also removed statements only supported by what can be considered unreliable, such as the subject's blog. As you mention the subject is well-known in the field and there are plenty of supported links online. It could be that the article needs refinement in how it is presented, via the addition of more reliable sources, rather that just deletion. Sophruhig Vita (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm just not sure that it's significant coverage in the reliable sources you've listed; many of the other sources still don't seem notable. Don't worry, I'm not hell-bent on getting this article deleted, but have doubts about whether the subject meets WP notability guidelines. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 10:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Multiverse

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

SPAM The Banner talk 09:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know - it's clearly a real thing, even if poorly sourced. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has some sources which appear to be genuine news sources in the Dominican Republic, though I'm not sure if the TV show or contest is more notable. Are there doubts over the reliability of Dichtbij, Ciudad Oriental and Super Noticias? WP:BIAS may be relevant. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I do doubt the reliability of Dichtbij. Mostly because it the internet version of a local community paper and not a newspaper. But the article also makes clear (yes, I can read Dutch) that the Miss Multivers is all about "Women Empowerment Foundation" to support a orphanage in the Dominican Republic. The article about Women Empowerment Foundation is already removed as unambiguous advertising. Ow, and most misses of important pageants make headlines for themselves. But Yolanda Koelhoph (winner 2010) has just two hits on Google, both related to this article]. Linda Gausachs (winner 2009) has more hits, but that is not so strange as het full name is Linda Gausachs Grandia. According to Linkedin CEO & Owner Miss Multiverse - TV program Miss Multiverse - President Dominican Dutch Chamber of Commerce. And what a coincidence that the article is written by a relative new editor named Gausachs, who is prodominantly writing about, yes, Miss Multiverse. So the first winner (any proof of that?), the owner of the pageant, the president of the organising Chamber of Commerce and the writer of this article are all the same person. The Banner talk 17:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ow, and Gausachs is, as Sales and Marketing specialist, also the founder of Women Empowerment Foundation, CEO Latin American Art Museum Amersfoort (LAKMA), CEO & Founder G&G Exchange - pageants.nl. See her linkedin profile. The Banner talk 17:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 10:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS A FULLY RELIABLE SOURCE Listin Diario - number 1 news paper of Dominican Republic http://www.listindiario.com.do/la-vida/2013/8/30/290300/Concurso-de-belleza-para-todas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.33.96.75 (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Gausachs a.k.a. Grandia tells about her beauty contest. In fact, not a reliable source. It is not a third party writing about the beauty contest but plain promo. The Banner talk 16:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sorry, I usually try to avoid the beauty contest ones, but this has been trundling along a while now. I don't see any evidence of notability. What The Banner has pointed out about the conflicts of interest is also cause for concern. So, sorry - delete. Mabalu (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khartoum Sports City

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

No indication of notability. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 02:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Khartoum, perhaps create a new section on 'Sport' on that page? No evidence of independent notability but a likely search term. Giant Snowman 15:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 10:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable sports stadium. The small content that it has isn't enough to constitute it's own section in Khartoum. buff bills 7701 12:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable stadium, the national stadium is Al-Merrikh Stadium. Nothing really to redirect, particularly as there is currently no sports section in the Khartoum article. Fenix down (talk) 12:46, 1 September 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 Associação Atlética Ponte Preta. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arena Ponte Preta

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

no indication of notability. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 02:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, yes there is indication of notability in the article itself. An a quick google search gives plenty of backing for notability claims. --Soman (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Associação Atlética Ponte Preta, no evidence of independent notability but probable search term. Giant Snowman 15:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 10:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per GS. article in the Ponte Preta site indicates it is a genuine proposal, but at the moment, would be WP:CRYSTAL for its own article. If anything, the time line on the club site indicates that plans have stalled. Worth comment in the club article, but there does not appear to be sufficient detail available, or confirmation when / if the stadium will actually be built to justify standalone article. Fenix down (talk)
Redirect per GiantSnowman. --MicroX (talk) 04:29, 6 September 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.

Elissa Sursara

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. postdlf (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prateek Vijaykumar Thube

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

Article does not provide evidence that the subject is notable. Only 2 references are provided, and only 1 actually discusses the subject in any amount of detail. I found other mentions of him in other online sources, but they merely list his performance on the exam. The underlying "achievement" is achieving "248th" on a national Indian Civil Service exam. Well, by itself, that's not enough to be notable; otherwise, we'd have hundreds of articles on people like this every single year. Simply get a high mark on an exam is not sufficient to meet WP:BIO. As a side note, just to comment on something the article creator said on talk, what this person may or may not do in the future is irrelevant for Wikipedia's purposes; if he becomes notable in the future, at that point an article can be created, but we don't guess that the person might someday become notable and then create an article in anticipation of that time. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly CSD A7. He's got a bachelor's degree; he passed a civil service exam. These are utterly mundane life achievements. Not a hint of biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 19:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Hardly any notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable. Actually I had added PROD to the article this morning, which the creator of the article, removed with this edit without giving any reason, very strange, has a habit of blanking out talk page.. --Ekabhishek^talk 17:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Securing 248^th rank in IAS exam is surely an achievement, but not enough to pass WP:GNG. After reading the article and searching in Google I can not find any other notable work. --Tito☸Dutta 19:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor mention in (very) local press does not meet the WP:GNG test. Subject's achievements, personally commendable though they me, do not establish real-world notability in any particular field. Abecedare (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No shit, 248th?? -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:01, 4 September 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 (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban) by User:Someguy1221 (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 02:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet Marketing Association

