Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 25

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 24 August 26 August >

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 no consensus. SPA and dubious rationales aside, self-editing aside, some editors assert that sufficient sourcing can be found, some that it does not exist, and both have apparently reasonable positions. This decision is without prejudice to a renomination down the road if it becomes clear that substantive sourcing indeed does not exist on this subject. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Cascone

Kim Cascone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Miserably-sourced overlong bio of obscure composer and self-publisher. I don't spot much in the way of reliable sources for this BLP. Orange Mike | Talk 23:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While apparently started by someone else, the article has been heavily edited by the subject (or someone doing a very good job of impersonating him), and the nearest that it comes to sourcing is a collection of primary external links. As a BLP, it is going to have to be significantly rewritten (and sourced) if kept. However, the subject himself may well be notable. An article on "The Aesthetics of Failure" gets 185 hits of GScholar, and seems to have become something of a manifesto for glitch (music). The best GNews hit that I could identify was this one from The Scotsman, but as the rest seem to be in about a dozen languages and mostly from apparently specialist publications, someone who is more of a linguist and/or knows more about the less accessible areas of electronic music than me might well find more and better - and similarly for the GBooks hits. And there are also passing mentions in apparently reliable sources (like this from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer) which suggest that readers is already expected to have heard of the subject - useless in themselves for notability but still hinting at sources elsewhere. PWilkinson (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Kim Cascone may or may not be notable, but there are so few reliable sources online supporting this notion, it's preoposterous that the initial article consisted of a page-long run-on sentence, followed by so much unverified, personal biographical information, as mentioned by Pwilkinson, it had to have been contributed to by the artist himself significantly. I have seen articles removed for having less than three citations from major news affiliates, and a quick Google search yields very little to nothing in terms of those. Similarly, I have seen many articles referred to disaparagingly as "vanity articles" for far less. A quick look at Mr. Csscone's Twitter account reveals a passionate interest in things like "psycho-spirituality" and "the consciousness of lab-grown meat." Hardly scholastic pursuits, for someone whose Wikipedia article praises his academic accomplishments and lists one of his many occupations as "teacher." If the article is revised substantially to include several, independent, reliable news sources, I may change my vote to "keep." As it stands now, it's a perfect example of how not to maintain neutrality in keeping with BLP guidelines. 174.16.3.12 (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC) — 174.16.3.12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - the article is in dreadful shape, but the subject does appear to be notable being covered in a variety of books in addition to the press noted above. See [1], [2], and [3] for examples. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The two citations noted above would not alone be enough to merit a keep. I recommend that someone seriously overhaul the article with multiple citations, and even then I would change my decision to "weak keep" unless the article were more thoroughly in line with Wikipedia's well-established NPOV policy. Again, as it is now, the article reads like it was written by either the subject or someone very close to him. Find reliable citations regarding his ownership of Silent Records, the sale of the company, his involvement with all the artists the author has mentioned, the academic accomplishments of the subject, and all of the other biographical information in the article. Until reliable news sources can be produced to verify this information, it should be considered potentially libelous, whether the information is accurate or not. 174.16.3.174 (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Cleaning up the prose is an editting issue. -- Whpq (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. However, providing adequate citations for claims asserted as factual in the article itself (i.e., details of his education and academic background, the businesses he owned, who he worked for (including David Lynch), his knowledge of the Schillinger system of composition, etc.) is indeed required. Without any reliable citations, the article as it stands is in blatant violation of Wikipedia's stated policies regarding neutrality and BLP. 174.16.3.174 (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - hey guys...not sure why my page is being considered for deletion - I am not an obscure composer and I am somewhat offended to be refereed to as such by people outside of my genre - I've never heard of Orange Mike either!

I've worked in electronic music for over 30 years, have done sound design and foley in film sound, and worked in audio software...I've written a number of essays/articles about sound art and am highly regarded in my field. Just because you haven't heard of me doesn't mean I'm obscure! WTF? I did indeed start Silent Records, I've written and guest edited two issues of Contemporary Music Review in the UK, I'm on the advisory board of Interference Journal in Dublin, and why is ""psycho-spirituality" and "the consciousness of lab-grown meat." from my Twitter account even mentioned here? it seems an arrogant and snobbish statement by some computer geeks who don't know much about consciousness studies and how it affects music and sound art...*that's* your criteria for being taken seriously?! wow! how lame is that? :\ also, I didn't start this page - not sure exactly who did but I've tried to clean it up time allowing over the years - I don't do impersonations but can do some if paid enough money ;) Kim Cascone composer & writer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anechoic (talk • contribs) 20:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC) — Anechoic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep I do apologize for not being more familiar with wikipedia's policies and editing interface, but Kim is listed as assistant sound editor for the film 'Wild At Heart', a very well-known film by a very significant director:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100935/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast He is also an artist on many significant labels which play a definitive part in cutting edge and contemporary music history: hermetic, anechoicmedia, Silent Records, Sub Rosa, Ritornell, Raster-Noton, C74. http://cycling74.com/2005/09/13/an-interview-with-kim-cascone/ http://hermetic.com/anthology/profile/kim-cascone/

But really, i shouldn't have to learn the policies and editing interface of wikipedia... because if you want someone without bias, wikipedia itself should implement a system whereby an unbiased stranger to his work would do the proper not-just-limited-to-big-brother-google search and figure out exactly the same things i've come to know and appreciate about Kim Cascone's contribution to contemporary art. So my solution is this, since it's really a matter of wikipedia having a bad system of verification subject to the whims of mainstream-and-outdated users and media links, next time i see a banner at the top of the page telling me that wikipedia needs my help, i will look for the Kim Cascone page first, and if it's not there, i'm happy to let wikipedia fend for itself. -Raja The Resident Alien (someone you probably don't care about who donates to wikipedia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajatheresidentalien (talk • contribs) 22:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC) — Rajatheresidentalien (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep I for the life of me cannot see why this is marked for deletion. Kim is a respected artist and acadmic who's papers such The Asthetics of failure and interviews The microsound scene [4] are used in texts in Post graduate studies in many Universities such as UTS Sydney for the study of New Media Asthetics. Disputing Kim working with David Lynch speaks volumes when a simple search of IMDB reveals his work [5] What is the intent of the deletion? Promoting ignorance of the importance of this mans work? Or simply a personal grudge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickypann (talk • contribs) — Rickypann (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


  • Delete. The issue is not whether Cascone is an "obscure" composer, or whether he believes that all cells have consciousness. Consensus among physiologists is that they do not, but with respect to the article in question, the point is moot. That said, I am not the editor who proposed the deletion, but I see many reasons why it shouldn't be a part of Wikipedia. What is wrong with this article is simple. It does not follow standard Wikipedia guidelines regarding Biographies of Living Persons, insofar as it lacks even the barest number of reliable citations. It is, as of this writing, a collection of external references accompanied by numerous claims which have no substantiating links from reliable news sources. Plain and simple. I didn't see anyone disputing Cascone's work with David Lynch; what I witnessed was someone (rightfully) expecting an authenticating citation where none existed. A single listing on IMDb is not, by Wikipedia's standards, in and of itself a reason to keep the article. It must both adhere to Wikipedia's strict policy regarding verifiability, including several, independent citations from reputable news sources, and also be written in a style that is NPOV. As it is now, and as has been pointed out, much of the information in the article cannot be (or has not yet been) reliably sourced, and therefore are in direct violation of Wikipedia's policy. I'm sure that Kim is a wonderful guy. That is not the problem here. This is obviously a vanity article containing a TON of personal information that is, thus far, unverified, and that alone is reason enough for deletion. Again, refer to Wikipedia's longstanding policy regarding reliable sources and correct the article. For now, it's a self-authored biography by a self-proclaimed person of import. This is not to suggest that Mr.Cascone isn't notable. Only that his notability has yet to be established in keeping with Wikipedia's well-established protocol. 108.92.172.8 (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC) — 108.92.172.8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment - Once again, I'd like to point out that the current state of the article has not bearing on notability. I have in fact, now added one source to the article. However, it would take a lot of work to clean this article up. AFD is not cleanup. We are here to determine if inclusion criteria are met, and I do not see any statement in your arguments for deletion explaining why any of the material presented in this AFD discussion would not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Look at the editing history of the article, and tell me with a straight face that most of the biographical information wasn't provided by the artist himself. This flies in the face of Wikipedia's NPOV stance, and is precisely why I take issue with the article. I did not propose deletion, nor was I the first to notice problems with the article, but without meaningful revisions and additional citations, my vote is still "delete." Cascone may well meet the minimum notability requirements, but if he's personally responsible for a majority (or a good portion) of the edits, which is apparently the case, then there is a conflict of interest. 108.92.172.8 (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - "Consensus among physiologists is that they do not" - citation please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:E00:1C0:348E:65D5:697C:1B8F (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Serious guys, is this a Joke? I ve seen much worse articles than this one on wiki, why is n t it marked for improvements or "citations needed?" I dont really get this, but it is embarrasing. Feels like someone with some personal objections wants the article deleted, this doesnt sound very cientific to me ... Soldateska (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC) — Soldateska (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - His article on the aesthetics of failure is one of the most-cited articles in computer music and is standard reading for music undergraduate students. It has been reprinted in numerous texts aimed at students. The article does need editing, but the subject is certainly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcchutch (talk • contribs) 12:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC) — Drcchutch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment I'm not a spa, I just forgot my password for my previous account, celesteh1 Drcchutch (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As pertains to notability, every statement regarding Cascone's history must be properly sourced. I now see three sources, which is the bare minimum allowed for inclusion in Wikipedia. As has been mentioned, I would be willing to change my opinion to "weak keep" if a couple of extra citations were added. Until this morning, there wasn't even a section for references, and the bibliography section has only recently been added. Until now, there were only two sections: "discography" and "external links," neither of which are crucial. The article, again, reads like a vanity article. If we are to believe from this discussion that user Anechoic is Cascone himself (he freely acknowledges it) then he himself is responsible for a tremendous number of edits of this article over the years. That is the very definition of a vanity article, regardless of whether or not the subject is notable. The article still contains MANY statements that require independent citations for verification. In fact, almost NONE of the claims made in the article are properly sourced, from Cascone's education, to much of his work history, to his recent pursuits in music, to his interest in the Schillinger system. These kinds of statements should be regarded as contentious unless properly sourced. Period. An interview on a website is not a proper citation by Wikipedia's standards, and never has been. The article has been improved somewhat; however, again, one only needs to look at the edit history to see who is responsible for a significant amount of the information included. 108.92.172.8 (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC) — 108.92.172.8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Reply - "[E]very statement regarding Cascone's history must be properly sourced" does not pertain to notability; it pertains to verifiability. Given the conflict of interest, I agree that all of the material needs to be meticulously sourced. But that does not negate the fact that the coverage of his work shows that general notability guidelines have been met. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - I apologize for the misstatement; nonetheless, my opinion stands. The notability guidelines have BARELY been met, as Wikipedia states "[a] person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject," while this article, as of my previous comment, had only three reliable citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.92.172.8 (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just cleaned out a bunch of cruft from the article but what's left (e.g. the passages in this book including the quote "Cascone is probably the most famous microsound artist in the world") convinces me that he really does pass WP:GNG. The spa party going on here and the strong pattern of promotional and autobiographical edits to the article make me think that page protection and a sockpuppet investigation may be warranted, however. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - While the page definitely needed tightening up with revisions and referencing it's looking a lot better than it has done in the past. I personally find the mention of "sockpuppets" rather distasteful: I believe what you are seeing here is the academic and musical community coming together to defend the valuable contributions that Kim Cascone has made to electronic music. In my own university school, Kim's 'Aesthetics of Failure' paper was established as a document for discussion on our undergraduate 'Music in Context' module long before I arrived, and, as other commentators here have noted, is part of many undergraduate and post-graduate syllabi. For a paper to have 180+ citations in other academic literature is something of an achievement and represents a seminal piece of work and - as Scholar indicates - it has been cited in works by a number of academics respected in the fields of electronic and computer music such as Leigh Landy and Nick Collins. Although an independent artist without academic affiliation, Kim is respected amongst practitioners of electronic music (academic and otherwise) for his theoretical contributions as well as his workshops. I do sympathise with Wikipedia editors and would agree that the article as originally tagged for deletion was not up to scratch. I hope with edits and citations a 'keepable' version will emerge in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. — PLegard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. PLegard (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - Distasteful? It's perfectly appropriate, as Mr. Cascone is one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) contributor to this article, a fact that no one knew until Cascone outed himself in this discussion. Whether he intended to deceive everyone is up to debate, but one can see why having people edit their own biographical entries would be a problem, no matter how essential their musings on electronic music may or may not be. 108.92.172.8 (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Two of the five citations come from ambientmusicguide.com. As I understand it, websites such as these are not reliable news sources, leaving us with three reliable citations, again, the bare minimum required by Wikipedia. Can someone find something else on Cascone? 108.92.172.8 (talk) 14:47, 31 August 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:Malik Shabazz under A9. Ansh666 03:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malevolence (album)

