Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 September	11 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Land

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

This article is solely based on rumors and speculation. What Wikipedia is not states "speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." In this case, verification is provided through a Blogspot post and a fansite, both of which are not reliable sources. Although reliable sources could potentially be found to improve this article, they would only be verifying the fact that there are rumors and speculation, not that there is any merit to it. Themeparkgc Talk 23:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete While there is actually a ton of reliable sourcing discussing the rumored project, all of it is speculative. Too soon. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a projected part of a theme park set to open in 2018/2022 is way too soon. Ansh6 6 6 08:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; too soon for an article as sources to date have yet to confirm the land and/or provide significant information about it. Gong show 03:12, 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) 03:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Land (Disney)

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

This article is largely based on rumors and speculation. What Wikipedia is not states "speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." The first source, a Wall Street Journal blog post, could be considered a reliable source to verify that John Tsang stated Hong Kong Disneyland "will add an area featuring “Marvel heroes”". This source does not state the area will be called "Marvel Land" nor the stated opening date of 2017. The second source is a Blogspot post which would not be considered a reliable source, and therefore cannot verify that "Marvel Land" is being installed at Walt Disney Studios Park in 2023. Although other reliable sources could potentially be found to improve this article, they would only be verifying the facts that a) Tsang stated the park would be getting something themed to Marvel, or b) there are rumors and speculation, not that there is any merit to it. Themeparkgc Talk 23:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a projected part of a theme park set to open in 2017/2023 is way too soon. Ansh6 6 6 08:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; too soon for an article as sources to date have yet to confirm the land and/or provide significant information about it. Gong show 03:12, 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 Speedy deleted. by User:Rmhermen as G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crusader tetra

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

WP:PROMOTION and WP:FAILN ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to not meet WP:N or the supplementary essay Wikipedia:Notability (video games). Zero Google News archive and Google books hits (except for the Wikipedia article). Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:23, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Papali'i

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

Person of marginal notability, and according to the talk page he has requested that his article be deleted gadfium 22:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 22:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 22:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)-gadfium 22:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article looks like it was created by someone with a COI who tried to delete negative material and failing that tried to have the article deleted. While that is insufficient cause for deletion on its own, the subject of this is to minor to deserve an article in the first place. I feel that they fail WP:POLITICIAN as the sources provided don't seem to constitute "significant coverage". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article was requested to be deleted by the living person of the biography as we were just trying to contribute this is entirely hypocritical you choose a proposal for deletion when the person is not noteworthy but as soon as you have the opportunity to demonise someone you decide to keep the article. This is prejudice and based on racial profiling that Wikipedia New Zealand is all too common for you should hold your head in shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manamangere (talk • contribs) 01:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - You mean you created the article and removed the proposal for it to be deleted. But then when somebody added some negative facts to the article you had your head slapped around by somebody with a bit more political experience who pointed out that this whole thing was a net negative for the subject. But don't worry because although I pointed this little affair out to a few bloggers they don't seem interested. However accusing everybody of racism might put it into their radar yet. - SimonLyall (talk) 11:34, 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 keep. Sufficient coverage reported in deletion discussion to support WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kopp's Frozen Custard

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

Recommend deletion - Fails WP:NTEMP; Joe Biden went there in 2011 and made a flippant remark, causing brief news coverage that quickly faded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidatio (talk • contribs) 14:10, 9 September 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was not properly transcluded to the AfD log. I have added it to the 2013 September 10 AfD log. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kopp's is discussed in a variety of food and travel books as one of the most important frozen custard chains; Jane and Michael Stern write about it here [1] and coverage in a whole bunch of other books shows up in a GBooks search [2]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per the following book sources: [3], [4]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage is far from focused on the one-off non-event with Biden, nor is it purely regional. Although insufficient to determine notability on its own (but we have ample print sources, above), Travel Channel's 101 Tastiest Places to Chowdown featured Kopp's at #78. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets WP:GNG. One of the more important restaurant chains in Wisconsin. I hadn't heard about the Biden remark before this. Royal broil 02:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the important restaurant chains in Wisconsin. Thank you-RFD (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's quite a claim, and one which isn't substantiated by the article as it now stands. What makes it important to the state of Wisconsin? Ibadibam (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - minimally notable. The local Journal-Sentinel coverage doesn't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, but the restaurant guides raised in this discussion are discriminating enough to indicate notability. Ibadibam (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is one item on there that is of minimal notability (the joe biden visit) the rest is WP:NOTADVERTISING. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 22:06, 13 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) 03:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bhanu Prakash Sharma

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

I don't see any indication of notability here. He doesn't seem to have held any position that establishes automatic notability (like national level judgeship); similarly, he doesn't meet WP:PROF. There's 1 source, it verifies only his final position, and I'm not even sure it's reliable. While book/web searches produce hits, they don't seem to refer to this person (instead, to a priest, an astrologer, and people with only partial name matches). Without a better demonstration of notability, this should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject appears to lack notability per Wikipedia on all counts. He was never a real academic professor at any university. Many instructors at the cited academy are given the title for their stint there and such posts are generally advertised e.g. http://www.indiastudychannel.com/jobs/269461-Professor-Economics-job-vacancy-at-LBSNAA-Mussoorie-through-UPSC.aspx Being an established professor is something different. Fails WP:PROF. As a provincial judge, he was just doing his day job like his peers. He never became a Supreme Court judge. Educator is neither here nor there, as all teachers, tutors and trainers at well known institutions in India e.g. Doon School and St. Stephen's College have taught or trained hundreds of students who have gone on to become outstanding achievers in their chosen professions, at home and abroad. The educators generally remain anonymous. They, like the subject, were and are just doing their job. Notability is another matter and I have found no sources which indicate that this person passes WP:GNG.Zananiri (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see the evidence of passing WP:ACADEMIC or WP:POLITICIAN (the best fit to a notability criterion for judges). And the claims of mentoring other famous people smell of WP:INHERITED. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:55, 15 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) 03:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Universal Century superweapons

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

This does not establish notability for the overall topic, this does not help as a companion article to the main topic, and it is entirely composed of plot details. TTN (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Universal Century. Ansh6 6 6 22:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I highly doubt the average reader is going to look up "List of Universal Century superweapons" in the search bar, I had been eyeing this one for awhile as well for deletion, its all WP:PLOT info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless Keep TomStar81 (Talk) 01:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ? Ansh6 6 6 02:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's be honest here for a moment Ansh666: the page is going to be deleted, and nothing I say or do is gonna stop that from happening. Accordingly, while I could list any number of reasons for keeping the page here the way it is, the effort would ultimately be an exercise in futility. Why then debate in favor keeping the article when such a debate will ultimately be pointless? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- the term "superweapon" seems to have been invented for this article. Aside from that, the whole thing is an unlikely search term and the entire contents is sourceless in-universe plot summary. Reyk _YO! 02:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Last time the world checked, nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons were considered superweapons, and according to our article on superweapons, a superweapon is (and I quote) "a very powerful weapon compared to others of its time or era", which each weapon described in the article happens to be. It is therefore not original research to use the term, it would be more appropriate to consider the term misapplied since the term is used in a fictitious sense rather than the realistic sense everyone here seeks. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:17, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MON 863

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

No evidence of notability. It can easily be merged into another article such as Genetically modified maize As it is now it just looks like spam. Canoe1967 (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hun-Gurrr

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

These characters do not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Decepticons or Terrorcons. Deletion is also acceptable. I can't find any sources, and there does not seem to be any independent notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as suggested above. Consider protecting redirect to discourage re-creation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:20, 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 procedural close. A second Afd discussion was created today, located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Rafiqul Islam Khan (2nd nomination). There's no need for two discussions about the same article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC) (Non-administrator closure.)[reply]