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

It appears that the citations used in this article are either self-referential (i.e., they link to the home page of the business organization mentioned in the article's title-- "imanetwork.org") or consist of press releases or publications of dubious neutrality. The chairman and founder of the organization has made no less than four failed attempts on his own or through his Morning277 minions to create a Wikipedia article about him specifically (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinan Kanatsiz (businessman) for the latest failed attempt and to links to the three which preceded it) and I am concerned that this article is simply another effort to elevate the company's Google ranking by making something out of what is, at its core, a non-notable organization with an Internet-savvy set of independent contractors making a buck by trying to present the company as notable, and that it is using Wikipedia as a tool to try to accomplish this. Someone look objectively at the evidence and the history and tell me I am wrong. Me, I think I smell something amiss here, and for now am moving to see it Deleted. KDS4444^Talk 09:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC) KDS4444^Talk 09:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I confirm your observations. The links at the article are not from Independent Reliable Sources, and I could find nothing but press releases at Google News Archive. And guess what: as with Sinan Kanatsiz, there was a previous deletion under another name. An article titled "Internet Marketing Association" was speedied in 2011. We may want to salt both names. --MelanieN (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A ha! I knew it! KDS4444^Talk 17:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I also just checked the page creator's contribution history... Classic Morning277 stuff. Have flagged the account and nominated everything else he's created for deletion as well. View my own contribution history for details. KDS4444^Talk 18:56, 2 September 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 Predacons. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rampage (Transformers)

AfDs for this article:

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

This article only discusses primary information in the form of plot information and toy details, and it has nothing to establish notability. TTN (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Predacons. No evidence of real-world notability. It's a little problematic because of the multiple characters with the same name, but that is no reason for keeping. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Predacons. Trivial mentions in the cited sources do not establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Zampedroni

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mario Zampedroni

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

Delete per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:SqueakBox and paid editing (again) Jane (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article was previously deleted from the German wikipedia and has now been deleted from the Norwegian Wikipedia no:Wikipedia:Sletting/Mario Zampedroni. Documenting the links here for future reference to others. Jane (talk) 11:48, 5 September 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 September 1. Snotbot t • c » 08:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. This artist is totally non-notable. I have included my tailored version of the not-yet-accepted WP:Notability (artists) on the talk page. Jane (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also article deletion discussion on dewiki 8 Maart 2012:de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/8._März_2012#Mario_Zampedroni_.28gel.C3.B6scht.29 -- this looks like multi-project spam. Jane (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also the article deletion discussion on eswiki: es:Wikipedia:Consultas de borrado/Mario Zampedroni. There they discovered that Sergey Zagraevsky is the sole source, and this person is himself totally non-notable (a member of a "Russian art critics academy" with total 40 members is not notable unless the art he has critized made the news, which is not the case here) Jane (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The United Art Rating, one of the sources of the article, is smth Zagraevsky created basically himself and published at his website. It can not create notability in any sense.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Part of a Wikipedia:Walled garden series of articles. United Art Rating not a reliable source for determining notability (itself being NN). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DIRECTORY and WP:VSCA. I don't see a walled garden, nor do I have a problem with paid editing per se. However, the subject's claim to fame is rather tenuous – "one of 10,000" doesn't inspire much confidence, and there's precious little out there on this artist. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A "Wikipedia Walled Garden" usually has articles linking back to them. This article's primary source use the United Art Rating as a primary source without linking to it. If you search with this rating in the references of articles you will find the walled garden. Jane (talk) 07:15, 4 September 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 Plane (Dungeons & Dragons). The content of the article has already been merged. Redirecting source article. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neth

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

This has nothing to establish the notability of the topic. TTN (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lacks third party coverage necessary for a stand alone article - transwiki, delete, or merge if there is appropriate content and an appropriate target. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Plane (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Plane (Dungeons & Dragons). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Plane (Dungeons & Dragons). Luckily, it looks like someone already did all the hard work. In this case, it amounts to a redirect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Octopus Micro Finance Suite

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

No evidence of significant independent coverage of product's existence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Chased down a half-dozen promising leads and found nothing but software repositories and press releases. Doesn't meet guidelines of WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. If someone can come up with a reasonable redirect, I'd support that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:32, 3 September 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 Speedied A7 - far too soon for an article. Peridon (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Jones (tennis)

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

This player has no notability at all per NSports or Tennis project guidelines. Jr players need to have won a jr grand slam tournament or been ranked 1,2 or 3 in the world. This player isn't even close and really should be a quick delete. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is currently nominated for speedy deletion (nominated by another user). Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:47, 1 September 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. —SpacemanSpiff 18:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amanita muscaria var. formosa

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

This is the wrong/outdated species name. Some old field guides and many websites still use it but the new more accepted name by mycologists is Amanita muscaria var. guessowii, which there is already a more developed article for. Even one of the sources on the formosa article uses guessowii for the species name. Sources:

--Dejitarob (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator
I withdraw my nomination for deletion. See below. --Dejitarob (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the good name. N.B. A. muscaria is the species name, not formosa or guessowii. LadyofShalott 23:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep: the featured article, Amanita muscaria indicates that these are two extant varieties (although it does sound like there is some taxonomic disagreement). LadyofShalott 00:11, 18 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amanita muscaria var. guessowii. The var. formosa article contains no unique information that would be lost. All of it plus more is already contained in the var. guessowii article. It appears to be the more developed version of the two. I know of no taxonomist who has proposed var. formosa over var. guessowii. Jenkins in 1986 is cited as the only taxonomist using var. formosa in the Amanita muscaria article. --Dejitarob (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - from what I can tell on the main article, the species has multiple subspecies, formosa and guessowii among them. There's no reason to delete or redirect if they're accepted as such, even if the exact definition is at times disputed. Ansh6 6 6 22:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many subspecies will have similar information. It's hard to understand the delete rationale, but two different subspecies can be two different articles, certainly not a redirect from one to the other. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:15, 9 September 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. —SpacemanSpiff 18:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cassiopeia (TVXQ)

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

We don't list fanclubs, and I don't see why we would have an article on an official fanclub. Note that the sourcing is all K-pop fan portals, basically. A note in the TVXQ article is fine, but a separate article on a fanclub is not. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its the biggest fan club in the world with 800,000 members, it won a Guiness World Record for that, and the source seems to come from a news channel (not a fan portal) -A1candidate (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claim to Guinness World Record is unverified and probably untrue. This source is not reliable, but an anonymous person claims that Guinness says there is no such record. A search of the Guinness website shows no such record for "biggest fandom" or "biggest fan club". Google search "Guinness biggest fan club" and the only hits are blog sites talking about Cassiopeia. How unlikely that no one else has ever awarded this Guinness World Record except Cassiopeia. Looks like a big joke gone viral (though no doubt the fan club exists). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and I've removed that claim regarding the world record. But there's no question Cassiopeia is the largest fan club in South Korea and its well known in other parts of the world too

Secondary sources describing the popularity of Cassiopeia

"Cassiopeia, the band's official fan club, has more than 800,000 official members just in South Korea, more than 200,000 official members in Japan (BigEast) and more than 200,000 international fans (iCassies)."

Handbook of social media management value chain and business models in changing media markets (PDF). Springer Science+Business Media. 2013. pp. 549–564. ISBN 978-3-642-28896-8. Retrieved 23 August 2013. {{cite book}}: |first= missing |last= (help)

"From just 40 people that attended the first meeting, Cassiopeia Philippines now has over 1,000 members and is growing as more Filipino teens join the organization."

M. Hicap, Jonathan. "Filipinos Get Hooked on K-Pop Craze". The Korea Times. Retrieved 23 August 2013. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

If you wish to claim otherwise, then please provide a reliable source. -A1candidate (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well the proper question is if they are a topic that is discussed in multiple reliable sources in depth, per WP:GNG. The problem is if their self-reported Guinness claim is questionable (ie. they are known to exaggerate), then their self-reported claim of being the largest is also questionable (the 800,000 is self-reported on their website and echoed in some articles). And if we were to remove the 800,000 claim, there isn't much left to say about the group. The sources are brief mentions, there are no in-depth articles about the organization itself. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:12, 23 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:FANCRUFT – fans overestimating their self-importance. Best case redirect to TVXQ. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:27, 4 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Fuller (artist)

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

The quality of the sourcing, 7 of 9 references are from the artist's own sites, certainly does ring alarm bells about general notability/promotional tone. Minichoan (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A couple of pieces of her public works have been noted in guidebooks as landmarks or points of interest. See her big shoe, and her big shovel. Behind a paywall but the summary shows that a sculpture has been exhibited at the Skokie Northshore Sculpture Park. This paywalled article has no summary bu the google summary from the search result reads " Chicago artist Victoria Fuller (in the shoe) tells City Museum visitors how she designed and constructed her ...". Looking for things not paywalled, there is this item. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - There is a 3 page bio here and most of the information not sourced and from what is sourced, 7 of 9 of the references are from the artist's own sites. That doesn't leave much. Minichoan (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As nominator, your nomination is already taken as a recommendation to delete. The current state of an article does not determine notability. That the referencing needs improvement can be done through normal editting. -- Whpq (talk) 03:54, 22 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WD. She looks as though she could just about squeeze past with the content that is there, but the article is full of coatracking and name-dropping, and so reads like an advert. It needs a serious copyedit at best. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - tone and content can be fixed by editting, and is not a good reason for deletion. What is your position based on notability since you seem to believe she could just about squeak by? -- Whpq (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be easy enough to reduce it to a reasonable size, but there's no point if she is not notable. I see no works in major museums, no major awards, no publications. The reviews see to be those for her work as part of a group show, or to be a mere listing of an exhibit. It is possible that a more modest article might not have been noticed for deletion. but content such as which apartments she has lived in for a borderline notable person shows a clear and unambiguous promotional intent; tho we go by results rather than intent, when the result matches the intent here. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:26, 9 September 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 Connecticut Death Quads. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ron-A-Roll Skating Center