Malevolence (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Creator removed my PROD tag without a reason. The reason for my PROD was, "Non-notable album, has nothing more than a track listing, so it fails WP:NALBUMS, and there are no reliable sources covering it, so it fails the GNG". TCN7JM 23:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable album by non-notable band. reddogsix (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 25 August 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 snow keep/nomination withdrawn. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of places of worship in Reigate and Banstead

List of places of worship in Reigate and Banstead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I actually feel kind of bad nominating this because I can see that a lot of work went into it, but Wikipedia is not a directory of area churches, which is what this aticle is. This is no more valid than "List of Grocery stores in Cleveland" would be, even if some of the individual buildings are of historic importance. What looks like a huge pile of sources is really a bunch of... directory listings, not sources discussing places of worship in this area as a general concept. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While most of the churches listed don't have their own articles, they do get ample coverage in reliable sources. Many of them are quite old. Some have distinct characteristics such as "probably the only windmill in England in use as a church" they get coverage for. Dream Focus 23:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, this is a list article. A large part of the prose is actually general background information on the whole area and not specific to the buildings which are the supposed subject of the article. I also find it interesting that one of them is in a windmill, but we are talking about the overall notability of the concept of "places of worship in <wherever>" and on this case I don't see much evidence that that concept has been the subject of significant coverage outside of directories and primary sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On the grounds that I found this interesting and thought provoking, as did who ever put this on the dyn of the en. front page. There are plenty of presidents as stated above, and that lack of similar pages for other parts of the globe it to the detriment of Wikipedia in my view. Even as as keen Richard Dawkings supporter, I find it, in my personal view, slightly insensitive to compare places of worship to Grocery shops. they are clearly very different Simuliid talk 23:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I find it interesting" is generally considered an invalid argument in a deletion discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But my other points still stand. without looking hard at all I have found Places of worship in Framingham, Massachusetts, Places of worship in Warsaw, Places of worship in Leicester, Places of worship in Thrissur, Places of worship in Harrogate, Places of worship in Bangalore, Places of worship in Mulund, Places of worship in Burnley, Places of worship in Hong Kong, List of places of worship in Hastings, Places of worship in Tunbridge Wells (borough), List of places of worship in Sevenoaks (district), Lists of places of worship in Wealden, 2010 attacks against places of worship in Malaysia, List of current places of worship in Wealden, List of places of worship in Horsham (district), List of places of worship in Tonbridge and Malling, List of places of worship in Adur, List of former places of worship in Wealden, List of places of worship in Mid Sussex, Lists of places of worship in Chichester (district), List of places of worship in the Lower Mainland, List of current places of worship in Chichester (district), List of places of worship in Mole Valley. I can not quite grasp you reasoning? Why should they be deleted just because they are a place of worship? or because they are a list/directory of something? if the latter , why not delete List of operas by Mozart, or List of works by Francisco Goya, or even Comparison of raster graphics editors? they are also lists/directories of "Something", as is a great deal of Wikipedia. could you clarify please? Simuliid talk 00:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know anything about an encyclopedia's criteria for keeping or deleting articles, but these lists are enormously useful to me. Church architecture is incredibly varied and yet remains utterly distinct from all other forms, completely different than palaces, castles, residences, office buildings, factories, supermarkets, etc. You might check out the Wikipedia article on "Church Architecture". I have a long term project going about adapting church designs to new residential structures, and while I don't have time to methodically seek out each and every individual church and list of churches here, every time I run across one of these lists on Wikipedia I joyfully download all the photos to my files for future reference, noting those that are especially interesting. As sources of inspiration I find nothing comparable, and it's far more productive than going at it one church at a time when one might by chance be mentioned in some Wikipedia article. It would definitely impoverish my life if lists like these were deleted. Roarshocker (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a well-prepared, well-illustrated, richly-referenced list, mainly covering the churches in the area. It is similar to some 100 other lists in Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures in England and there is absolutely no question of considering its deletion. I hope, though, that many of the buildings in the list which do not yet have articles in their own right will be covered sooner or later. Since 2007, Hassocks5489 has been creating dozens of similar lists for Wikipedia (which have never been questioned) in addition to some 200 articles on individual churches. Lists of this kind are extremely useful to those interested in the architecture and religious history of an area and, in the context of improving Wikipedia, also provide a starting point for those wishing to develop or expand articles on the items they cover. Your suggestion that the introductory text is not consistent with the list is hardly relevant to AfD (but could of course have been raised for discussion on the talk page). In my opinion, the author should be congratulated on providing excellent background information in addition to his comments on each of the buildings in the list. I suggest the AfD be withdrawn as soon as possible. If this list were to be seen as an example of which lists are outside the scope of Wikipedia, then thousands of other lists of religious buildings all over the world would be candidates for deletion too. Beeblebrox, your assertion that "What looks like a huge pile of sources is really a bunch of... directory listings, not sources discussing places of worship in this area as a general concept," is certainly not correct. The list contains many excellent, informative sources as you will see if you take the time to look into them. I am amazed that with your long experience of Wikipedia, you went ahead with AfD without properly researching the article and its place in the encyclopedia. Lists of buildings and structures are one of Wikipedia's most useful features. There is certainly nothing in WP:NOTDIR against creating lists like this one. Indeed, WP:LISTS supports lists along these lines: "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment." --Ipigott (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A model of what a list article should be. It combines history, architecture, religion, and sociology. Why should that be considered to be inappropriate for an encyclopaedia? WP needs more, not less, of this type of material. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Unfortunately I was not able to consult quite as many book sources as I normally would for one of these lists, as it is outside my normal geographical area, but I know from having checked in the past that other sources in which relevant material can be found (in some cases, quite a lot of it) include Horley, Its Church and People Through Ten Centuries (1960), A thousand years of Horley and Gatwick (2006), A History of Redhill (3 volumes), Redhill and Reigate - A History and Celebration (recent; can't remember the year), The Churches of Surrey (1997), Views of Surrey Churches (1979) and The Old Parish Churches of Surrey (2000). I won't be able to get hold of these imminently, but it is my intention to include material from these in the Surrey lists I have done. I am confused by ...not sources discussing places of worship in this area as a general concept.: is this not exactly what the "Overview of the borough" paragraph does, or at least attempts to do? And this paragraph relies quite a lot sourcing to the Victoria County History of Surrey and the Surrey volume of the Buildings of England series, both of which are considered to be good-quality sources. Also, on WP:LISTN (actually, more related to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists)#Selection criteria, I believe the list fulfils all "membership criteria": If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance?; Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?; Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?. To answer a point raised by Ipigott: yes, I hope to write (or to see written by others, of course!) articles for the notable ones. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 10:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep Exactly this sort of nomination which is forcing decent editors away from the project. It's featured quality in my opinion and a tremendous effort. Cannot understand the thinking behind this AFD, not even close to resembling a directory. As Peter says this is a model list and I would encourage this sort of quality informative list for every locality in the world.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus is pretty clear already, nomination withdrawn. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muruchi

Muruchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character does not have references to establish notability, and it is a collection of in-universe details. TTN (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No real life information. King Jakob C2 21:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Were this more than what appears to be a one-shot monster of the day, I might say that this should be redirected, but I fail to see a case for even that. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is largely a copy--in some cases word for word--from the Ultraman Wiki: [6]. While that is under a Creative Commons license, it still demands attribution. Unless attribution is given, we have to delete this or completely rewrite it. I don't see the need in either case. Michitaro (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the history of the Ultraman Wiki and it looks like the copying was probably the other way around. Still, I don't see the need for such detailed in-universe info on Wikipedia if it's already somewhere else. Michitaro (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn|SNOW|NAC Codename Lisa (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spycatcher (disambiguation)

Spycatcher (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A disambig page with only two entries. We can delete it and switch to hatnotes, per WP:TWODABS. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I've added a link to Spy Catcher (Spyforce episode), which is a redirect to the series article. That puts us at three links. Chris857 (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... and makes my nomination completely invalid. I wonder how could I have missed that. Very well then. WP:SNOW, close, and my gratitude. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 25 August 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 Lists of Indian Monuments of National Importance. Courcelles 23:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monuments of National Importance in Lakshadweep

List of Monuments of National Importance in Lakshadweep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No information naveenpf (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Lists of Indian Monuments of National Importance; and trim the links from there to these four. By analogy, there is a reason that National Register of Historic Places listings in Bailey County, Texas is a redirect; it has no listings. Chris857 (talk) 23:34, 25 August 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 Lists of Indian Monuments of National Importance. Courcelles 23:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monuments of National Importance in Dadra and Nagar Haveli

List of Monuments of National Importance in Dadra and Nagar Haveli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No information naveenpf (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Lists of Indian Monuments of National Importance; and trim the links from there to these four. By analogy, there is a reason that National Register of Historic Places listings in Bailey County, Texas is a redirect; it has no listings. Chris857 (talk) 23:34, 25 August 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 Lists of Indian Monuments of National Importance. Courcelles 23:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monuments of National Importance in Chandigarh

List of Monuments of National Importance in Chandigarh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No information naveenpf (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Lists of Indian Monuments of National Importance; and trim the links from there to these four. By analogy, there is a reason that National Register of Historic Places listings in Bailey County, Texas is a redirect; it has no listings. Chris857 (talk) 23:34, 25 August 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 Lists of Indian Monuments of National Importance. Courcelles 23:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monuments of National Importance in Andaman and Nicobar Islands

List of Monuments of National Importance in Andaman and Nicobar Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No information naveenpf (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Lists of Indian Monuments of National Importance; and trim the links from there to these four. By analogy, there is a reason that National Register of Historic Places listings in Bailey County, Texas is a redirect; it has no listings. Chris857 (talk) 23:34, 25 August 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. In the end, sources allegedly proving WP:GNG were found. The question is whether they are reliable enough. For that point, the opinions split 5:2, which is above the standard consensus threshold. Therefore I close this nomination as keep, and not as no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

San Patricio Plaza

San Patricio Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N concern. (looks pretty promotional too) [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 19:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Enclosed malls are notable enough for articles. Dough4872 01:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis? There are no reliable sources I could find that establish notability. a mall or other structure is not by definition notable in and of itself. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 03:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A decades old mall with well over 100 stores is very likely to be notable. I see many Spanish language sources in Google News Archives. Though a lot of them are brief, they add up to significant coverage. I found two English language sources behind pay walls. One describes a major remodel about ten years ago, and the other describes a fire about 40 years ago. Seems notable to me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a bunch of sources, but on further investigation it looks like most? all? of them are ads. If you want to pull out the ones that qualify as RS, be my guest. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read Spanish fluently, but many of the items I saw in my Google News Archive search appeared to be newspaper articles not paid ads. I used Google Translate to get a better idea. There are hundreds listed, so if even 10% have any validity, that amounts to notability in my opinion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any plans to add them to this article, which otherwise completely lacks any RS? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 06:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of reliable sources does not merit deletion. That's a content issue. Perhaps you should add the reliable sources yourself? Here, let me help you out: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Those are all considered reliable sources. If you need help with translations you can use Google Translate. Good luck buddy! —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Ridiculous assessment by nominator. Subject meets all requirements established by WP:GNG. Lack of reliable sources or the way the content is presented does not merit deletion: that's simply a content issue. Reliable sources can be found by performing a simple search on El Nuevo Día, Primera Hora, Caribbean Business, NotiCel, El Vocero, and News Is My Business which are all considered reliable sources by Wikipedia as well as being local newspapers in Puerto Rico. Per WP:AGF, nominator's good intention is duly noted, but his assessment is quite off. Nominator is encouraged to add the reliable sources himself if he is so preoccupied about such matters per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM by using the following Google searches: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For better or worse, in our days shopping malls constitute a notable factor in the social life of a place, but especially so in a village or in a municipality of around 100.000, like Guaynabo. And of course, most top results about them are bound to be full of adds, so our concern should be on content, not deletion. Hoverfish Talk 15:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom non-notable local mall. All hits are either ads for the mall, ads for stores at the mall, or ads about some type of activity at the mall. Nothing is written about the mall itself. Caffeyw (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article from El Nuevo Día which is not an ad nor an annoucement: [19] written by a journalist, namely Marian Díaz, which covers the mall itself and its activities. Another one from El Vocero covering the mall and written by another journalist, Carlos Antonio Otero: [20]. Same thing with [21] all from independent reliable sources and written by journalists rather than by the mall's public relations department. Seriously, why don't you focus your energy on improving the article instead of stating false accusations? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator even with the coverage noted by Ahnoneemoos, assuming it's RS, I am not sure it passes WP:CORP, the relevant standard (since there is no WP:NMALL, though there was an attempt at creating one.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UseTheCommandLine (talk • contribs) 05:35, August 27, 2013‎
Per WP:CORP: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." We have provided independent secondary sources which have covered Plaza Carolina significantly. Once again, you are advised to focus your energy on improving the article rather than trying to get it deleted. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added two ext links from independent sources in the article and in the talk page I linked to several searches with thousands of results Puerto Rican newspapers. Hoverfish Talk 15:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was not ready to comment on this when the nomination first opened up, given the dubious "short-and-sweet" style of the nomination. However, now I have to agree with the arguments opposing the nomination for a delete since the Notability arguments presented since adequately satisfy WP:N. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[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 Computer crime. Courcelles 23:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CyberCrime

CyberCrime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Meandering essay and original research Fiddle Faddle 18:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 18:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Computer crime. Let me explain this a little. There was a show on TechTV that called itself CyberCrime that ran for about 2 years. However we don't have enough sources to show that it ultimately merits its own article. Now why I'm suggesting that this redirect to computer crime over TechTV#Programs is that you can see where various editors have clearly mistaken this article for the actual cyber crime article. (The term with spaces redirects to computer crime.) Redirecting this to the TechTV article would probably be confusing, so I recommend redirecting this title to computer crime and creating a redirect by the name of CyberCrime (TV series) that goes to TechTV. I'll probably create the redirect myself, so all that would be left is deleting and creating the above suggested redirect to computer crime. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Computer crime. I agree with Tokyogirl79. The TV show doesn't seem to warrant its own article, and it could easily be confused with the generic term. I thought this was going to be a meandering essay on computer crime before I actually read the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Day Above Ground

Day Above Ground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally I propose a move request but I have decided to nominate this as I am uncertain this band or song meet notability criteria or have barely scraped it as the level of news coverage have been minor throughout the controversy, only lasting for one week by a small portion of news agencies, neither it have ever charted. Like I said on my move proposal, the song that caused the controversy eclipsed the band for notability since there is nothing to write about them so will only scrape for a WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E as they are nowhere in the level of Rebecca Black's Friday, therefore WP:NOTNEWS applies to them. Donnie Park (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 25 August 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 Panda Hotel. Courcelles 23:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Panda Place

Panda Place (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

wp:n concern [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 17:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 25 August 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. Concern about sources rebutted. Secret account 02:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plaza Carolina

Plaza Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N concern [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 17:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you mean the claim that's unsourced? What if it were 3rd, or 5th, or 9th? still notable? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two reliable sources backing up such claim: [22] [23] You are encouraged to refocus your energy on improving the article instead. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you think [24] and [25] qualify as WP:RS? They both talk only about PR on their about: pages. I'd be happy to go to WP:RSN if you truly think they are RS though. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 08:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted about newsismybusiness.com, since that's the one that seems the most in question. The other one's about page that talks about "Targeted Publications and Marketing Services" makes it seem like less of a priority to ask about, somehow. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 08:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
News Is My Business is an online newspaper whose editor in chief is Michelle Kantrow. Kantrow is a journalist with over 18 years of experience who has published for Caribbean Business, The San Juan Star, and the Puerto Rico Daily Sun (online and printed newspapers). She also holds awards from the Overseas Press Club of Puerto Rico. Per WP:RS and WP:NEWSORG: "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability." Regarding Caribbean Business, they are an online and printed newspaper which has been in publication in Puerto Rico since 1973. The About Us page from Caribbean Business is not hosted by Caribbean Business itself, but by Casiano Communications the parent company whose line of business is "Targeted Publications and Marketing Services that Reach the Puerto Rico Market". See the difference now? Hope that helps. This is not the first time that we have to explain this over and over since they are WP:RS based on local standards which you might not be familiarized with. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Ridiculous assessment by nominator. Subject meets all requirements established by WP:GNG. Lack of reliable sources or the way the content is presented does not merit deletion: that's simply a content issue. Reliable sources can be found by performing a simple search on El Nuevo Día, Primera Hora, Caribbean Business, NotiCel, El Vocero, and News Is My Business which are all considered reliable sources by Wikipedia as well as being local newspapers in Puerto Rico. Per WP:AGF, nominator's good intention is duly noted, but his assessment is quite off. Nominator is encouraged to add the reliable sources himself if he is so preoccupied about such matters per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM by using the following Google searches: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh Dlohcierekim 16:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable. Any hits are either ads for the mall, ads for stores/activities in the mall, or PR annoucnements about remolding the mall. Nothing seems to be written about the mall itself that isn't because of company PR. Caffeyw (talk) 07:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article from El Nuevo Día which is not an ad nor an annoucement: [32] written by a journalist, namely Marian Díaz, which covers the mall itself and its activities. Another one from Caribbean Business covering the mall and written by another journalist, Frances Ryan: [33]. Same thing with [34] [35] [36] [37] all from independent reliable sources and written by journalists rather than by the mall's public relations department. Seriously, why don't you focus your energy on improving the article instead of stating false accusations? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator even with the coverage noted by Ahnoneemoos, assuming it's RS, I am not sure it passes WP:CORP, the relevant standard (since there is no WP:NMALL, though there was an attempt at creating one.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UseTheCommandLine (talk • contribs) 05:34, August 27, 2013‎
Per WP:CORP: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." We have provided independent secondary sources which have covered Plaza Carolina significantly. Once again, you are advised to focus your energy on improving the article rather than trying to get it deleted. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many WP:RS identified in the above discussion. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Similar situation with the San Patricio Plaza nomination above: I was not ready to comment on this when the nomination first opened up, given the dubious "short-and-sweet" style of the nomination. However, now I have to agree with the arguments opposing the delete nomination since the Notability arguments presented since show that WP:N has been adequately satisfied. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[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) 00:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jumeirah Islands