Muhammad Rafiqul Islam Khan

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

Fail WP:BIO and WP:GNG - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 19:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:44, 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 redirect to Ultra Monsters. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ultraman Max monsters

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

This is a list of one episode monsters of the week. There is no real way for it to be developed other than plot summaries better suited to an episode list. TTN (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article duplicates content from Ultra Monsters. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either redirect to Ultra Monsters#Ultraman Max or merge back into Ultraman Max, probably the former. Ansh6 6 6 22:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NinjaRobotPirate. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm far from delighted about this, but general consensus is that character lists are acceptable for fictional properties with even a modicum of notability. Probably the ideal solution would be to merge this with the episode list from the Ultraman Max article into an episode list article for the series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These can't really be called characters in the normal sense. They're plot features without any real development or anything pertinent to describe other than minute details. They do seem to be reused from time to time, but that would be the same as listing Scooby Doo villains or video games bosses. The cut off point is generally at minor characters, while the episode list details the rest. There really isn't anything to merge to an episode list in this case, so it would be best if someone built that from the ground up should someone take interest in it. TTN (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect this fancruft. Neutrality^talk 20:08, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Touch ID

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

Tried boldly redirecting it to Fingerprint recognition citing notability, but got reverted by someone who told me that it had to be taken to AFD if it were about notability (are you kidding me).

This feature on a single device is not yet notable for its own article. It should be discussed only on the iPhone 5s article. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable feature and hardware element that has already received a significant amount of independent (non-Apple) media coverage that has focused exclusively on the Touch ID, thereby fulfilling WP:GNG. See the following articles exclusively on Touch ID:

CaseyPenk (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: please read WP:PAGEDECIDE. "Touch ID" is only just a brand name for a fingerprint recognition feature. As it is a hardware feature that is only on a single device, it is better covered in the article for the iPhone 5 itself. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apple's specific implementation (which happens to be known by the trademarked term, "Touch ID," may have a wide-ranging and considerable impact on its own, separate from and in addition to that of the iPhone 5S. See this article in New York Magazine, titled "Will the New iPhone’s ‘Touch ID’ Feature Finally Make Fingerprint Scanning Happen?". CaseyPenk (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just don't think its independently notable from the iPhone 5S yet. Doing it now will make it look like we're giving Apple special treatment here. Those sources would go under pre-release reception. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The NYMag article is talking about Touch ID the feature -- they would write the exact same article if the feature were included on, say, the iPhone 5C. My point is that the Touch ID feature does its own thing; it's independent of the phone on which it exists. Whether you think this should be given a large amount of coverage, reliable sources are covering it extensively - as the large number of articles exclusively focused on Touch ID indicate. That's really a bias, if you will, on the part of the sources. It's pretty much been that way since 2006. Also, just because Gimmicky Samsung Galaxy Feature XYZ doesn't have its own page, doesn't prevent us from creating this article, as long as it's NPOV. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article - "Apple's Touch ID is a big win for BYOD security" also helps establish the subject's independent notability. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems clearly notable from the sources.Bobtheflyingferret (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest to merge with iPhone 5S; has significant information but doesn't seem notable enough to be a standalone article. Perhaps if this is found on more devices, it could become an independent article. 96.48.151.67 (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tried doing just that right now. ViperSnake151 Talk 20:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose merge. There is too much Touch ID-specific information written in reliable sources (and in the article) to accurately include it in the iPhone 5S article. We would be losing a considerable amount of valuable information by doing so. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into iPhone 5S. Anything that doesn't fit into that can be merged into fingerprint recognition. I agree with the people arguing that it does not have enough independent notability of the iPhone to warrant an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate, how do the articles I listed not indicate independent notability? Those articles all cover Touch ID exclusively, rather than cover the iPhone 5s in general. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Again, note that being notable does not always mean it needs to be on its own page. I still assert that for now, it should be covered directly in the iPhone 5S article. ViperSnake151 Talk 22:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and close. This is obviously notable and worthy of its own article and simply redirecting to iPhone 5s won't work because Apple will eventually create more devices with this feature. JOJ ^Hutton 00:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – looking through the sources in the article, they pretty much focus solely on Touch ID, and most sites are notable enough to have their own articles; these aren't just blogs. ~Hue Sat Lum 01:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – At the present time sources show notability on its own, not just from tech related sites but in the wider media. Whether long term this will continue i cant crystal ball but if it proves to not be then merging should remain a possibility in the future.Blethering Scot 20:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wanted to read about this feature without wading through another whole phone article. More than 5000 page views have happened in the last week, so our readers are loading the page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:24, 15 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 Erik Weihenmayer. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship of the Andes

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

I can't find any reliable sources that testify to the notability of this documentary, which is part of a small walled garden dedicated to Erik Weihenmayer. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of significant coverage by reliable third parties. See a mention or two, but nothing convincing me of notability. The feat may or may not be notable, the film, not so much. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect for now to Erik Weihenmayer. I really cannot at this time pay for the archived versions of articles about this film found through Gnews, but it seems they do exist.[10][11] It is kinda difficult to believe that a documentary film of a climbing exhibition by the visually impaired did not get more coverage. Allow undeletion/recreation if/when sources are made available.[12] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know to what extent the PB Post article actually discusses this film or does it merely mention it? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no... but as soon as someone comes forward who has access to it, we'll know. I think that with a soft redirect (history saved) we can resurrect the title when that happens. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:27, 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 redirect to Lesley University. When four admins unanimously suggest redirection, I feel confident that redirection is the correct action here. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley College of Liberal Arts and Sciences

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

Individual colleges are rarely notable, and there is no reason to believe this is an example of one that warrants an article. My redirect to the main article was reverted by an WP:SPA, and needs to be restored one way or another. Their argument, "It is a specific college of the university", is not a valid reason for having an independent article: existence does not equal notability. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lesley University. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ; we do include colleges when they are the first-order subdivisions of the very largest, most important, and famous universities. Leslie is not in that category. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to comment on particular institution (DGG), it would be professional if you could spell the name correctly.

The reason Lesley University's principal undergraduate units have their own articles is due to their historical nature. The University stems from two separate institutions: Lesley College and The Art Institute of Boston; important institutions in their own right. The founders of each institution, Edith Lesley and Roy Davidson were educational visionaries in their fields, professional visual art instruction in the case of Davidson, and the radical idea of Kindergarten education and the professional education of women in the U.S. in the case Lesley. These were historical players in Massachusetts and Boston-Cambridge.

Lesley University has a complex and at times mysterious history and these two foundational units are important in telling the whole history. Yes, these pages do need serious work, I hope the pages are improved and not deleted. Sdbr14 (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. The separate history of Lesley College pre-merger can be treated in Lesley University#History. Neutrality^talk 04:37, 17 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) 03:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kelle Marie

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO as she has not won "a well-known and significant industry award, or has been nominated for such an award several times." In addition,I belive her appearance in Andrew Blake 2003 film Hard Edge, ranked by AVN as one of the 500 Greatest Adult Films of All Time. cannot be considered starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature. Finnegas (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC) *Um...doesn't your last sentence suggest that the article shouldn't be deleted? Anyway, keep. The scene-related nomination does not pass WP:PORNBIO, but...the two Penthouse Pet appearance should pass WP:BIO, not to mention that the most recent appearance was runner-up for Pet of the Year. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where in WP:BIO does being a Penthouse Pet make you notable?