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

Seems to non notable skating center. The team may be notable but this article gives no indication that this facility is. Kumioko (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue should not be treated under the perception above. The team playing in the facility is notable. Their performances or matches in the venue marks historical records or evidence for their league. Consider a home of a historical person of interest. A home may look unassuming and possibly pale by comparison to design next to another. Nonetheless, it isn't the aesthetic value of the exterior that is always measured; instead it is the ___domain and what it represents. Hence the designation of certain landmarks for homes of historical figures. This case is similar, not in the sense of a landmark, but the identity and association of a team. If we undermine the connection, then we should start disassociating every historical venue of every team during their early beginnings. NYCWikiKid (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. T C N7JM 03:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. T C N7JM 03:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite what NYCWikiKid said, this is non-notable. I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 16:24, 17 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Connecticut Death Quads which mentions the team's association with the arena. No in-depth coverage of the arena in itself. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:40, 2 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HD 154577

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to appropriate list article. I looked carefully at each of the cited sources. This object is not singled out for any special coverage in the sources. It is one of dozens, and in some cases hundreds, of other stars studied. No evidence of significant coverage is provided here, or available, that I can find. This wouldn't pass WP:GNG, nor WP:NASTRO. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an excellent example of WP:NASTRO failure, as explained in this thread. Lots of third party, sourced information allows us to build a perfectly encyclopedic article, without any need of original research, even if no single source is fully devoted to it. --cyclopia ^speak! 09:44, 11 September 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. postdlf (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roeland Paardekooper

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 00:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to meet the notability standard or to have received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:PROF. probable WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity autobiography. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:37, 4 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RBI Belapur

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

An entirely non notable sub office of the Reserve Bank of India created in good faith by a new user. There is a merge flag present to suggest that any retrievable information be merged into the parent article. However it looks as if there is no useful information in this article, so I am suggesting formal deletion. Fiddle Faddle 09:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. RBI has far too many regional offices which neither deserve mention on the RBI article page nor to they deserve a stand alone page. It is as good as having stand alone pages for the various branches of any bank for that matter.--PremKudva^Talk 11:51, 19 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a major financial institution for a state, not a retail bank. It is comparable with the branches of the US Federal Reserve and we have a page for each of those - see List of Federal Reserve branches and category:Federal Reserve Branches. To delete Indian institutions while maintaining US equivalents would be systemic bias. The article was nominated for deletion immediately after creation and so no time has been allowed for improvement per our editing policy. There are plenty of sources out there such as History of the Reserve Bank of India; The Reserve Bank of India; The Cambridge Economic History of India. The worst case is merger up to the main article about the parent institution so, per WP:ATD, there's no reason to delete. Warden (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Warden. SL7968 10:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Actually even those Federal Reserve branch articles are not notable. The information in it or in the RBI article don't make them useful or encyclopaedic.--PremKudva^Talk 05:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:54, 1 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RBI Kochi

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

A non notable sub office of the Reserve Bank of India created in good faith by a new user. The Currency Chest Office may have a limited notability, but its function is simply as a cash distribution centre. There is a merge flag present to suggest that any retrievable information be merged into the parent article. However it looks as if there is no useful information in this article apart from the currency chest item, and even that is of small importance, so I am suggesting formal deletion. Fiddle Faddle 09:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. RBI has far too many regional offices which neither deserve mention on the RBI article page nor to they deserve a stand alone page. It is as good as having stand alone pages for the various branches of any bank for that matter.--PremKudva^Talk 11:50, 19 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a major financial institution for a state, not a retail bank. It is comparable with the branches of the US Federal Reserve and we have a page for each of those - see List of Federal Reserve branches and category:Federal Reserve Branches. To delete Indian institutions while maintaining US equivalents would be systemic bias. The article was nominated for deletion immediately after creation and so no time has been allowed for improvement per our editing policy. There are plenty of sources out there such as History of the Reserve Bank of India; The Reserve Bank of India; The Cambridge Economic History of India. The worst case is merger up to the main article about the parent institution so, per WP:ATD, there's no reason to delete. Warden (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Warden. SL7968 10:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Actually even those Federal Reserve branch articles are not notable. The information in it or in the RBI article don't make them useful or encyclopaedic.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:52, 1 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RBI Chandigarh

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

A non notable sub office of the Reserve Bank of India created in good faith by a new user. The currency chest function may have some small notability, but it appears to be just a bank branch. There is a merge flag present to suggest that any retrievable information be merged into the parent article. However it looks as if there is no useful information in this article, so I am suggesting formal deletion. Fiddle Faddle 09:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. RBI has far too many regional offices which neither deserve mention on the RBI article page nor to they deserve a stand alone page. It is as good as having stand alone pages for the various branches of any bank for that matter.--PremKudva^Talk 11:50, 19 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just ridiculous. I am astounded. - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a major financial institution for a state, not a retail bank. It is comparable with the branches of the US Federal Reserve and we have a page for each of those - see List of Federal Reserve branches and category:Federal Reserve Branches. To delete Indian institutions while maintaining US equivalents would be systemic bias. The article was nominated for deletion immediately after creation and so no time has been allowed for improvement per our editing policy. There are plenty of sources out there such as History of the Reserve Bank of India; The Reserve Bank of India; The Cambridge Economic History of India. The worst case is merger up to the main article about the parent institution so, per WP:ATD, there's no reason to delete. Warden (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Actually even those Federal Reserve branch articles are not notable. The information in it or in the RBI article don't make them useful or encyclopaedic.--PremKudva^Talk 05:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the extensive digging by Warden. SL 7968 10:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:50, 1 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RBI Bhopal