AfDs for this article:
Jumeirah Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N concern [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 17:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How, exactly? I mean, can you elaborate on that a bit? Just saying "it's notable" doesnt seem like much of an argument. I notice the previous nomination some of the people voting Keep subsequently soft-pedaled that, but it still got kept rather than being discussed further. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 18:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - obviously the islands were created and then named by the property developer who built them and so we have to be careful about promotion and puffery. But at the end of the day, this is now a populated location with 736 houses (more than many small towns) and would seem to pass WP:GEOLAND. It is certainly recognised as a suburb in related media coverage including this, this,this and this with some coverage even finding a short-hand acronym for the place "JI". The coverage suggests it might even pass WP:GNG. Stalwart111 23:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting, I think, that the previous AFD was conducted in October 2006 when the "neighbourhood" hadn't been completed and hadn't been opened or settled. 7 years later, it's obviously a different story and the coverage/recognition as a populated location reflects that. Stalwart111 23:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To me, regretably, localities like this are notable. Dlohcierekim 05:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets the relatively low standard of WP:GEOLAND basically per the arguments and sources brought by Stalwart. Zad68 03:37, 28 August 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 Nitpicking. Material that is suitable for merging elsewhere may be accessed from the page history. Jujutacular (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicking (pastime)

Nitpicking (pastime) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable encyclopedic topic; at best this is a content fork from Phil Farrand. The associated definition of "nitpicking" as a behavior is legitimately a dictdef item and is covered by wiktionary and in the article Nitpicking. This topic's only claim to legitimacy and notability seems to be the work of Phil Farrand. Nitpicking is not a hobby or pastime and Wikipedia doesn't need this content fork that defines it as such. Orlady (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - from the disambiguation page (Nitpicking (disambiguation)) and the "see also" links, this content is better put at Criticism#Psychopathology of criticism. Anything of worth about Phil Farrand should be put into his article, too. Ansh666 17:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Somehow didn't see that all relevant content was in the appropriate pages - redirect to the criticism page then. Ansh666 19:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or delete because of the disambig in the title if it really is found there is nothing to merge anywhere else. Ansh666 01:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I see no good rationale given here for any of the several options cited per "just get rid of it, I don't care where". The only one with any credible policy to support it would be dicdef (and thus transwiki to wiktionary), but that's not a terribly useful way to build an encyclopedia.
Phil Farrand did not coin a neologism here, he used the title because it was already a widespread term. It's implausible that he's the only nitpicker of note. Even in sf / fantasy, there are any number of "The Real Science of Harry Potter" books around, based on the same nitpicking approach.
Merge to nitpicking is a backward step of undisambiguation. Claiming "Nitpicking is not a hobby or pastime " and doing that here on Nittypickia is ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nitpicking, in the sense used in this article, is a perfectly good word that long predates its use by Phil Farrand. I have no intention of suggesting otherwise. The fact that it is a valid definition is why Wiktionary has a definition of that sense of the word; additionally, although the article nitpicking is about the physical removal of nits, it discusses this other meaning of the word as an interesting derivation from the physical activity. In contrast, the article under discussion represents this sense of "nitpicking" as some sort of a pastime, hobby, or sport (a former title of the article was "Nitpicking (sport)"). I do not see support for the notion that this sense of nitpicking is notable (per Wikipedia criteria) as a pastime, hobby, sport, industry, or other activity. (And, of course, a valid dictionary definition is not a valid notable topic for Wikipedia.) --Orlady (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Fails GNG as well, as not the subject of multiple instances of substantial published coverage. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hypercriticism redirects to the proper place for this. Finding flaws in a movie or television show isn't nitpicking. That's a totally different thing. You see an error in a fictional work, you should always report it. Totally different than picking apart in detail every little thing wrong with someone or their daily actions. Dream Focus 16:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So that's a merge? Ansh666 19:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirect. There isn't anything to merge. Dream Focus 21:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC
  • Redirect partial merge to to main article on the topic: Nitpick. Explaining the act of nitpicking as an OCD "pastime" is a bit of a WP:NOR stretch. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect - Like Dream Focus said, Hypercriticism already redirects to the correct place for this concept, and there really isn't anything worthwhile to merge. I'd personally recommend Deletion since I don't really see this as being a remotely plausible search term, but I would be OK with a redirect if that's what most people would prefer. 76.91.27.159 (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect would, however, take care of the backlinks to this page. --Orlady (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of those are in the project namespace or various talk namespaces (I can only find 4 article-space links, 6 if you include redirects). Is it worth it? Ansh666 01:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are extraordinarily cheap. --Orlady (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't that apply to WP:RFD only? Ansh666 19:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap, regardless of how they are created or where they are discussed. --Orlady (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Sorry. Ansh666 03:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge (sourced portions of lead) to nitpicking, per WP:CFORK. And it's not literally a pastime anyway. -- Trevj (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article as it belongs on Wikt: as it is a definition. Technical 13 (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Dicdef and non-encyclopedic. GregJackP Boomer! 13:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge to nitpicking. This is not an actual pasttime or concept wholly separate or that is anything more than a dicdef. -Drdisque (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Secret account 02:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Vukčević (footballer)

Marko Vukčević (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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) 16:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if source can be found to indicate that he has already played for the club then article should be kept per NFOOTBALL. Currently, this is not reffed. Fenix down (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added the match report from the official league's website Matej1234 (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to DragonFly BSD. Courcelles 23:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Dillon

Matthew Dillon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to offer other evidence of notability as might be allowed under WP:ANYBIO. Sources offered are the subject's home page and the transcripts of two interviews with the subject. Interviews can sometimes be WP:SECONDARY to the extent they contain the interviewer's own thinking, interpretation, analysis or evaluation but such is not the case here. These are very simple interviews with simple questions and long answers by the subject. Every bit of actual content is the subject telling his own story in his own words, making it WP:PRIMARY and unsuitable for establishing notability. Further, Googling turned up nothing useful. The subject's name is mentioned in connection with DragonFly in various sources, but little more than his name is ever given. Msnicki (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DragonFly BSD per David Gerard.

  • Delete - Non-notable, fails to meet any reason for inclusion. BTW The DragonFly BSD article suggested for merge looks like it could go. Everything is from the company directly, a PR announcement, or from a blog, and a search doesn't appear to find anything else. I'll leave it for now, but suggest it be looked at. Caffeyw (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to DragonFly BSD. I thought it would be pretty easy to dig up some references for Dillon, but there seems to be almost nothing. He experienced a bit of notability in 2012 when AMD confirmed that he found a bug in the Opteron processor ([38][39]), but that's about it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Tenjho Tenge characters. Courcelles 23:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noriko Shindayū Inue

Noriko Shindayū Inue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is only supported by primary sources, and it is unlikely to have garnered any attention that would prove notability. There is a suitable summary for the character on List of Tenjho Tenge characters. TTN (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 25 August 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 while I suppose a chance exists that this is some sort of mangled translation of an article about a real film, I agree with consensus. If proved wrong will gladly restore and apologize. Speedy deleted as obvious hoax. Dlohcierekim 20:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earth's Adventures (film)

Earth's Adventures (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a hoax or some sort of alternative foreign translation of After Earth. PinkBull 13:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment """ @lugnuts, I'm waiting for it on DVD Dlohcierekim 20:53, 25 August 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. Secret account 01:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mizzi Kaspar

Mizzi Kaspar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is not notable to be added on Wikipedia. WikiLion1 (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Rudolf, Crown Prince of Austria, as any notability is effectively inherited from him. AllyD (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mistresses of royalty have their own aknowledged place in history, and normally have their own articles in Wikipedia - just look at the category. What this article need is expansion and improvement, as many other articles do, and the articles on German and Hungarian language wikipedia can be of help in that regard - the article are well developed in those wikipedia versions, and can be developed in the same fashion here.--Aciram (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable, known only for being a mistress of a crown prince. Maybe a mention on Rudolf, Crown Prince of Austria, but even that is doubtful unless there's some serious support for the claims of her being a whore, etc. Caffeyw (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've now expanded the article with some of the above. Stalwart111 01:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First off if she was a key part of the Mayerling incident why isn't she talked about anywhere in it? The only mention in one of the books is Rudolf calling Mizzi the love of his life. Nothing else, and nothing to support the claim she was part of the Mayerling Incident, or to give notability to her in her own right. It appears to be fringe at best for the belief that she was asked to take part in the suicide of Rudolf, and not supported by reliable sources. Even if it where 100% supported, it would not mean she is notable herself, rather that she was part of a notable occurrence. Caffeyw (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are myriad reasons why she might not be mentioned in particular articles. We don't rely on what has or hasn't been mentioned in other articles because those articles aren't a reliable source for anything anyway. The fact that she isn't mentioned may simply mean that none of Wikipedia's current crop of editors has managed to get around to including it yet. That said, she is mentioned at Baroness Mary Vetsera and the citation there seems fairly reliable on the face of it. Beyond that, as Aciram points out above, mistresses have their own place and where they meet WP:GNG (which I would argue this subject does) there's no real justification for deleting an article. Stalwart111 06:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Stalwart. I note also that the nominator is currently blocked as a Ron Gates sock. Peridon (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 01:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hightower (Transformers)