Where in WP:BIO does it say it doesn't? It isn't going to list every single possibility for notability, but it will definitely list exclusions, and that isn't one of them. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed from PORNBIO years ago, by consensus, and attempts to reinstate it failed. Dead issue. If you don't think that the removal demonstrates the point, you're likely at odds with every reasonable editor on the project. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Finnegas (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed from PORNBIO years ago, and attempts to reinstate it failed. Dead issue. If you don't think that the removal demonstrates the point, you're likely at odds with every reasonable editor on the project. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:41, 17 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 10. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Erpert Thanks for pointing that out to me.'I have corrected it. Finnegas (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I havfe grave difficulty in seeing anything notable in the BIO. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - FYI, I have made some edits to the article in question since this original AfD nomination. The subject here has "starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" ("the Andrew Blake 2003 film Hard Edge") and "has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" (Penthouse, Playboy TV, the Howard Stern show & "the documentary series Vivid Valley"). Guy1890 (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that Penthouse & Playboy TV are "mainstream media"?

Yes, they are both about as close as most members of the adult film industry get to mainstream coverage. Guy1890 (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hard Edge did win an AVN in 2004 for Best All Sex Film but I don't consider that enough to establish that it's iconic, groundbreaking, or a blockbuster, neither does being on a 2005 list of 500 best movies. Further AVN does not even mention Marie's role in the film to determine if she actually "starred" in it. [13] Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There were only eight people in the movie in question. Of course she starred in it. Guy1890 (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails even a broad and generous reading of PORNBIO, and the reliably sourced biographical content in the article is likely no more than the subject's name and ethnicity. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "and the reliably sourced biographical content in the article is likely no more than the subject's name and ethnicity." Once again, this is nothing more than an "I just don't like the subject matter"-biased opinion. Guy1890 (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly fails general notability guidelines and fails even the notoriously thin "PORNBIO" (and, ceterum censeo, PORNBIO lacks consensus and is invalid anyway.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PORNBIO is not invalid, no matter how many times you say it. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply not notable enough. Neutrality^talk 04:39, 17 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) 03:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So Recordings

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

No notability is asserted and references are primary sources. The organisation must be notable for itself, not simply because it has some artists who have Wikipedia articles, because notability may not be inherited. Fiddle Faddle 08:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:05, 3 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, GNG. Neutrality^talk 04:40, 17 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) 03:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo Engineering Endowment Fund

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

Several issues raised well over a year ago, including poor notability, lack of references, and orphaned status. TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 3 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect as appropriate) - no notability showing. Neutrality^talk 04:42, 17 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_Mobile_Suit_Gundam_characters#Degwin_Sodo_Zabi. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Degwin Sodo Zabi

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

Knowing nothing of the series, and going only off of what is written here and what I am able to find online, I do not think that this character meets the notability guidelines. Compare this character to Char Aznable, from the same series, who has extensive third party coverage and recognized cultural significance. Likely best solution would be to merge this into List_of_Mobile_Suit_Gundam_characters#Degwin_Sodo_Zabi. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 4 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not have real-world notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Mobile Suit Gundam characters Likely search term for a popular series. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:01, 16 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 Young & Rubicam. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TAXI (advertising agency)

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

Delete and redirect to parent company Young & Rubicam. No content here worth preserving. Article consists entirely of advertising or a trade directory listing for one of a long list of subsidiaries of a larger firm, WPP. The parent company is likely notable, but most or all of the subsidiaries are overlapping and duplicative in function. There is no clear indication why this one is notable beyond various self-congratulatory listings in narrowly-targeted, industry-specific publications. Wikipedia is not a yellow page directory and not a suitable venue to promote a business. The solely laudatory tone is a violation of requirements for neutrality and nothing here is notable to anyone outside the industry. K7L (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An article doesn't have to be deleted first before it is redirected, you know. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Young & Rubicam. This article has hung around for years and never moved beyond a stub. There is, though, no reason not to merge some core information - principally what is in the lead - (each of the other subsidiaries have a short section) and the 2010 award would be worth a mention. The Whispering Wind (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 2 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively and redirect to Young & Rubicam. As above. Neutrality^talk 04:44, 17 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) 03:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Chipman

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

Non-notable business profile. Current sources in the article are LinkedIn content, a profile of the subject's house from a user-submitted content website, some personal e-mail records, and another professional social networking website. Looking through news sources, I was unable to find significant coverage of the individual nor any interviews. She is the President and CEO of the Institute for International Research, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with Jethro on this one, delete! Cheers, camerontregan^talk 03:04, 7 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A blatant attempt at self promotion. Created by a single purpose account. Finnegas (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wouldn't say she is non-notable, but it currently reads like self promotion and has poor references Verdict78 (talk) 15:52, 17 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 Cycling at the 2016 Summer Olympics. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cycling at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Women's road time trial

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

Clear case of WP:TOOSOON. This is an event 3 years away yet. ...William 17:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William 17:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions....William 17:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon, failing WP:GNG at the moment. It is cited only to a fan website. Sionk (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Cycling at the 2016 Summer Olympics as it has some valuable information about the time trial course. References could be extended with official links Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - to Cycling at the 2016 Summer Olympics per Sander.v.Ginkel. Unlike the 2016 presidential election, Wikipedia generally doesn't start talking about things things three years before they actually happen. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note Yes I agree, also the Cycling at the 2016 Summer Olympics article is borderline, but there are also already: Golf at the 2016 Summer Olympics and Rugby sevens at the 2016 Summer Olympics. Besides of that the Olympic cycling to remain unchanged for 2016 Rio Games news was published in many major news sources. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect created after merge was completed. Discussion can be closed now. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 21:04, 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 keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off the Kuff

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

Non-notable blog lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Appears to fail WP:WEB. reddogsix (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Blog is absolutely notable. Is regularly referenced and mentioned in the 2nd most circulated (on Sundays) newspaper in the United States. Blogger even hosts his own miniblog under the newspaper's masthead. He essentially does what Ezra Klein does, for a bigger paper. Yet the snobbery of the East only thinks one of them is notable. Receives mentions from other huge Texas political power players such as Texas Tribune and Texas Monthly. The precedent has been set on political blogs in Texas with Burnt Orange Report. If BOR is considered notable, then Off the Kuff should be considered notable as well. Houstonbuildings (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Notability is defined by Wikipedia standards in WP:N and WP:WEB. Trivial mentions do not support notability. There are no precedents in Wikipedia, only compliance with standards. If the article you referenced does not meet Wikipedia criteria, then it should be nominated for deletion.reddogsix (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-The mentions are not trivial, the reputable news sources write featured stories on news items the blog has broken. That isn't trivial. Houstonbuildings (talk) 05:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I think you are mistaken in the use of the word trivial. The stories the news organizations create may not be trivial, but the mention of the blog is. reddogsix (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Again, you are the one mistaken. The second largest newspaper in the country broke a story because of an article from this blog. It was not a trivial mention. The paper, as well as other notable publications (Texas Tribune, Texas Monthly & Burnt Orange Report), regularly mention the blog. Further, the Chronicle syndicates stories from the blog. A one-time occurrence would constitute a trivial mention, but recurring mentions, even fleeting ones, establish notability. Houstonbuildings (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please provide Please provide the example you cite of the non-trivial mention in the article. I suggest you read WP:GNG for clarification. reddogsix (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Ditto. "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Houstonbuildings (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -Also, may we just assume the notability of Texpatriate is also being established here so we must not copy and paste everything we write? It is getting too redundant. Houstonbuildings (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sure on the Texpatriate question, but you still have not provided the example you cite of the non-trivial mention in each of the articles - or as least pointed us in that direction. reddogsix (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gets quoted enough by mainstream media, including Time magazine, that its notable. Dream Focus 18:40, 2 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep appears to pass our web guidelines. For example, this is a solid source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:53, 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 delete. And I'll throw Moraff's Revenge into the bundle for the same reasons. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moraff's World