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

An entirely non notable sub office of the Reserve Bank of India created in good faith by a new user. There is minor notoriety in that it was defrauded of a large sum of money, but this is just one event in the life of a bank branch. There is a merge flag present to suggest that any retrievable information be merged into the parent article. However it looks as if there is no useful information in this article apart from the minor notoriety, so I am suggesting formal deletion. Fiddle Faddle 09:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. RBI has far too many regional offices which neither deserve mention on the RBI article page nor to they deserve a stand alone page. It is as good as having stand alone pages for the various branches of any bank for that matter.--PremKudva^Talk 11:50, 19 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a major financial institution for a state, not a retail bank. It is comparable with the branches of the US Federal Reserve and we have a page for each of those - see List of Federal Reserve branches and category:Federal Reserve Branches. To delete Indian institutions while maintaining US equivalents would be systemic bias. The article was nominated for deletion immediately after creation and so no time has been allowed for improvement per our editing policy. There are plenty of sources out there such as History of the Reserve Bank of India; The Reserve Bank of India; The Cambridge Economic History of India. The worst case is merger up to the main article about the parent institution so, per WP:ATD, there's no reason to delete. Warden (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Actually even those Federal Reserve branch articles are not notable. The information in it or in the RBI article don't make them useful or encyclopaedic.--PremKudva^Talk 05:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:49, 1 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steam into History

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

Not notable. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, GHits limited to promotional sites, social media, and the one local paper. GNews limited to the local paper, no widespread coverage from multiple sources. Previously speedily deleted as promotional. GregJackP Boomer! 05:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Objection to proposed deletion of Steam into History page. It has been updated to include organization details, citations and references. The company exists, is in full operation, and has moderate media coverage. User talk:fjd1990 09:43, 26 August 2013

The fact that the company exists and is operating is not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. It has to be notable, which unfortunately it is not. You have references, but the only ones that discuss the subject of the article are local, and you need more to meet the notability requirements. For example, you cite the NY Times, but is from 1863 on the historic railroad and has nothing to do with the current enterprise. GregJackP Boomer! 14:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far media coverage has been quite extensive in Pennsylvania news outlets. Due to the local nature of the organization, combined with its fairly recent inauguration, it has not garnered "national" coverage, but that should not diminish the notability of the county and state news outlets which have documented said organization. User talk:fjd1990 18:40, 26 August 2013

Uh, you may want to re-read WP:CORPDEPTH - you just listed three items that the policy expressly states are not suitable for establishing notability. The policy also states "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." You just admitted that there is not such coverage at this time. GregJackP Boomer! 01:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I admitted to there not being national coverage, however I have claimed that there is extensive regional coverage. The definition of what is considered regional can easily be debated, especially in this situation where cited media outlets are circulated on a state-wide level. User talk:fjd1990 14:30, 27 August 2013

Delete - Clearly just used for advertising. aycliffe ^talk 07:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again I protest. The format of this wikipedia page is based on numerous other tourist railroad operations. It is intended to be informative, not promotional. Please see Strasburg Rail Road, Conway Scenic Railroad, and Essex Steam Train, three wiki pages which I have used as guidance for the formatting of Steam Into History. If one believes that by simply describing an operation is advertising, then almost every enterprise with a wikipedia page is merely promotional and should be erased. User talk:fjd1990 11:30, 29 August 2013.

OK, when you look to delete an article, you have to check for possible sources prior to nominating the article. A check of Google for Strasburg shows references in published books, as does Conway. Essex has coverage from the NY Times and Newsday, in addition to at least one Florida paper. All of that goes to notability, while a similar check of Steam into History does not show significant coverage. GregJackP Boomer! 23:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a "regional" source is considered to be of a notable nature. I have argued that based on the ambiguous definition of the word "regional", you can certainly consider my sources to be regional based on their state-wide circulation. As for the other railroads (which I only used as an example to disprove the accusation of trying to advertise for Steam Into History by showing the typical wiki formatting of a tourist railroad company) Essex and Conway may have notable sources for coverage, however they are not used for citations on their wikipedia page and yet both companies have been included here. User talk:fjd1990 10:15, 30 August 2013

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:GNG based on extensive news coverage in Pennsylvania sources plus coverage in The Baltimore Sun[21][22]. Article does still have something of a promotional tone, and that problem should be addressed. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Passes WP:GNG. Thorough documentation of railroad in various, credited media outlets. If the article appears to have a promotional tone, it is not intentional. Wiki users are free and welcome to make revisions where they deem so necessary, but the page should remain. User talk:fjd1990 15:20, 5 September 2013. You're only allowed to !vote once, and you did so above with "Objection to proposed deletion..." --| Uncle Milty | talk | 02:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hula Girl