AfDs for this article:
Hightower (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a list of minor characters that do not establish independent notability. The only details are plot summaries and toy lists, and there is no real chance for expansion. TTN (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:14, 25 August 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. Secret account 01:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DiViA Forum

DiViA Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - This article is not notable to be added on Wikipedia. WikiLion1 (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tagged this for notability and primary sources when it was created last October, and it hasn't improved since then. I am finding nothing on Highbeam or Questia and only primary-source social-media postings via Google; fails notability. AllyD (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The King's School, Mugalli, Goa, India

The King's School, Mugalli, Goa, India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization. Can't find independent sources that indicate that this is notable. The article is full of puffery too. Qwerty Binary (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, the article is The kings school, Goa but recreated. It therefore stands to reason that the article should be deleted immediately. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the article has a ToI ref, which is both reliable and significant. Google search shows fe other mentions. Secondary school articles are generally kept. The article title needs to be corrected which I'll do. Tito☸Dutta 12:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a strong presumption of notability for secondary schools, as described in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. In this case, the article includes a reference to a brief story in the Times of India about the school. The article should be improved, not deleted. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We keep high schools because experience shows that, with enough research, sources can almost invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a poor tool for finding sources on schools in the Indian sub-continent. Very few have much of an Internet presence. We need to avoid systemic bias and allow time for local hard-copy and local language sources to be investigated. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is not a high school, it currently doesn't offer HS level. It is apparently supposed to offer HS level at some point, but it's TOOSOON to know if that will happen. Caffeyw (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Grade 10 is leaving certificate level that marks a high school. Grades 11/12 are senior high schools or in UK terms, 6th form. No grounds for deletion here. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The school now offers instruction through grade 10, which is high school (or secondary school) level. It is affiliated with the CBSE, the Indian government agency that regulates secondary schools and conducts nationwide testing of students in grade 10. When a new high school was built in my home town a few years ago, initially it accepted just 9th and 10th graders. No one claimed that it was not a real high school. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's only very recently added 9-10 grades, and has plans at some point to add 11-12, otherwise the school before was only 1-8. It's a toss up really, I can see it either way, I just have a hard time calling something that doesn't offer the four years a high school and for whom most classes are in fact not high school level. Caffeyw (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From own experience, having swimming pool is not very common in Indian schools. Anyway, a school offering education of Nursery to X grades is generally considered notable in India. --Tito☸Dutta 11:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep The Page as I've added information form the Handbook of the School and pictures form Wikicommons and the school.--Gdcdigital (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per long-standing consensus, for reasons endlessly reiterated, that secondary schools are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 27 August 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. (was nominated in another AFD closed as delete, consensus is clear on both) Secret account 02:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Eastleigh F.C. season

AfDs for this article:
2011–12 Eastleigh F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2nd nomination - Season article for a club outside of The Football League that's not notable in my opinion. JMHamo (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - see my comments on 2013-14. Bringing in the concept of whether an article is notable or not is questionable, given that I am sure many of the non-Manchester United fans may not consider the 2013-14 Man Utd page as noteable. Wikpedia is there to provide information, regardless of whether certain people deem that information significant or not. I'm sure we could easily find many articles on Wikipedia, which have less information on than this nominated page, which are not up for deletion, yet are less "noteable". User:GrimReaper66 12:57, 25 August 2013 (GMT)
  • Keep - firstly GrimReaper66's arguments to 'keep' are extremely poor, and comparing Man Utd with Eastleigh is laughable. While season articles on clubs outside of the Football League are normally non-notable, this particular article/season does seem to meet GNG with its well-sourced prose. Needs cleaning up though. GiantSnowman 12:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "does seem to meet GNG with its well-sourced prose" But most of this is just from their own website. There are one or two other refs about results, but doesn't this all equate to WP:ROUTINE? Yes, the season happened, but WHY is this season for a non-league club notable? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I hate to be a deletionist, but I'm pretty sure there's no reason to have season articles for clubs outside The Football League. I don't think the sourcing in this article is appropriate either, since most of the references are to the club's own website. – PeeJay 15:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The club may be sufficiently notable to have an article, but only teams in the top 4 (fully professional) leagues/divisions (i.e. below Football League) should be having anything more detailed like a seasonal article. This is in Conference South, which is one or two divisions further down. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, club does not play at a level anywhere near high enough to satisfy WP:NSEASONS. Disagree with GS comments, most of the references are from the Eastleigh FC blog. Agree this is a much better quality article than many season articles, but this is still an article on a mediocre mid table finish with no significant events occurring and no indication that there has been significant reporting of the season outside of WP:ROUTINE. Fenix down (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - my opinion has not changed since the previous AfD one year ago - this subject passes WP:GNG, even if the clubs plays in the "wrong" league. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can you explain how this article passes GNG? I accept that this is a well written article with a lot of sourced prose however, of the 119 references, only 9 of them come from an essentially non-primary source (basically local newspapers) and 5 come from the league website. The remainder are all from the clubs own blog. There is nothing in this article to indicate that this mid-table finish attracted any significant coverage outside of the club beyond routine. Fenix down (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Season articles should only be allowed for clubs in fully pro leagues. Number 57 22:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - take away references from the cub's website and WP:ROUTINE coverage and nothing is left. There is no reliable source that has written about this club's season. Fails WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hotklub

Hotklub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable "secret" club. Appears to be all OR. Then has a section on a song that is supposedly about the "secret" club. Caffeyw (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Done some googling and no joy. The only source available appears to be a self-produced music video/short film with limited distribution, and I can't even find a representation that what it depicts is not fictitious - the original editor's version of the article is explicitly about it as a film, and doesn't imply it's a documentary. If we turn out to have proper written sources on this, then fine, but we wouldn't want to keep much if any of the prose here, anyway. Morwen (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete for complete failure of WP:NF. While even the earlier versions of this article failed, later edits have made it ridiculous. Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was started in good faith about a non-notable short film, and was turned into a hoax article in 2008 and never fixed. There's no reason to keep this. Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it does appear to be a hoax built on top of an article for a non-notable film... even if it's not a hoax no sourcing can be found to support any of it, and the result's the same. Zad68 03:41, 28 August 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, A7. GB fan 19:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bluesail Technology

Bluesail Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In addition to the article not explaining how this could be notable, the subject of the article does not, and could not, pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Qwerty Binary (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: multiple searches turn up nothing on this company (not the same as "Blue sail technologies"); no references, not even a company site as an External Link - fails WP:CORPDEPTH by a long way. This could probably go as a CSD A7 given the lack of claim to anything other than the firm's existence, and even that has no verification. AllyD (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DCRUFC

DCRUFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable club, just a student team that plays in intra-University competitions. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - G11/A7 would seem to apply. Non-notable, pure promotional, and copied word for word directly from the teams website. Caffeyw (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Fails WP:RU/N. noq (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I cannot beleive that any university internal sporting team is notable enough to have an article. Even the university first team is unlikely to qualify. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – isn't notable. If it was more encyclopaedic I'd recommend merging into Downing College, Cambridge, but it's not. Be careful using WP:RU/N, it's a bit of a joke, and isn't a very useful guideline. Better to use GNG. – Shudde talk 12:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 01:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hathenbruck

Hathenbruck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a geographical section in the Uinta Mountains, unsourced. All I could find is there is no Reliable source that this is an official name for a location. Only that it is a surname from a person that is involved in a myth about lost gold mines. Ben Ben (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I too can find no evidence for the use of "Hathenbruck" as a toponym in the way the article suggests. Deor (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not verifiable. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Matthews

Sam Matthews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hasnt made a senior appearance for his club Telfordbuck (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:08, 25 August 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 Media coverage of the Gulf War. And/or elsewhere, but consensus is this doesn't merit a standalone article.  Sandstein  06:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The luckiest man in Iraq

AfDs for this article:
The luckiest man in Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was previously nominated for deletion as NOT NEWS before the discussion was complete the article was userfied for improvement. Article has now been restored without any improvement (only categories have been changed) still no evidence of notability for a stand-alone aarticle. MilborneOne (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is more material to add but since you are in such a hurry to delete it then why should I bother. WP:I don't like it shouldn't be a reason to tag it soon after I move it back to article space. It wasn't nominated for not news it was speedy tagged as not news. The AfD later found it to be a lsting event.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 10:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 10:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and create Redirect File - I have been unable to determine the identity of the individual involved. However, a number of references, mostly in passing, exist of this incident on the internet. Maybe the incident could be merged into the Gulf War or the Norman Schwarzkopf Jr. articles, as it is not mentioned in either. Bill Pollard (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly one event and not news policies apply here to this old story that has no recent relevance or sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Merges won't work as I brought up in the last AfD. It would need to be merged to the General's article, the war article, the guided bomb article, the Paveway article, Media coverage of the Gulf War and the A6 article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy until such time as those sources are added. The "speedy tagged" for NOTTHENEWS still applies; restoring it with no improvement is not productive. I'm not sure where in the previous AfD it was found "to be a lsting event". It sure looks like it was heading for a delete to me with 2 !votes for a tiny merge, 4 !votes to delete and only Canoe1967 commenting in favor of some kind of a keep. There is still no indication of lasting significance. This is still a permanent stub that strives to be a WP:BLP1E. The person "remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". - SummerPhD (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E (of course, presuming that the person is still alive; if not, still fails WP:BIO1E). Ansh666 17:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - User:Canoe1967 has redirected the article to Media coverage of the Gulf War, I have reverted it pending the outcome of this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not satisfy WP:NOTNEWS WP:BLP1E There is no evidence that the driver of the vehicle is a man. Just sayin'. I don't see anything encyclopedic here. Scottyoak2 (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How does his/her gender matter? Do we need a DNA test before we have a Wikipedia article on someone? Wikipedia article titles should reflect the commonly-used name, which this certainly is. And "Just sayin'" is not a valid argument for anything ever. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The argument Scottyoak2 gave for deletion is NOTNEWS and BLP1E. I think the gender question is more of a point that we know next to nothing about this person, the supposed topic of the article, other than that they were driving on one road at one time. Heck, for all we know, the one person described in this article was several people or a Google driverless car. Long story short, this article is about a person but no one seems to know or care anything about them. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Media coverage of the Gulf War. This is a well-known incident from the war. There's not really a huge amount to say about it, until someone finds out who was driving, so a stand-alone article is perhaps overkill, but it certainly deserves a mention as something that illustrates how the Western media presented the war (e.g. see[40]). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Media coverage of the Gulf War (failing that just Delete) does not meet the level needed for a stand alone article a brief mention in another is sufficient. LGA talkedits 20:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Colapeninsula & LGA. To good a story to lose entirely. Not strong enough for own article. Dlohcierekim 23:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NOTNEWS and it's doubtful there will ever be enough specific information out there for this article to warrant its own stand alone article. Superman7515 (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Media coverage of the Gulf War seems like a good solution. Not important enough for its own article, but OK for a mention on Wikipedia. (It might warrant a small mention in The Schwarzkopf article also, as this episode has been describes in portraits of him). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Media coverage of the Gulf War per WP:NOT#NEWS. -- Trevj (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this fails WP:NOTNEWS. Technical 13 (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested. It is just news, but an uninformed reader is likely to search for this, and since it doesn't cost us much, let's create a redirect for that reason. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way to redirect it to more than one article so we may have to add the material to the others it relates to.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then we would need a bunch of Wikipedia:Merge and delete to preserve the edit history. Dlohcierekim 01:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is basically an article about a fairly obscure comment about a video of a guy on a bridge. -Drdisque (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Sveinsson