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

This is an old, shareware MS DOS video game that seems to have no notability. I've searched for citations, but reliable sources on it do not seem to exist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:42, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:28, 2 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unremarkable shareware game. Doesn't appear to be notable, or have the requisite reliable sourcing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:45, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fortress Maximus

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

This collection of characters does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details and toy details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gets enough Google hits to make notability questionable, but none of them satisfy me enough to conclusively establish notability. Since the article doesn't really help things either (fan sites and dead links), I'm leaning toward deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:58, 3 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unlikely there is substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:42, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Kovačević

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - appear to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:31, 3 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues there still seems to be some question about whether Bosnia's top league is fully professional. On that basis these two footballers fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Sionk (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These fail the notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 15 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 Fahaheel District. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fahaheel Fish Market

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

A7 (no indication of importance), and since the link to the source is broken, the article is left with no sources at all. Carwile2 (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google News and Books comes up empty for me, in terms of non-trivial coverage. Propose we Merge to Fahaheel District. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though, again, you take the trouble to translate the name into arabic and do a Gsearch, you get... something. But nothing conclusive, imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:15, 3 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if no sources establishing notability have been found. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 17:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is implicit in your nomination that you support deletion, so there is no need to repeat it in bold. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've debolded it accordingly: it's one per customer, please. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fahaheel District Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:48, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay Iyengar

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

Doesn't really seem notable to me. While his work has been impressive, it doesn't really seem noteworthy enough for an article to me. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept . The page should be kept because it has won prestigious international prizes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User1215 (talk • contribs) — User1215 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. WP:TOOSOON, WP:OWN. --Esprqii (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. I believe the article should be kept. The ISEF Best in Category Award is extremely prestigious at the international level and coupled with the fact that he was a finalist in another international competition (Google) shows notability. Plus he has publications to back up the achievements and establish legitimacy to the research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfymb (talk • contribs) — Asdfymb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Agree with TOOSOON. All claims of notability occurred in the last 12 months or so. These are prestigious awards within the context of high school science, but not sure they prestigious enough for a Wikipedia article. Someone in the edit comments suggested it is notable by way of "criteria #2 for Academics" which says "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." Well not sure "highly" counts here, in particular when you consider the ISEF award was just one in many categories, and even within that category the award was shared with someone else for a different project. The Gordon E. Moore award ($75,000) and Young Scientist Award ($50,000) might have a claim to "highly" significant, but did not win in those categories. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with previous comments. The multiple awards and publications won are on an international level and contribute a lot to the scientific community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Researchsci84 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC) — Researchersci84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak Delete I agree with the other editors that it is a bit too soon for this subject. He hasn't quite received the substantial coverage in reliable independent sources that Wikipedia rules require, but his accomplishments are certainly impressive. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have requested an investigation of User1215, Asdfymb, and Researchsci84 at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User1215. DPRoberts534 (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Busted. I've struck their comments. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all high school-level awards, doesn't meet WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:29, 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) 03:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Anshuman Singh

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

Kishore Biyani is notable; the heads of his subsidiaries much less so. The references are mere PR. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 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 18:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 2 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, —SpacemanSpiff 16:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established, no independent refs. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:26, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lameck Ditto

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

This is a biography of a living person without independent references. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICIAN or WP:GNG. There is also another biography (unreferenced) on the talk page. A biography of a living person. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks sources showing notability per WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding sufficient evidence in reliable sources for this subject; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gong show 16:23, 14 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) 03:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai (TV series)

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

Future TV series that is not sufficiently notable. Sources listed are either primary or self-published (IMDb). Drm310 (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Series only has a pilot being marketed; no network, much less a distributor. Needs much more than it has to be considered for an article. Nate • (chatter) 05:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find reliable sources for this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:22, 16 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 Music and Lyrics. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pop! Goes My Heart

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

This is a song used within a film. The film was not a huge hit and the song is not known outside of the film. The song was not a hit in real life, only in the film's universe. Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Music and Lyrics - although the nomination statement doesn't quite compare the song to policy, I definitely agree that it doesn't appear to have any notability. The article has been tagged as unsourced for two years, it's a stub, and there's not even as much as an AllMusic review. Thus, we have a song failing WP:GNG, and WP:NSONG (no assertion that it has charted anywhere.) However, it is a plausible redirect, and there definitely appears to be a good amount of traffic flowing through the page (20+ a day, fairly consistently) - so let's redirect it to the film. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Music and Lyrics - agreed with the above. But let's 1) incorporate any possible useful information in the article Music and Lyrics. And please keep in mind that 2) there is an article about another song from this movie, Way Back into Love, which was not a hit either and which may not be notable either. Mark in wiki (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, both of you. I will change my initial suggestion of deletion into one of redirection. I assume to redirect the other song, we'd have to hold a separate discussion for it? Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd do it boldly at first, if the consensus for this is for a redirect; if reverted, then the procedure would be to AfD it. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem... How about a bold redirect of both to Music and Lyrics: Music from the Motion Picture ? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a valid target as well. Call me cynical, but I'd rather this AfD went to completion, so no-one can claim "reverting WP:BOLD action without consensus" or something like that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may as well wait for this discussion to conclude, but WP:BRD could result in Way Back into Love being improved. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That one has a chart position, so has arguably more chance of some sources existing. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what are we thinking now? How long does this process take till the conversation is completed? I'm new to this! :) Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A week, unless there are enough legitimate !votes of the same type for WP:SNOW to apply, which would shorten the debate, or longer, if it appeared that consensus had not been reached. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:27, 13 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 . Shii (tock) 01:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Girlfag and guydyke

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)