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

non-notable software, no citations in article and none found via google [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At present I am uncertain whether the Hula Girl download can be considered notable. I searched for independent professional reviews of it and found none. However, if you Google 'Hula Girl download' you will find the software available, maybe always free, from a number of sources. This software is merely a light-hearted edition to the user's computer dashboard and maybe no one thought a review was needed. In the article itself some problems that have to be resolved if this article is to remain. The I am not American video is merely a Youtube video. Two links in the article allow downloads of the software, Dashboard Widgets and Apple's website. However, the reviews on the Dashboard Widgets website are public online reviews (not considered very reliable). Four links in the article (Clubhouse54, petikas, John Williams, and the particular subaddress to the MacUpdate subsite) are dead links or broken. The link to Pennypacker does reach the site, but nothing on it mentions Hula Girl. I await to see what someone else finds before I cast a vote on this article. Bill Pollard (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—massively popular topic, but the popularity hasn't engendered the kind of commentary on which we could hang an article. Thanks to Bill Pollard for the legwork. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It has been almost a week since I posted my comments and no one has come up with any reasons why this is notable. It seems ironic, since most days I am on the internet I see adverts for various Hula Girl download and car dashboard products. Bill Pollard (talk) 13:33, 6 September 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. postdlf (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Param Singh

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

Is this person really notable? thisisace (talk) 09:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Looks NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 17 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject has had a couple of reality tv appearances and some conference listings etc., but nothing indicates biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 09:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the sources are "trivial" or are show write-ups, nothing worthy nor biographical. A sikh known for wearing a turban... a legend in his own mind, maybe. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lex-Warrier

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

This article has references, but those I have checked appear only to mention the entity in passing. No serious notability is asserted, but there was sufficient to disqualify it from CSD. Non notable corporation Fiddle Faddle 10:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LAUDABLE EFFORT! A MUST ON WIKEPEDIA OR ELSE MASSES WOULD BE DEPRIVED OF SHEER INTELLECT OF THE UPCOMING LEGAL TALENT. I INSIST THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE THERE FOR WIKI READERS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.112.239.36 (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatantly promotional Deb (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being a frequent visitor to Lex-Warrier, I could say that, they publish high quality articles on various subjects on law, which could really serve handy for a researcher or a student to refer. I feel, Wikipedia shall retain this page however, if required shall be edited... (Comment by Hari)

The discussion is not about whether they publish high-quality articles but whether they are notable. I publish high-quality articles in my own blog, but it's not notable.Deb (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 24 August 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, —SpacemanSpiff 04:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I could come up with was the ISSN of the journal and a couple of passing mentions. —SpacemanSpiff 17:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keilah West

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG Sourov0000 (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think a PROD would have sufficed. This would be CSD territory if A7 covered books. T C N7JM 13:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to satisfy WP:Notability (books). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Branom

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

Not a Notable Person, seems like another personal article for some unknown singer. Tyros1972 Talk 11:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete Although the article provides a dozen references, none are from Reliable Sources (we're talking Facebook and even answers.com). A Google News search found only a passing mention in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. None of of his bands seems notable enough for a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:21, 1 September 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. postdlf (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ReZound

AfDs for this article:

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

Cannot find anything whatsoever about this software. Not notable. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 13:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Aside from a single paragraph at brighthub I'm not seeing anything in the way of reliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wasseem Kabbara

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

Fails WP:GNG has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Best I can find is brief mentions in two sources: LA Times and Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Not really enough to establish notability. If someone else can locate better or more sources, I see no reason why he can't have an article. Right now, he just doesn't seem to be notable enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tough to know if this is legit. I'm not from overseas, but looks like it could be ad for the guy to raise money in US — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imurfunkeymonkey (talk • contribs) 22:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dialogue as Way of Life

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

Fails WP:NBOOK; was deprodded anonymously with no explanation. TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 16:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet our notability guidelines, a search for any sources/reviews turns up nothing; I clicked through to the sources included in the page and they don't mention the book either, at least one of them was published before the book too! —SpacemanSpiff 17:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bliss of Being Human

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

Fails WP:NBOOK; was deprodded anonymously with no explanation. TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 16:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 22:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another one that a search for reviews/sources turns up nothing, the page is also self referential as it uses the book as a source. —SpacemanSpiff 17:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon Island, Dubai

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

fails GNG. lack of RS. also WP:TOOSOON. (and no CSD for buildings/construction projects) [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 17:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see the coverage needed to establish notability for a possibly proposed construction project. Not sure if MEED is a reliable source but their article dated 16 October 2008 would appear to be just routine business news stating the developer is poking around for contractors interested in some possible work. Prior to this, the developer appeared to have denied the existence of the project. In any case, both articles date to 2008, and I can find no recent sourcing to indicate this project ever got off the ground. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, and I honestly think the article creator assumed the project went ahead, whereas it was just an idea floated in 2008 and hasn't attracted much press, accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dezmond Sherrod