Axel Sveinsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable footballer, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and more importantly WP:GNG. BigDom (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Hendricks

Sam Hendricks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I discovered this through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fantasy Football Guidebook. I had begun to clean up the article (original version can be seen here) and quickly found out that there just isn't enough reliable sources to show that Hendricks is particularly noteworthy. His article had only one thing that I could even begin to use as a reliable source and that looks to be local coverage since he lives in Nelson County, which is somewhat close to Lynchburg. He seems to have been somewhat prolific, but not to the point where he'd pass as someone who made an extraordinary contribution to the genre of non-fiction books on fantasy football. I can't see where he's considered to be overwhelmingly notable or important within his niche, (to where he'd be cited several times) as there doesn't seem to really be any in-depth articles about him. The only places that cover him are sites that really wouldn't pass as reliable sources per Wikipedia's guidelines. I don't see where RotoNation.com is really usable as a RS since I can't actually locate the site specifically (it redirects to KFFL, which has no articles on him) and many of the other things that were previously used as sources were just basic links to websites- some of which were primary sources. I just don't see where he particularly warrants an article. I have no problem with someone wanting to userfy this and dig for sources over time, but right now I just don't see where he merits an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just created vanity award to document this phenomenon. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected by User:Trvrplk to Something About Airplanes. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Face That Launched 1000 Shits

The Face That Launched 1000 Shits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONGS, WP:GNG. Deadbeef 07:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Something About Airplanes. The song was done by Revolutionary Hydra first (two of DCfC's members were part of the band), but most people will be familiar with this title as a part of the Death Cab for Cutie album. I propose that this redirects to the album since that'd be the more common search subject, but mention briefly on the article that it was a cover of a song that was originally written by one of DCfC's members for Revolutionary Hydra. Other than that, this doesn't particularly merit an article since it doesn't seem to have charted or otherwise received enough coverage in RS to where it'd merit its own entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 F.C. Halifax Town season

2013–14 F.C. Halifax Town season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Season article for a club outside of The Football League that's not notable in my opinion. JMHamo (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: plenty of precedent for having season articles for Conference Premier clubs; they get loads of independent coverage in reliable sources like BBC Sport, The Non-League Paper, Non-League Daily, Soccerway etc. Referencing could be better here but the coverage does exist. BigDom (talk) 09:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and previous consensus here and here, amongst many others. If it's not a team in a fully-pro league (i.e. outside of the Football League in England) then it does not merit a season article. GiantSnowman 10:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the majority of Conference clubs have their own articles, why Halifax Town should be different I don't know. Why can clubs like FC United have their own articles for counties leagues but an ex-league side can't? Leo1802 (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, club does not play at a level anywhere near high enough to satisfy WP:NSEASONS. First !Keep vote not relevant per NSEASONS, any significant events in a given season can be covered in sourced prose in the club article. Second !Keep also not relevant per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. My opinion is there is no need for the FC U of M season articles either, but that is a separate AfD. Fenix down (talk) 08:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How is my vote not relevant per NSEASONS? That "guideline" (which is frankly useless – the first bit is just a rehash of the GNG and the second a free pass for college sports) states that articles can be created if there is enough coverage to write an article with a decent amount of prose, not just stats. My point was exactly that; using the sources I listed you could write quite a lot of prose. BigDom (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not relevant in my view because Halifax do not play in a "top professional league" and consensus, some of which has been indicated above is that for English football, "top professional league" is Division 2 or above. Also, you are not correct to state that it says articles can be created if a decent amount of sourced prose is written, what it actually says is articles that are created need sourced prose, that is something completely different. Perhaps if this proves a record-breaking season for Halifax or something else happens that sees their season getting substantial coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE then I can see a case for a GNG pass and the creation of an article retrospectively, but at the moment I am not aware of any events like that which would warrant a separate article. Fenix down (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I guess we just have different interpretations of a very ambiguous guideline. If we're only having season articles for record-breaking campaigns then >99% of season articles should be deleted, including those of the top teams since they are probably the definition of ROUTINE. BigDom (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's more for teams below Division 2 that there should be something inherently notable about a specific season that occurred to warrant a separate article, there is already consensus that teams above div 2 can have their own season articles, although I wouldn't disagree with your comments re ROUTINE. To me any non-championship / cup-winning season at any level is routine, but consensus says otherwise. Fenix down (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between "top professional leagues" and "professional league", and I doubt League One and League Two could be called the former. Should we then go ahead and delete all those season-articles? Mentoz86 (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per BigDom and Leo1802. I thought consensus at WT:FOOTY was that season articles for clubs playing in national leagues (so the top five tiers in England) are considered notable? Mattythewhite (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Consensus has always been that season-articles at the fifth tier in England are notable, and the AfD linked above by GiantSnowman confirms that, as those are about clubs that played below the fifth tier. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on another AFD someone queried my refernece to the League. I am not a football expert. I would take the view that it is legitimate to have artilces on clubs quite a long way down the tiers. However, articles on seasons for clubs should be confined to the top four tiers, and likewise on their regular first team players. If the taskforce wish to carry this donw to tier 5, I am not going to object, provided they will enforce this, by ensuring that all season-articles are regularly maintained and articles that do not qualify according to these criteria are deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Season articles should only be allowed for clubs in fully pro leagues. Number 57 22:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Which of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines says this? It can be (and has been) easily shown that there is enough coverage to meet GNG, the single most important set of guidelines for notability, for club season articles in leagues outside the professional divisions. BigDom (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    None of them do, so the decision is left to editors' opinions of where the notability threshold should be. The coverage is nothing more than WP:ROUTINE. Number 57 08:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the important parts into F.C. Halifax Town. There is no reason to flat out delete all of this, but this team is too small to need a season by season breakdown. If they won the season, I could see an exception for a team this size to have a spinoff for the winning season. Technical 13 (talk) 00:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 01:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 F.C. Halifax Town season

2012–13 F.C. Halifax Town season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Season article for a club outside of The Football League that's not notable in my opinion. JMHamo (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and previous consensus here and here, amongst many others. If it's not a team in a fully-pro league (i.e. outside of the Football League in England) then it does not merit a season article. GiantSnowman 10:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The club may be sufficiently notable to have an article, but only teams in the top 4 (fully professional) leagues/divisions (i.e. below Football League) should be having anything more detailed like a seasonal article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, club does not play at a level anywhere near high enough to satisfy WP:NSEASONS.
  • Delete: the club played at a level which does not receive enough coverage in independent sources to meet the GNG. BigDom (talk) 10:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the nominator believes season-articles for clubs playing below the fourth tier are not notable, while I think the cut-off point is the fifth tier. Fortunately, this article is about a club that plays at the sixth' tier, so it can easily be deleted. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Season articles should only be allowed for clubs in fully pro leagues. Number 57 22:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 01:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 F.C. Halifax Town season

2011–12 F.C. Halifax Town season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Season article for a club outside of The Football League that's not notable in my opinion. JMHamo (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and previous consensus here and here, amongst many others. If it's not a team in a fully-pro league (i.e. outside of the Football League in England) then it does not merit a season article. GiantSnowman 10:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The club may be sufficiently notable to have an article, but only teams in the top 4 (fully professional) leagues/divisions (i.e. below Football League) should be having anything more detailed like a seasonal article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, club does not play at a level anywhere near high enough to satisfy WP:NSEASONS. Fenix down (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the nominator believes season-articles for clubs playing below the fourth tier are not notable, while I think the cut-off point is the fifth tier. Fortunately, this article is about a club that plays at the sixth' tier, so it can easily be deleted. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Season articles should only be allowed for clubs in fully pro leagues. Number 57 22:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aruvikkuzhi Waterfalls

Aruvikkuzhi Waterfalls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no indication of notability. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if someone can reliably source the statement "The waterfall cascades down the mountains from a height of 102 ft." Seems to be an encyclopedic subject, and there are several similar waterfall articles on Wikipedia. Not really a policy-based argument, I'll admit. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep they are a waterfall. Geographical features are notable. Dlohcierekim 12:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, [41], [42] shows that it is a valid geographical entry per our gazetteer function. —SpacemanSpiff 13:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NGEO. Ansh666 17:46, 25 August 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 both. Secret account 01:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Eastleigh F.C. season

2013–14 Eastleigh F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Season article for a club outside of The Football League that's not notable in my opinion. JMHamo (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