This is a very ridiculous, nonnotable, and unsubstantiated entry for an encyclopedia. Much of it is unsourced and I'm thinking it's original research. Holdek (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I do think there may be notable encyclopedic content for this, potentially. With this article, we have a complete mess of formatting, with "girlfag" and "guydyke" related terminology bouncing all over the place; two separate articles would be sensible, for starters. Then there's a few OR statements, although most of them aren't; WP:SYNTHESIS is possible. [14] doesn't mention either term, but not having access to the book, I can't verify if there is any mention at all. Source 2 is entirely offline, but appears to be a mish-mash of two different things, so that raises alarm bells. [15] frequently mentions the term, but is clearly a primary source (the author owns "girlfag.com") so can't establish notability. Source 4 is offline, so I can't analyse it either. [16] contains a highly derrogatory alternative to girlfag, but may be reliable. [17] made me run away very quickly, and appears to be unreliable, all jokes aside. [18] doesn't mention either term. [19] definitely mentions "girlfag", but is also unreliable. So, what are we left with? One term that might scrape through notability, with further searching (I'm reluctant to do so) which is "girlfag". "guydyke" is rarely mentioned in the article, let alone any of the cited sources, so that's not useful. The current mess of an article, with its poor title, is not worth saving, even if someone was to write a proper article on "girlfag". This article is also an enormous vandalism magnet - I wonder why that is? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide. Instead, the goal of this project is to create an encyclopedia." Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with a possibility for moving, splitting, or merging. The cited sources seem to establish notability for the concepts, if not the labels. (Speaking to one "offline" source, Queerly Phrased does not use the terms [as far a quick scan reveals], but does talk about gender/sexuality identity complexes.) The article needs clean-up with regard to tone, organization, and the relationship of these identities to other non-normative gender roles and the Wikipedia articles treating them. Cnilep (talk) 01:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with respect, where would you move them? And this article is such a mess that WP:TNT applies. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If, hypothetically, there is reliable support for the notability of just one of the terms, then the article could be moved to that name (e.g. to Girlfag). If, as I suspect is more likely, the concept is discussed more widely than these labels, move to whatever labels are used. Skimming the cited sources, two appear to use "girlfag", two use "fag hag", and the others use diverse terms including "sexually diverse", "sexual dysphoria", "sexual ambiguity", and "transsexual faggotry", inter alia. More sources should be consulted for a 'move' discussion, but that is separate from AfD. Cnilep (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cnilep. There seems to exist some coverage. Even if the article is a mess, our deletion policy requires us to fix by editing whatever can be fixed by editing -like this. AfD is not a shortcut for cleanup.--cyclopia ^speak! 09:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-noteable neologism. Jtrainor (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete. I don't think there's enough reliable-source coverage of this concept to support an article; some of the reliable sources cited don't actually appear to use or mention these terms (eg. "Surrogate Phonology" does not, but does use "faghag"). At most, this would be a mention in Fag hag, supported by the Meyer source ("Surrogate Phonology" should be used in that article too, but that's because it actually discusses that phenomenon). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/move? Article seems to be describing an identity space occupied by real people in the real world. A minority, to be sure, but if the identity is documented then we should keep it on the encyclopedia. My concern about the article right now is that most of the sources don't use the words "girlfag" or "guydyke", and these are kind of intense terms to impose on the identity if they are not the most common terms for it. If this page is indeed getting attention on Tumblr, as indicated by the banner on top, maybe some of those users who arrive here knowledgeable about the subject could advise on this matter. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources don't use the terms that the article is about then how is the identity documented? Holdek (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good amount of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a few URLs for us? Carrite (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It's function is not to define terms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism more suitable to Wiktionary. Redirect to Fag hag is also acceptable, but both terms would have to be redirected individually. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologisms. Urban Dictionary is thattaway.------> /// Carrite (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite et al. If not, then maybe move to Wiktionary pending some good citations. Zelse81 (talk) 08:32, 16 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 Webb C. Ball. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ball Watch Company

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

Pure ad copy. Kolbasz (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Webb C. Ball. This watchmaker was notable and played a major role in 19th century railroad safety. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Webb C. Ball. Coverage [20] and [21] but best covered in the biographical article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:55, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Status Social

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

Fails Wikipedia:CORP#Primary criteria. Sparse coverage in local media, winner of non-notable award. Shirt58 (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- There is nothing in this WP:ADVERT that tells me that this is more than a one-man band. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per nom. Badly written, insignificant company. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment - folks, "advert" and "badly written" are reasons to improve the article, not to delete it. Just sayin' --Shirt58 (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Award is national award run by hundreds of UK newspapers and praised by Prime Minister David Cameron http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/business/business-news/cameron-praise-as-regional-accelerator-winners-chosen-1-5385855. Fulfils Wikipedia:CORP#Primary criteria by having coverage not just in local media but in regional media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N0253933 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (voted above). The article cited is on the equaivalent award in a different region and does not mention this company. If this were an important award, I would expect WP to have an article on the award. The two Chamhers of Commerce alos seem to have no articles, and we recently have the West Midlands Chamber of Commerce (another regional body) but for up for AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 17 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) 07:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Space Engineers (video game)

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

Computer game. Not even released yet. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at best it is too early but as it doesn't yet exist it cannot be notable (except perhaps by its absence). Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - this game was announced as the article mentions on September 9th, 2013. Yet, the announcement trailer^[1] has around 35,000 views... so yes, it is notable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwars (talk • contribs) 12:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC) — Mwars (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You probably need to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's notability guidelines before arguing that this article shoukd be kept. Having a large number of YouTube hits is really no evidence of encyclopedic notability. Stalwart111 13:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - development was announced yesterday. Obviously way WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your latest project. Stalwart111 13:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the announcement did get coverage yesterday, there is a lot of COI issues here: the article creator only has the creation of this account to their name, and if I assume that that is the person's real name, I get a hit that this George person is a moderator at the forums for the development team ([22]) raising the COI issues. It supposedly will be out soon on Steam Early Access, and at that point, we can see what reception it gets. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above: WP:TOOSOON and WP:COI issues. Ansh6 6 6 17:30, 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. While not a strong consensus, the discussion is leaning towards a keep. There is cetainly enough coverage, such as a documentary, and feature news articles over an extended period of time, refuting any arguments that she's only had 24 hours of fame. Several arguments point to WP:ENTERTAINER which she appears to pass, based on a fannish fan base, but oddly, also the Prof test, which she clearly does not pass. A BLP only has to pass one such test, not several tests, for inclusion. Notability is about neither fame nor credibility of the subject. Past consensus has been to keep many articles about famous models, even if their claim to having done anything that matters is a tautology or that their beauty is ephemeral. Bearian (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valeria Lukyanova

AfDs for this article:

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

Rescinded G4 deletion (article not similar to deleted versions). Am seeking further community consensus after previous deletion: does this individual pass the General Notability Criteria, or does BLP1E preclude her from having an article? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that I am neutral as to the article's worthiness to include in Wikipedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring this, Crisco. Utter ridiculous for it to be speedy deleted! I did not consult the deleted version (because I couldn't even access it!) and I spent the whole evening writing it on my own. IMO my version is better referenced and exemplifies notability more. As the article's author I !vote KEEP because the enduring media coverage (latest news piece of her dates August 2013!) is enough to override 1E and core policies like WP:GNG and WP:BIO have been met. This human Barbie is not "just" a human Barbie: she is a spirituality guru as well as an actress who featured in a documentary about her. I think it is wrong to persistently cite 1E here; it should not apply in cases like this one. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to rage at the deleting admin's talk, but now there is not much need to. Thanks for saving me the trouble. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please DO NOT rage at admins' talks anyway) Ukrained2012 (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just joking, I'm too peace-loving. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think "educator" is a stretch and is perhaps a bit of a misrepresentation. The vast majority of coverage (as you can see with a basic Google search) relates almost entirely to her looks and I think it's strange that the article doesn't reflect that. Why not call her a model and acknowledge her additional "spiritual" work, rather than call her an "educator" and try and play down the dozens and dozens of reliable sources that give her significant coverage for her "work" as the "human Barbie". To be clear - there's nothing wrong with an assertion of notability on the basis of her looks, in my view, especially if her looks have resulted in her receiving significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. How is that any different to any other model? She probably says it best herself - "I use my appearance to promote my spiritual ideas". There's really nothing wrong with that. But a self-promoted, 20 minute "documentary" really isn't enough to buy into the "spiritual guru" claim, especially given the apparent lack of spiritual followers. Best to frame the article in an honest, neutral way that doesn't give WP:UNDUE weight to the few sources that discuss her spirituality over the many, many sources that give her coverage for her looks. Stalwart111 09:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion to editors interested in this article: Russian language sources seem to be available in one of the versions I've restored at my user page User:Crisco 1492/Valeria Lukyanova; you may find some of it useful. A lot of the content looks solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Stalwart111, only due to her severely underearned media-coverage. Also, ~~alternatively-gifted rubberdoll-obsessed individuals~~ Valeria followers should keep in mind that her "educator" and "spiritualism" stuff is going to be challenged and ridiculed here forever. You've been warned) Ukrained2012 (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The prior AFD held in May 2012 is not much precedent; there really wasn't a consensus to delete but no one quibbled too much (and even I favored deletion on balance). The subject has been the subject of continuing press coverage since that deletion, so its hard to not admit that WP:GNG has been met by now. Somewhat ironically I was linked yesterday to Helena Antonia a bearded lady from ~1600 -- I'm sure we won't be deleting that as unseemly pop culture, and for better or worse Valeria Lukyanova has joined Helena in notability. (And if anyone can translate Latin, please tell me exactly what this 1603 book says about Antonia!)--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's about her "service to the Queen of Spain". I'll see if I can work out the bit before that but it looks like a passing mention confirming what is in the article. Stalwart111 14:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The language as of yesterday only referenced Constance, I added the other nobility, but am confused between Maria and Margaret. I see a "Maria" in the text, but the 1950 book by Reynolds references a "Margarita".--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. That she is an "educator" is irrelevant. She blatantly fails WP:ACADEMIC. That she is a "spiritualist" is grossly insufficient to sustain any notability either; otherwise, we could include every pastor in the world. That she is a model (of no particular fame) is irrelevant as well. An actress? Show me her "movie" listed on imdb.com. I'll save you the time; it isn't there. Neither is she herself listed there. The only reason we are here discussing her is because of her manufactured Barbie-like look. That's it. Nothing else in the article has even a hint of notability in it. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip. Just her appearance. Does this make her unique? No. In fact, there are LOTS of women in the world who have attempted to be human barbies (Angelica Kenova, Jenny Lee and many more). And just so Barbie isn't without the love of her life, there's a human Ken doll (Justin Jedlica). Hell, there's even a how-to guide on how to be a human barbie [23], complete with a video on how to do the makeup. Do we add articles for every person in the world who decides to do something with their appearance that strikes people as unusual? We have human vampires (Maria Jose Cristerna), human anime dolls (Anastasiya Shpagina), and more. Just because someone spends hours a day trying to look like a doll or some such doesn't make them notable. Famous? Sure. Notable? No. There's a distinct difference between the two. Plenty of people are famous due to single things. That doesn't make them notable by itself. You need more than that. That she has gotten some recent press about it is insufficient as well. The press isn't anything about her additional actions in the world; it's still all about her appearance. If the criteria were solely whether someone still gets mentions in the press, then we'd have an article for Corey Worthington. This is a clear failure of WP:BLP1E. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of articles on wiki about fashion models who only famous for their look. We have Wiki Infobox "model", several categories "female models", and thousands of articles about female models. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_models_by_nationality Most of these girls are famous just for their look. Innab (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well first off there is nothing in the article to suggest that Valeria is in fact a model. The article claims she is, but nothing more. There's no cite to back it up. Is she working for a modelling agency? Has she had a spread in some magazine? The answers so far are no. Just saying you're a model doesn't make you one any more than her being an 'educator'. I took a look at her supposed peers in Category:Ukrainian female models. Here's what we have:

Lyudmila Bikmullina; Won Miss Ukraine Universe title and represented Ukraine in the Miss Universe 2007 pageant. Has Valeria won a beauty pageant? Nope.
Nataliya Gotsiy; Won Ford Models Supermodel of the World. Appeared on the cover of French Elle and Italian Marie Claire, and has worked with a whole host of fashion designers. Has Valeria appeared on the cover of a magazine, much less a fashion magazine? Nope. Has Valeria worked with any fashion designers? Nope.
Kamaliya; Won 2008 Mrs. World. Again, has Valeria won a beauty pageant? Nope. Kamaliya also performed at the International Lahore Festival, for which she was complimented by the president ot Pakistan. Has Valeria appeared at any international events, much less won accolades for doing so? Nope.
Kristina Kots-Gotlib; Won Miss Ukrain Universe title as well. Again, has Valeria won a beauty pageant? Nope.
Olga Kurylenko; Has starred in a number of blockbuster movies, including Quantum of Solace and Oblivion (2013 film). Has Valeria appeared in any movie that can even be found on imdb? Nope. All we have is a pathetic 20 minute video on a less than significant website.