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

His only professional experience has been in the UFL, which is not enough to satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON. He has been a practice squad member of two NFL teams, but hasn't appeared in any NFL games as far as I can tell. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; one source is not enough to show notability nor qualify for notability. 184.158.96.194 (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are other sources available, one that I just added. I don't necessarily think that meets the WP:GNG guidelines though. He may have achieved notability through his college play.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Whitlock

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

The sources provided contain no mention of the subject, Jack Whitlock. He seems to be a non-notable player on a non-notable team. He has apparently been playing competitive volleyball for a grand total of one year. Benboy00 (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Volleyball is not a major sport in UK. The number of redlinks for clubs and leagues again points to a NN subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing shows he meets WP:GNG or any sporting criteria.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:58, 5 September 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 Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Distortion World

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

Recommend merge into Pokemon Diamond and Pearl Benboy00 (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Procedural close AfD is not the place to suggest merges. You should tag the articles with the proper merging templates. Dea db eef 06:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Redirect to Pokemon Diamond and Pearl now that the nommer is nominating for deletion. Dea db eef 01:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to change my suggestion to delete, as this article doesnt seem to have any keep-worthy content. If the content must be kept, then it can be merged, otherwise it should be deleted. Benboy00 (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pokemon Diamond and Pearl. Ansh6 6 6 22:45, 1 September 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 Speedied A7 with consideration to the copyvio of the Kickstarter article, and possible hoax in the dating. Peridon (talk)

Onarbor

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

This article is about a company that does not seem to be notable. There are only two sources listed which it does not own. One is Alexa, showing no data for their site, and the other is a bloomberg article that does not apparently exist. I cannot find any mention of it using google news, and google searches come up with self-made profiles on social media websites. I chose not to speedy-delete because of the length of the article, but this may have been the wrong decision. I would welcome some community input. Benboy00 (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably CSD G3 Large parts of this article appear to have been copied from Kickstarter - see in particular the paragraph commencing "The business has grown quickly" with identical numbers of projects and pledges. These accomplishments for 2010-3 would be a remarkable feat if this site is indeed launching on September 28, 2013. As it stands, this appears to be a Hoax based on copying another page. AllyD (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Al Andalus Mall

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

unable to find RS to establish GNG. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this is (presumably) the same article as Alandalus Mall, created by the same editor and previously deleted. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 06:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : I can't find any sources either. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : No sources, and the article itself is not notable. Carwile2 (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire (Kinoko Nasu)

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

This is a list of minute fictional details that have little potential for secondary sources or any sort of reception information. The majority of the characters aren't significant to any work, and those that are major already have information listed in List of Tsukihime characters. TTN (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Asserts no notability and exists solely to catalog the minutiae of a fictional world. I don't see how it could be expanded beyond primary sources. Someone should probably copy this over to Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:50, 3 September 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 A Landscape of Lies. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 02:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aoife Madden

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

After reading an article by The Guardian and reading this, I came to the conclusion that this producer is WP:BLP1E, which was for her conviction, like a majority of criminals. Plus all but one of those sources from anything other than her scam are from her IMDB page. Donnie Park (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A Landscape of Lies, which summarizes the 1E adequately. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or merge) to A Landscape of Lies. Her activities earlier seem to have been thoroughly NN. It might be worth merging something from her bio into the article on the fraud. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - this producer would never be notable, except for the crime. This ends up reading as if it is an unintentional coatrack (yes, I know, that's impossible under the theory of inchoate offenses). It's another one of these negative, lightly sourced BLPs that have appeared at AfD recently. Even if it's kept, it would need to be re-written from scratch. No objection to a redirect. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A Landscape of Lies. The narrative there is sufficient. — O'Dea (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Researchers

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

There seems to be no indication of notability, the author works for the organisation, and the page is written like an advert, although not strongly enough to merit speedy deletion. Benboy00 (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Makes big claim: support by two Nobel laureates.. which may be true, or not - unable to verify. The only source that seems usable is this Nature blog profile of the founder.[23] Need a couple more like that in notable journals, magazines or newspapers. Otherwise unable to find multiple reliable sources that discuss the topic in depth, per WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable Facebook page. --Michig (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ebseg

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

advertising The Banner talk 01:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article packed with a dense proportion of biz-buzzwords per sentence but no solid references. A firm going about its business, but no encyclopaedic notability. (I do love the idea that the firm "lunched a unique solutions" though.) AllyD (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No properly sourced claim of notability in the article, and I didn't find sources that would demonstrate notability. --Michig (talk) 05:57, 8 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Landres