2011–12 Eastleigh F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and previous consensus here and here, amongst many others. If it's not a team in a fully-pro league (i.e. outside of the Football League in England) then it does not merit a season article. GiantSnowman 10:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I reiterate my and other's comments from the same discussion for the proposal of deletion of the 2011-12 page - I don't understand what the problem is with keeping this. It is relevant to Eastleigh football club, I've written it so it is factual, rather than including any opinion, and the information is from club's website so is a reliable source of information. The whole point about wikipedia is to expand and provide people with information. I could understand the argument if the page was not being maintained throughout the season. But since I am maintaining it, the point about the club playing outside of a pro league is irrelevant. A flexible rather than a rigid application of the rules would not go amiss in this type of situation. User:GrimReaper66 12:00, 25 August 2013 (GMT)
  • Delete - There is nothing notable about this season. If you want to put specific information about the history of Eastleigh FC onto the internet, I suggest you create your own Eastleigh FC wiki site. – PeeJay 15:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The club may be sufficiently notable to have an article, but only teams in the top 4 (fully professional) leagues/divisions (i.e. below Football League) should be having anything more detailed like a seasonal article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, club does not play at a level anywhere near high enough to satisfy WP:NSEASONS. Fenix down (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the 2011–12 Eastleigh F.C. season is being discussion for deletion here - no need to have the same discussion two places
  • Delete Season articles should only be allowed for clubs in fully pro leagues. Number 57 22:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - take away references from the cub's website and WP:ROUTINE coverage and nothing is left. There is no reliable source that has written about this club's season. Fails WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 01:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Football Guidebook

Fantasy Football Guidebook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not comply with Wikipedia:Notability (books). The only reference is to the book, itself. Also, the three awards mentioned are not considered "major literary awards," none of which the book has actually won. - tucoxn\talk 04:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I cleaned up part of the article, but in the end there just isn't anything to show that this book is particularly notable and the awards aren't big enough to give notability per Wikipedia. I'd recommend redirecting to the author's article, but after cleaning that up in anticipation of redirecting this to there I noticed that he doesn't have any particular assertion of notability either. I've nominated him for deletion here, but if by some chance someone finds sources enough to save his article it can be redirected there. He just doesn't seem to be overwhelmingly notable, nor does this book, so it's a delete on my end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found on reliable source giving it a proper review, and added that to the article. That along with the awards, I think makes it notable. Dream Focus 22:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The book didn't win any awards - it was merely a finalist or nominated (see ref.). Also, it still hasn't been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself," "won a major literary award," or achieved the other criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (books), the applicable notability criteria. - tucoxn\talk 00:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." Yes, it got one review that I found. Surely others out there. Nominated for two notable awards, but didn't win. Good enough to convince me. Nothing gained by deleting it. Dream Focus 02:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you verify that you believe this 3-sentence "review"[43] is a "proper review", and that you understand that WP:NBOOK #1 requires multiple reviews, and that at least on review must contain serious editorial content. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 02:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The author Sam Hendricks has an article. If he's notable, we could merge/redirect. But I don't think he is notable, at least based on his article and a quick Google. Any comments on that? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Hendricks. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Sam Hendricks article was just deleted. As result, it is no longer possible to merge/redirect the Fantasy Football Guidebook article to its author's article. - tucoxn\talk 00:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because the sources added to the article are sufficient--Zahid2005 (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one "review"[44], if you call 3 sentences a review (more like a notice of publication), and WP:NBOOK #1 requires multiple reviews, which we usually interpret as meaning at least 3 or 4 depending on the quality and depth - it could be only two if the NYT and LA Times full-length reviews for example. Also the review is very brief and like sales jargon ("the perfect gift"), NBOOK requires at least one review to have editorial content that says something more than just a book summary. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is only one review, if that even counts (which given the extreme brevity and lack of in-depth coverage, I would argue no) which is not enough to meet the requirements for WP:NBOOK. 76.91.27.159 (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted under CSD:G5. . Elockid (Talk) 04:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne Triplett

Lynne Triplett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable comic book author lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Per author [45] this is a "client job." Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously notable - if you keep this page I'll give you a free commission :) - see http://www.spectramisarts.com/?page_id=1097 for details! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMANGi (talk • contribs) 03:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, as per nom. Note: Several socks have been created to support this article which I will address separately.Flat Out let's discuss it

Keep, sort of. - First of all, I am not a sockpuppet. I am a member of the Nightsintodreams.com forums by the name of Zero-Shift, which were recently re-opened up a few days ago. I have been a site member in some way, shape, or from since 2007. I was alerted to this by another forum member by the name of "infractus", a female who has known TRiPPY (Lynne's internet nickname) for a long while. I sincerely believe that Lynne Triplett is notable enough for her own Wikipedia article, due to the many strides and leaps she's taken for the NiGHTS community. She may not be the sort of person historians write about 250 years now, and there aren't a lot of sources currently listened in the article, but I truly believe that we, the NiGHTS community, can come together and collaborate on an extensive biographical article recounting Lynne's life from the past to the present, just like her old memoir "Seeds". Thanks for reading. --Assanime (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Socks are CU confirmed matches to each other. Apparent relation to SailorSonic. Elockid (Talk) 04:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Towne

Harry Towne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A Navy Cross isn't enough to satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One of the countless legions of soldiers who have served their countries bravely (and in this case, lost a leg in brutal combat) in World War II, and in so many wars in the saddest stories of human history. Noble perhaps, but not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:SOLDIER is an essay, not policy, but the subject passes it anyway as he "played an important role in a significant military event". There is coverage in sources such as Letters of the Century and Real Blood, Real Guts! and so they pass WP:BASIC. Warden (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ONLYESSAY, and he doesn't pass it, getting a Navy Cross for an action however brave is not an "important role in a significant military event". - The Bushranger One ping only 20:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:ONLYESSAY is only an essay too. Such puffed-up personal opinions are worthless if they are not recognised as guidelines or policy. The subject's actions at Iwo Jima were important in assaulting commanding high ground and securing it against fierce counter-attack. Warden (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • You know, I've been waiting for somebody to make that essayception argument. I guess we can throw out WP:VAGUEWAVE as "only an essay" as well then, along with WP:IDONTLIKEIT? More seriously, I think it's rather telling that you dismiss WP:CONSENSUS as "puffed-up personal opinions" that are "worthless". - The Bushranger One ping only 00:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are plenty of specialised notability criteria which have guideline status such as WP:NASTRO. The fact that WP:SOLDIER doesn't have this status indicates that it lacks consensus. Warden (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, what it indicates is that nobody wants to go through the bother of sending it through the process and having the nattering nabobs rant and rave at it while not doing much constructive to improve it. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Played a minor role in the Battle of Iwo Jima. Passing references do not provide notability. While this is a brave man who deserves respect, he doesn't rise to the level of notability required in the espression of well-established WP:CONSENSUS that is WP:SOLDIER, and does not pass WP:NPERSON or WP:GNG. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per the argument by The Bushranger. EricSerge (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough to meet WP:SOLDIER. role appears to be minor in Iwo Jima. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A single second-level decoration isn't sufficient for notability. As others have said, WP:SOLDIER may not be an official guideline, but it's widely enough accepted to count as a de facto one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 27 August 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) 00:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TE Rijeka

TE Rijeka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no indication of notability [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 03:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy doesn't seem to have its own notability guideline, but a 300MW power plant, with a 250m high chimney, seems inherently notable, comparable to smaller gazetteer entries (WP:5). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems like a big enough power station for inclusion in Wikipedia. It produces a similar sort of power-output to various other power stations that already have articles, and the subject is encyclopedic. Sadly, I can't make a properly policy-based argument, as there isn't really one that I can think of. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Appears to be a major power station. Still, when considering the WP:GNG criteria, the article is on the thin side to say the least. Even the primary source (hep.hr, which does not count towards WP:GNG) is fairly terse (i.e. arguably is not really "significant coverage"). GregorB (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A 320 MW plant has inherent notability. It would be impossible for such a project to exist without extensive government research, proposals, outlines, studies and progress and output reports, all of which would demonstrate passing WP:GNG. Sources are most likely in the Serbo-Croatian language. An equivalent station in English-speaking world, say Portishead power station, wouldn't even be considered for deletion.--Oakshade (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Addtionally, as stated below, modern coverage easily found. [46][47][48][49] --Oakshade (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as inherent notability. As the policy says, notability requires verifiable evidence. This article has sat around for several years now without anyone adding substantial, verifiable evidence that it is notable. If you believe it's notable, find some and add some references. I wasn't able to find any. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 04:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is. It's been established by WP standards long ago topics like population centers, heads of states and many others have inherent notability. As for the article having "sat around", there's no hurry for any notable topic. As I said, the sources are there, just not easily available to English speakers on the internet. With something like a major power station, you'd have to prove to me sources don't exist, which of course I wouldn't believe. --Oakshade (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is the presumption of notability for such people/places, but no inherent notability. there's a difference. The time thing can always go either way. you can argue that there's no hurry, i can argue that there's been quite enough time for people to fill in references, so there is the presumption that none exist.
If you think it's notable, find some sources. Otherwise it fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's inherent notability. But okay, term it presumption of notability with a power station of this scale. Absolute impossibility for such a power station to exist without extensive government research, proposals, outlines, studies and progress and output reports and thus passing WP:GNG. I will never be convinced otherwise.--Oakshade (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like an argument to take to the notability noticeboard for clarification. but those would also not be independent sources, so would not qualify to establish WP:GNG, as I interpret it. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 06:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not need to take the argument as these standards have long been accepted. Breaking out the government sources don't count argument is just drawing at game playing straws as every source in Communist Yugoslavia in the 1970s was a government source. WP:GNG even specifically states "reports by government agencies" as examples of acceptable coverage. --Oakshade (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this seems to me very much like a personal attack, the assertion that i am "playing games". I did not find sources, could not establish notability, and you have made statements in direct opposition to WP policies that I have attempted to clarify. let's leave it at that, and let other people comment. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 06:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never did I make statements "in direct opposition to WP policies". I'm going by WP:GNG. Per WP:GNG, outside of WP:BLP issues, it requires the existence of secondary sources, not the sources be seen in the article. I'm positive they exist as its impossible for them not to exist. It turns out other kinds of sources are easily available online per my comment below. --Oakshade (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what do you know? Modern very in-depth sources on this power plant. [50][51][52][53]. There are many more. --Oakshade (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oakshade, these sources are quite sufficient for WP:GNG. GregorB (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no delete !votes (non-admin closure) Deadbeef 19:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kékestető TV Tower