...and that's just the first five. Look, all we have here is a person with no claim to fame other than putting on some clothes, some makeup, and making herself ridiculously thin. To quote Valeria herself, 07:42 "I think people who try to look like dolls essentially are seeking fame". That's what we have here; nothing more than a fame seeker who got some attention in the press. She hasn't won any pageants, she's never been employed by a model agency that we know of, she's never appeared in a real movie, nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip. In fact, the term "model" should be removed from the article. I can say I'm a professional basketball player but it doesn't make me one. Show me proof she's actually worked as a model. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually User:Hammersoft is wrong, Valeria did won a Ukraininan beauty pageant in 2007, here is the video and article about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPH3FpzguWk , http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/4771200/real-life-barbie-valeria-lukyanova-on-her-obsession-to-be-like-iconic-toy.html Also, models usually work on contracts and do casual photo shooting sessions, not regular full-time employment, and Valeria did multiple photo shootings sessions with different fashion magazines, "V Magazine" is her most famous session. Innab (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Valria appeared in V Magazine at professional photosession by Sebastian Faena: There also plenty of her photosessions in other Russian magazines, and foreighn, like Jezebel.
There about 100 Valeria's song in NewAge style posted on YouTube which have thousands of views.
Well, there is a "Space Barbie" movie about her maid by Vice (magazine). She also appeared several time on main russian federal TV "Channel One Russia" - which has more than 250 million viewers worldwide. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWzOsBDyQB8
I think you actually need to read the wiki article and follow the links, before you say things about her that you do not know. Innab (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is sufficient you check the sources and try to search for "Valeria Lukyanova" model (and all the variations in other languages) and you will find that literally hundreds of reliable sources refers to her as a model. Cavarrone 05:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I refactored your comments to not intersperse them within mine, per standard practice. If you want to debate this, please come to my talk page. And I think you need to understand the difference between 'notable' and 'famous'. The latter she is, the former, far from it. As to the beauty contest, at the time I wrote my above comments there was no mention whatsoever of winning a beauty contest. Now there is...to a "beauty contest" that was a front to advertise the work of plastic surgeons. Hardly notable. She did compete in the Miss Ukraine contest, and did not win or place. So, nada there. A layout in vmagazine...which can't even break the top 50,000 websites in the world. Millions of views of her videos? I see her channel; I'm not seeing any videos with more than a million views. In fact, only one even crosses 100,000. Anyone can have a youtube channel. Has she been signed by any record label anywhere? Any studio? The "Space Barbie" 'movie' is hardly a movie. To put it in the same realm with a Bond movie is like say a country picnic is in the same realm as the wedding of Kate and William. It isn't a real movie. She blatantly fails WP:ENTERTAINER. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft, who can prove that "Diamond Crown of Ukraine" beauty contest was "to advertise the work of plastic surgeons"? There was about 300 contestants in the beauty pageant, any Ukrainian girl could participate, and there was nothing in the rules about contestants must have a plastic surgery. (Here is the official site: http://missinternet.kiev.ua/beautycontest/briliantovaya-korona-konkurs-krasoti.html ) Even if some plastic surgeon put his ad there - this is not illegal about it, this commercials happens on most such contests, but it does not mean that whole contest was for it. Where is the proof that V (American magazine) "can't even break the top 50,000 websites in the world"? This is a paper magazine, not just a website, and it had a readership of 315,000 as of 2010. Here is the videos on Valeria on YouTube with over 1 millios view: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_sort=video_view_count&search_query=valeria+lukyanova Please note that just this one video got 12,255,299 view as of today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfrGArmpBl0 You are again talking about things you do not know for sure. Innab (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant arguments. Noone is claiming she is notable per the WP:ENTERTAINER additional criteria, but rather per our general notability criteria, which does not require any of the above. Cavarrone 14:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since people are claiming she's notable due to being an actress, it most certainly is relevant. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noone is claiming she is notable as an actress, at best some people noted she was the subject of a documentary, that is something a bit different. Noone voted "keep as she passes WP:ENTERTAINER", so your argument is absolutely irrelevant towards the arguments raised by the keep voters. Cavarrone 18:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:ENTERTAINER category can be nominated for a person who "has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following". As of July 2013, Valeria has 876,000 Facebook fans, 7,484 Twitter followers and over 30 millions views on YouTube. Also there 336,565 followers in the Russian facebook-alike social network VK (social network). This qualifies her for "has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following", IMHO. Innab (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she has a movie "Space Barbie" by "Vice" which depicted her life. Vice is a notable media outlet, has a big article on Wiki. Also her videos on YouTube have over 30 millions views combined. Innab (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer, no doubt you are entitled to your opinion, but you're in a distinct minority. She's notable and meets GNG, no matter how vacuous she is in your opinion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said she was vacuous. I am also not alone in my opinion that she does not warrant an article here. I understand your opinion. However, it is no more valid or invalid than mine is. Thank you for your input. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the educator stuff should come out of the lede, and I took it out. But the breadth and depth of available sourcing out here is actually quite impressive, regardless of subjective views of whether she's important. The press coverage is still going after 2 years. She's not important, and neither was Helena Antonia, but she's notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well then let's recreate the article for Corey Worthington. Afterall, he is still getting mentions in the press [24]. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken the anime girl is friends with Valeria... While "famous" and "notable" aren't exactly the same, they tend to connote the same thing. With popularity comes notability, dontcha agree? You're just ignoring the enduring media coverage. The other examples you've mentioned don't generate as much media buzz as Valeria does. Now I'll bring up a new example: Sarah Burge. She is only known for being a plastic lady, and yet her article is kept. Because of the enduring media coverage. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think WP:NOTNEWS is a more applicable principal to discuss here than WP:BLP1E, as there is no "event" here, and Lukyanova has herself (apparently) sought media attention, which means she is not a "low profile individual". Both of those are express requirements for BLP1E to apply. postdlf (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I noticed that the Russian Wikipedia had a deletion discussion in March 2013 where their article was kept [25] The closer expressed surprise at finding that the subject was indeed notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia has a ridiculous number of articles for people who are only notable for being "models". Unless one is an international print or runway model, I don't see how this meets the notability requirement but Lukyanova isn't that much different from many others who are only known for their modeling. If her article is deleted, there are quite a few others that should be evaluated, too (start with "glamour models"). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indeed, there are scores of models, or rather media attention seekers, and not even half of them are notable. She fails WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC.--Viticulturist99 (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please justify how she fails WP:GNG. Ridiculous, given the numerous news pieces mentioning her. And if she fails WP:BLP1E, wouldn't she be notable? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- non-notable as educator (based on the cites I could[n't] find) but notable as a model per GNG with the number of news pieces about her. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear case of BLP1E; there has been no significant coverage to meet GNG, everything is about her looking like a Barbie doll. Giant Snowman 10:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered the argument a little above? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Her physical appearance could be hardly referred as "an event" per BLP1E. Also, BLP1E refers to low-profile individual, and she clearly is not. Cavarrone 16:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly meets GNG, with tons of international, significant coverage about her. She also was the main subject of a documentary which after a quick WP:BEFORE appears to be notable for itself. Cavarrone 16:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I'd like to see this subject and most reality shows disappear from the cultural consciousness, this topic unfortunately meets WP:GNG guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There are almost 4 millions results on Google for "Valeria Lukyanova". Articles about her were published in ABC News, Forbes, The Sun,V Magazine, Huffington Post, Daily Mail, MailOnline, Vice, L'Express (France), and many others (just look at the "reference" block at bottom of the article). She has over 30 millions views on YouTube. She appeared several time on main russian federal TV "Channel One Russia" - which has more than 250 million viewers worldwide. As of July 2013, Valeria has 876,000 Facebook fans, 7,484 Twitter followers, and there 336,565 followers in the Russian facebook-alike social network VK (social network). Articles about her were in most famous Russian newspapers. British media agency made a movie about her. If all that together does not classify for General Notability Criteria, than what does? How can it be "no significant coverage"? This is definitely a "must have" article. There were 2527 article views in just one day when the wiki article existed on 5/25/2013 - please check statistics on http://stats.grok.se/en/201305/Valeria%20Lukyanova for 5/23/2013. Most of the other wiki articles have much less views per day. Also, there is nothing wrong with being famous just for the look - we have Wiki Infobox "model", several categories "female models", and thousands of articles about female models: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_models_by_nationality Innab (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this user canvassed opinions here.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that something wrong about it? I can remove it. Innab (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is decidedly non-neutral, which is the main problem. It essentially tells people how to !vote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it already was neutral, but I changed the wording. Hope is will be less confusion now. Innab (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SIGCOV Azylber (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:GNG. As is so often the case, folks here confuse notability with celebrity. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep kind of a WP:ONEEVENT, as she's only notable for one reason, but I don't really think looking like a Barbie doll is an "event" so I think it's acceptable to have an article. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:31, 21 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. Deleting as a copyvio. This should not be considered reflective of the individual's notability or lack of it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danqun Fang

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

Notability is not clearly established, and the body of the article is so ponderous and poorly written, that I wonder if it can reasonably be repaired. Few citations exist, and at least one of the seven references is a dead link. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral, but sheesh...TNT this thing. Aside from the lead section, the article looks like nothing but a very long copypaste job. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like a copypaste[26] of this from Baidu or the other way around; and from his online resume.[27] Confirmed he is/was Professor at Northwest University (China).[28][29] (primary source) His Chinese name is 方丹群. His English name is sometimes "Dan Qun Fang" (or "Dan Q. Fang"). His resume claims "The national postal service issued his portrait of commemorative stamps." .. that's a good sign of notability but don't know to confirm. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain Delete I have spent a lot of time researching Chinese-language sources via Google Translate, since there is very little on this topic on English-language sources. My conclusion is that is a long-time professor at a Chinese University who has a good reputation there for work done earlier in his career in certain fields. Some of the claims are inconsistent across sources so I'm suspicious of the reliability of these claims, probably based in fact, but trumped up. The Chinese sources point to his US work as being notable, his US sources point to his Chinese work. The claim that he was on a stamp is interesting, but stamp collectors are pretty good about documenting and I could find no evidence that the "national postal service" issued him on a Chinese stamp, though who knows. This AfD really needs someone who reads Chinese. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:37, 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. Snow close. It is clear that consensus views the content of the page as an attack page that violates at least BLP and NPOV in any Wikipedia namespace. As some of the editors alluded to below, this kind of selective picking and using of information from the vast amount of reliable source material available on Kevin Rudd raises user conduct issues. However, AfD is not the place to resolve those issues. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Rudd behavioural and personality related controversies