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

This article seems like it might be promotional, and I can't see any real indications of notability. I did not tag as speedy delete because I would like some community input here, especially as this article has 13 sources. It should perhaps be noted that the author of this page has only contributed to wiki by creating this article and the article on Jumpstart, the company that this person is CEO of. Benboy00 (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (changing to Keep, see below) It's not clear what he is supposed to be notable for, or what criterion can be used to justify an article about him. He claims to be a scholar, and he has written a few things. Google Scholar finds him as co-editor of three books; however, they are not often cited (the article describes Personal Knowledge and Beyond as "frequently cited"; GS gives it a total of 38 citations). He does not appear to have any academic or university appointment. So there is no basis for WP:ACADEMIC. That leaves WP:GNG, and he doesn't qualify there despite the article's breathless claims of "worldwide headlines" for things he does. At Google News I found a mention of him and Jumpstart at this item from the Wall Street Journal, otherwise nothing significant. The article could be redirected to Jumpstart but I have doubts about its notability as well. --MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry MelanieN, have to disagree with you on both counts here. You don't need a university appointment to be considered an academic (and the article describes him as an "Independent Scholar"). For someone as young as Landres, 38 citations is no small matter within the realm of Jewish scholarship. Furthermore, Landres is at the center of the "Jewish emergent" movement -- a group of non-profits that is rapidly growing in size and influence. This is demonstrated by the attention that the White House has paid to it over the past several years. I think that this is a very well-source, balanced, and credible article. Truly see no reason to delete it. NathaneMiller10 (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)— NathaneMiller10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Over the past week, there are multiple SPA IP accounts devoted only to expanding this article (User:128.111.61.74, User:128.111.61.65, User:128.111.61.93, User:128.111.61.79, User:128.111.61.96, User:128.111.61.95, User:128.111.61.90) which I believe are accounts used by the article subject...probably also article creator User:Dbauth, too, as his/her only contributions to Wikipedia involve Landres and his work. Landres might one day warrant his own article but it should be less self-aggrandizing and self-promotional (that is, written by someone other than Landres). Right now, it resembles a bio that would appear on the subject's own website, not Wikipedia. It doesn't matter how many footnotes it has, he still doesn't meet WP standards of notability, especially for an academic (as the lead paragraph asserts that Landres is primarily known for his scholarship). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Transclude I am not new to reading and using Wikipedia, though I am new to editing and commenting. I hope this will not count against my comments here. I am familiar both with the material referenced in this article and with the subject himself. Liz may be right that scholarship alone may not make him notable, but that may only reflect a poorly-written entry. Landres's increasing notability in Jewish communal circles seems evident; is that enough for Wikipedia standards? The challenge is that even if Landres's notability on its own may be debatable, he seems deserving of mentions in a number of articles on different topics; some (though hardly all) of his writings are notable relative to those specific topics. I have adapted/transcluded some of the material from this article into relevant entries (I am not sure how to list them here but I was logged in when I did it). There also is material I did not have time to incorporate - a Google search on his name suggests a major recent publication by his organization (and co-authored by Landres, with one co-author who is already in Wikipedia) that may add to this subject's notability. On balance, I would be inclined to retain this article but at the very least I would transclude it to relevant other entries. If it is transcluded, though, then it may be necessary to create a brief new entry on "Jewish emergent" or expand the existing "Emergent church" article to include other religions). BrntwdCrtc (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)— BrntwdCrtc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I think some of the material in this article could be included within the pages on the associated organizations and, if anything, this profile should be a stub. There are very important and influential people in the world who have Wikipedia biographies a third the size of this one. It's way too long and detailed in comparison with his notability and some of the claims are inflated (it is implied, for example, that he impacted the campaign of President Clinton when he was a graduate student). It resembles coverage a person would get for a cover story in a national magazine, not a simple encyclopedia entry.

Plus, there is a huge question of authorship of the article, WP:COI and WP:NPOV. I wouldn't be against keeping the portion of this article that pertains to his work in the Jewish emergent movement in Los Angeles but that is a small part of a much longer biography presented. If this article is retained, much pruning should occur. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Horribly promotional, no convincing claim to notability. --Michig (talk) 05:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This discussion, the edit history of the article and the linking to the article positively reeks of socks. I'm starting a sock case to hopefully clean some of that up. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dbauth. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New readers, please refer to this investigation when considering this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is currently still being actively edited so I think before a final decision is made, whoever closes this request should check back and see if the article has improved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my opinion to Keep based on the new references added to the article, including many from mainstream Reliable Sources such as the Orange County Register, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, etc. He still fails WP:ACADEMIC but he does pass WP:GNG in my opinion. By the way, I just spent about 15 minutes fixing all the coding errors in the references; there were two or three different KINDS of coding errors, which leads me to think that more than one person was involved in the recent edits to the article. They may all be special purpose accounts, and they might be WP:meatpuppets, but I doubt if we are looking at WP:Sockpuppets. They appear to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia, but in different ways. --MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I consider the Forward list as a major contributor to notability. The article needs some considerable editing for tone. Perhaps we should have a way of saying, keep, provided the previous contributors keep away from the article. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there was some option between Keep and Delete when an article basically needs to be stripped down to the basics and edited to suit WP style. But unless a reader here wants to take that responsibility on (like MelanieN thoughtfully did), I'm not sure if there is a third option like Probation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There actually is a middle ground or third option; it's "Merge/Redirect to Jumpstart." --MelanieN (talk) 04:41, 10 September 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) | Uncle Milty | talk | 02:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor & Park

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

Non-notable book. Fails WP: GNG and WP: NBOOK ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 07:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reviewed in numerous reliable sources. Google does not know all. LadyofShalott 03:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple reliable reviews. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even the initial stub of this article demonstrated likely notability (a substantial New York Times review), and the sources and improvements added since bear this out.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:18, 1 September 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.