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

Tagged for WP:CSD#G10, but I disagree, the content is well based in reliable sources, over a long period of time. It is probably destined to be well-covered in political books. On the other hand, it is a collection of negative coverage and may be considered deleteable as a coatrack for negative commentary, not defensible by mere anticipation of more reputable sources providing a reliable balanced view. I think more comment is needed before deleting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely negative attack page. While it appears to be highly-referenced, many of the main sources are from publications which have demonstrated a clear bias for some time, or compilation of negative quotes from Kevin Rudd's political enemies (whether in the opposing party or rivals within the ALP). There is a whole section based on a newspaper's report of a psychological assessment by the Liberal Party campaign team! How is that even remotely neutral? --Canley (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Canley (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- "There is a whole section based on a newspaper's report of a psychological assessment by the Liberal Party campaign team! How is that even remotely neutral?" It doesn't say it is neutral, it says the assessment was done by the Liberal Party. Mind you, it's probably accurate too, considering they won the election. Beaglepack (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hi, thanks for the message. Everything on the page is referenced, and openly discussed in Australian politic discourse and the Australian print & news media, including the publicly funded news source, the ABC. It's understandable that there might some who want to suppress talk of Kevin Rudd's faults out of bitterness, given that Kevin Rudd just lost the ALP a federal election in Australia 3 days ago. It is a desperate time for those souls, and they have my sympathies. However, I am concerned that the main wiki page about Kevin Rudd is currently missing a large piece of the puzzle that everyone on the ground here in Australia is aware of - Kevin Rudd's controversial personality. If someone overseas read the Kevin Rudd main wiki page, they might be left scratching their heads about the dynamics of Kevin Rudd's political career, and Australian politics over the last few years. I've got the page backed up on my computer in any case for later use. Thank you. Beaglepack (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I not surprised that your response would be to claim this nonsense is a vital biographical aspect, and any objection is sour grapes over the election loss from biased lefties eager to whitewash their hero's story? Just so you know, if you or another editor created an article on "Tony Abbott misogyny controversies", I would be just as determined that this sort of attack compilation is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia, regardless of political orientation, and should be deleted. --Canley (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Looks can be very deceiving, as this "article" relies on unbalanced, extremely bias analyses and tittle-tattle from Rudd's political enemies within his own party, as well as the opposing party's (Liberal Party) campaign team. A big 'no no'. The article is completely negatively skewed, and reads as an attack page. In breach of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Did the quoted people not make those statements about Rudd? Did Rudd not just take the ALP to it's worse election result in 100 years? I must have missed something. Maybe it's too soon for some people. Beaglepack (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suggest you take a good long read of: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An attack page in its purest and most terrible form, and using an 'analysis' from the opposing party? Absolutely not allowed here and this article is unrescuable. We wouldn't have this type of page for any candidate, not even if they did a line of purile things. Nate • (chatter) 04:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP and WP:ATTACK. this is one of the worst I've seen and should be speedily deleted. LibStar (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, given others' comments so far, I will agree to deletion. I think there is room for coverage of this stuff, but as it is negative, and as there are many highly biased sources, it needs to be written only with great care. I suggest the appropriate way forward is to discuss at Talk:Kevin_Rudd#Article_section_Behaviour_and_personality what might be justifiably included. I suggest that this should be done slowly, as event are recent and feelings high. The selection of suitable sources will be non-trivial. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree to deletion perhaps you might restore the speedy deletion template that you removed? WWGB (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to deletion on the basis that it is a hopeless spinout with respect to BLP and NPOV, but I do not agree that it is an attack page meeting "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose". The other purpose is to document an actual real-world occurrence, and I think people stating "a miserable breach of both WP:BLP and WP:ATTACK" are overstating. Multiple independent (of each other) sources attest to the gist of the article. I'm not sure how to comment on how it is that all of the many sources are biased, it being awkward but more or less true. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That quote is mine and I think it's accurate. The article serves "primarily to disparage" and the author notes above that it was designed to counter "suppress[ion] ... of Kevin Rudd's faults" and document "Kevin Rudd's controversial personality" (his "personality" is controversial now, rather than his actions?). The entire thing is an exercise in WP:UNDUE. The purpose is not to "document an actual real-world occurrence" - it is to document a series of alleged occurrences and group them together in an article to draw an WP:OR psychoanalytical conclusion about a person's personality. Stalwart111 06:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and WP:SNOW close) - I don't actually mind that this was brought to AFD. It means there is a fast-built, solid and established consensus to fall back on if rubbish like this gets recreated. The article itself is a miserable breach of both WP:BLP and WP:ATTACK as suggested above. Stalwart111 05:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and ("I've got the page backed up on my computer in any case for later use.") salt for good measure. Stalwart111 06:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, SALT, and maybe block the article creator. Pure WP:BLP violation, created just to attack another human being, and is utterly disgraceful. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. This kind of thing is totally contrary to what we should be about and is by its very definition POV. Frickeg (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherent bias contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. The subject's personality and political style is a reasonable topic as it is covered in detail in sources such this but such material should be presented in a balanced and proportionate way in the main article about him — his strengths as well as his weaknesses. Warden (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article violates every policy I can think of. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, SALT, and snowball close - Major WP:BLP and WP:NPOV violation. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 13:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - WP:COATRACK, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, the list goes on. Ansh6 6 6 22:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt- Attack page. We would not allow an article called, say, Tony Abbott's regressive douchenozzlery for good reason, so this one is out. Reyk _YO! 02:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soon as possible! A one-sided, POV-ridden article from the title through to its content. Any relevant part could be included in Rudd's article, if presented neutrally and with consideration to relevant weight. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/WP:SNOW delete Massively non-neutral and a serious violation of WP:BLP. I agree that the closing admin should also consider whether Beaglepack's editing rights should be suspended given their apparent cluelessness about WP:BLP. The issues around Rudd's conduct are a significant aspect of his political career, but need to be presented in context and be referenced to high quality sources. This article is largely dependent on claims by Rudd's political opponents. Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless we also want Tony Abbott behavioural and personality related controversies! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 02:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW CSD:G10 Technical 13 (talk) 02:49, 14 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 delete. Already speedy-deleted as A7. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Burks

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

I am nominating this on behalf of an anon user, whose rationale is: "Non-notable. Does not meet football notability criteria in WP:NGRIDIRON. Never played any games in any professional league." --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:09, 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 redirect to Backyard Sports series. Ged UK 11:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Backyard Kids

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

Unsourced for six years, mostly original resource. No obvious notability. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Backyard Sports series per WP:INUNIVERSE. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Erpert. Ansh6 6 6 17:29, 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. Taking out the sockpuppets, there is clear consensus to keep. Michig (talk) 06:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of continents by population

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

Not worthy of its own article. Information is available on articles for specific continents, as well as articles covering all of the continents.--Maidstoneuk (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Article is completely non-noteworthy, and information does not require its own article.--82.45.79.122 (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a little bit almanacky, but this is good content in my opinion. The sort of thing that people would look for in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Keep under the policy of WP:IGNOREALLRULES, at a minimum. Carrite (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, Wikipedia also serves to present objective almanac-style content. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As things currently stand, all the information in this article is not available in other articles, and even if that was changed, no other article could enable such easy comparison of how the populations of different regions and continents have changed over time - the alternative would be endless flipping between several articles. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As others have said, this information is not worthy of its own article. There isn't even a proper list of continents. Definite delete.--92.20.148.198 (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Information can be found on the individual articles, AND the article for world population as a whole. Completely unnecessary article.--SimonAndGarfunkel22 (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: setting apart Carrite, PaleCloudedWhite and Northamerica1000 the other two accounts and IPs are Confirmed puppets basing on a check I did on another project. --Vituzzu (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected as much. Just for the sake of clarity of your statement, I'm assuming you meant to insert a comma after "Northamerica1000"? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Going back to what I said previously, all relevant information can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Population_by_region - there is no reason for this to have its own article when it is completely available elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.148.198 (talk) 22:03, 15 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.

^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3b9e_KWO-I

[1] ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3b9e_KWO-I

[1]