Kékestető TV Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no indication of notability. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 03:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if someone can reference the claim "The mast offers the highest public accessible observation deck in Hungary, being situated 134 metres (440 ft) above ground." with a reliable source. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Lukeno94. This article meets the criteria of notability. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide some references? Luken094 said keep only IF sources can be found. I couldnt find any sources, and that's why i nominated it. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 18:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a tourism website that states that the open lookout is at 45m, and a restaurant at 42m. This information is reflected in the Hungarian Wikipedia article. This is lower than the observation deck in Pecs which is at 80m. So the claim that it would be the highest observation deck relative to the base of the structure is not verified. However, the tower is on top of the highest mountain in Hungary, so that it is naturally "the highest public accessible observation deck in Hungary" relative to sea level. --ELEKHHT 02:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The tourism websites and the hungarian wikipedia are both non-RS. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 04:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but there is no incentive for any tourism website to play down the height of the outlook, and the Hungarian Wikipedia would naturally have more editors with linguistic skills to access RS. Plus all this is simply consistent with the previous comment that there are no RS to confirm the claim in its current form. The question is: is it notable for being the highest outlook platform in Hungary relative to sea level? Would a similar condition make a structure notable in another region? --ELEKHHT 06:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting that if the height of the observation deck would be 134m as stated in the article while the tower is 178m, that would place the deck at a height equalling 75% of the total height. Looking at this image that's clearly not the case. I think is pretty safe to dismiss that unreferenced claim. --ELEKHHT 06:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NRVE. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 13:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not understand what you mean with that link. Can you be more explicit? --ELEKHHT 22:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has no inherent notability, because of its height or otherwise. Unless reliable sources (a tourist website might be sometimes, but that one doesn't look like one, more like a blog) can be found that establish notability, it doesn't matter what its height is. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I was only hinting towards potential directions of research, given that not many Hungarian sources are available online (see also Wikipedia:Systemic bias). The tower is clearly a tourist attraction, being briefly mentioned in Lonely Planet and other guides as well as the tourism board website. --ELEKHHT 00:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would like to expand this article (i have a reliable source and pictures).--Rovibroni (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found some useful infomation in this book: Antal Papp: Magyarország (Hungary), Panoráma, Budapest, 1981, ISBN 963-243-241-X, p. 860, pp. 299-300. It is a detailed travel book (near 1000 pages with maps and pictures). Kékes TV tower (finished in 1981) is a very important radio and DVB-T transmitter, so there are some technical information in these websites: Hungarian TV towers/Kékes, Hungarian DVB-T service --Rovibroni (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw as nominator, per links provided and Rovibroni's assertion of RS/pics/desire-to-improve. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 18:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samara James

Samara James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:CORP requirement of having significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Instead, the references consist of: advertisements, a self-published opinion piece, company directories, association membership list, and numerous trivial mentions in non-relevant announcements and publications. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clear case of not meeting WP:CORP. Article reads like a publicity piece. AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This seems to be a small manufacutring jeweller. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the references do not have significant coverage on the topic, and are mainly statements from the company. Nothing I saw looks like an independent source. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 02:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lanco Hills Signature Tower

Lanco Hills Signature Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON, insufficient RS. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 02:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A planned but never built skyscraper. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not a fan of these tall building articles, particularly when they're sparse in detail and (often) sources to online discussion forums. The planned dates and current status is unclear, while the 2013 Deccan Chronicle article still talks vaguely about "Lanco’s signature tower” - I suspect this is some sort of vague statement of intent about an (as yet) unnamed tower, by the developer to attract interest in their wider development of Hyderabad. Without evidence to the contrary, this Wiki article serves little purpose. Sionk (talk) 13:18, 26 August 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. Speedied by me under WP:G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion . User has been blocked. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Start an Adult Foster Home in Michigan: Free Consultation & Training

AfDs for this article:
Start an Adult Foster Home in Michigan: Free Consultation & Training (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Business advertising (Loriendrew) talk 02:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per G11. It looks like the tag has already been placed. TCN7JM 02:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per G11 by Spartaz. (NAC) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 05:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Promenade

Dubai Promenade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails GNG, for insufficient RS. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 02:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

78violet's Yet-to-be-titled album

STOP! WP:HAMMERTIME!
78violet's Yet-to-be-titled album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUMS. No tracklist. No confirmed release date. No title. Basically nothing at all available that is reliable and confirmed. —Kww(talk) 02:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom, there is absolutely no information on a release date; but also, the second source says "Aly and her sister AJ revealed last week that they were very close to finishing the album and that means that the record should now be complete", which is a violation of WP:SYN. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 05:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. No album title, tracklisting, or release date confirmed in reliable sources at this time; appears too early for this to meet WP:NALBUMS.  Gong show 19:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HAMMER. As ever, not enough sources, only the Billboard source is reliable and says little more than it'll be released soon. A lack of album title makes searching for additional sources hard. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Too soon. BlackberrySorbet 15:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hammertime. — ΛΧΣ21 04:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Also, AfD is not cleanup. No prejudice against future merge/redirect discussion, which should take place on the talk page. (non-admin closure) I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Drago

Ivan Drago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a character from a single film that largely simply reiterates the parent article. There is probably some room for expansion in detailing any symbolism or negative reception towards the character's Russian heritage and overall personality, but that could easily be explored with a few paragraphs in the reception section of the film rather than requiring an entire separate article to list fictional boxing statistics. TTN (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep - was a major character in a major film at the time. I suspect there will be more out of universe commentary Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, I believe such information does exist, but does it warrant eight paragraphs of fluff, most of which are regurgitating information from the main article, instead of a single section in the main article? Any controversy on the portrayal of the character can be summed up similar to The Hunger Games (film)#Controversies, and any production information can easily fit within related sections. It's sort of like giving the unnamed main character of Fight Club an article simply due to the reception of the plot twist even though all the info fits cleanly in that article. TTN (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it's not - TTN how old are you anyway, are you old enough to remember when this came out? It was a Big Deal. The main thing is here is that you have your idea of a more stripped-down wikipedia as opposed to my (possibly over-)inclusive one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are they not similar? You could easily take much of that information from the Fight Club article to build something for The Narrator that is very similar for to the "ideal version" of a Drago article. The main similarity is that the details of the articles are going to be largely similar to the "ideal versions" of the film articles. They're not going to contain much of anything unique, as they are not independent of the films. It would have to be a character that has become so ingrained in popular culture that people know of them before their single film appearance (and I certainly can't find any quality articles matching that criteria). People are going to remember Drago as "the villain in Rocky IV, which had potentially negative bias towards Russians" more than "the Russian guy who fought Rocky, inducing a number of criticisms about his portrayal." People are going to remember The Narrator and Tyler as "characters involved in an generally unexpected, iconic plot twist in Fight Club" rather than "characters symbolizing x theme." While not an actual requirement for an article, it's generally going to require multiple appearances in multiple mediums to garner enough independent information to form sections differing from the parent articles. Assuming Rocky IV was Good or Featured, the information in the article was suitable, comprehensive, and not weighing too heavily on the character of Drago, and there currently was no Drago article, would you support a split? TTN (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends - if I was a super-keen Rocky fan and I found more info than fit concisely in the article on the corresponding Rocky movie, then yes I'd split out. BTW My bad re fight club character, I misread it initially and hadn't realised who you meant, so yes it is a good analogy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But do existing sources preclude the main film article having sections that would enhance it should someone actually work on it? The references all point to some form of detailed section (Themes, Controversy, Symbolism, or something of that nature) that would bolster the main article rather than repeat the info on another page. It's probably possible to get a decent number of paragraphs by discussing the attitude of the Russian side in its entirety from their training to the event itself rather than even just the personality of this character. If it appeared that the character would be receiving too much weight in the article, I would say to simply work on this one instead, but a paragraph in Production/Casting and a few in the resulting other section would be perfectly fine. Here are a few Featured examples of films where characters could easily be split out from other sections if someone really wished: Fight Club, Barton Fink, Eraserhead, Kahaani, 300. Instead, all relevant details are collected within sections, allowing for a more cohesive article. TTN (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "the nominator ...fails to advance an argument for deletion" as the nomination seems to be arguing for merger into the main Rocky article rather than using the delete function to make this a red link. Warden (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe anything needs to be merged. The sources within the article are only there to cite primary biography information for whatever reason, so there is nothing that needs to be placed into the main article. I'm only arguing for the future potential of the main article rather than the limited potential of this article. TTN (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, go work upon the main article, adding the paragraphs you envision, and then get back to us when that's done. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not attempting to force any improvement on the article, nor do I feel particularly interested in doing such a thing. I'm trying to have this article deleted citing the fact that it does not actually cover a substantial topic and that any pertinent information belongs within the parent topic much like any other potential single film, non-breakout character. It's the same argument I would use if Rocky IV was featured and someone wanted to split out an Ivan Drago article without the character receiving undue weight. TTN (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google news and Google book search show the name appearing all over the place. This character is discussed outside of the film, being a cultural icon, and parodied in other notable series. Dream Focus 15:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rocky IV. (There's a possible merge of information, but really, all that is key appears to already be in the film article). The name is a searchable term so deletion doesn't make sense, but I also am not seeing sufficient notability - once you strip away all the primary information - that justifies a standalone article. Really, in its current state, there are 4 main "sections": the lead is the only one that has out-of-universe information that should be present in Rocky IV; Bio + Plot effectively are duplicating the plot of Rocky IV and are unnecessary, and Personality is flat out original research. (I will go ahead and add that adding infoboxes that make it appear the character is a real boxer is really really a bad idea). A glance through sources suggest that the notability of the character is really about the notability of the film and specifically the relationship between US /USSR relationships at the time of the film's release, a factor about the film than the character. Basically, all that is appropriate details on Igor that is not duplicating the plot of Rocky IV and not OR is about 2-3 sentences long, and Rocky IV is far from a long-enough article to prevent merging if one feels those details aren't already there. DF's point on cultural references above, from my random picks, suggest that it is not the character alone but the movie that is being parodies (Igor, outside of a context that includes Rocky, doesn't seem to be a standalone parody target, and even then, that's not significant coverage). --MASEM (t) 05:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes the sniff test as a lasting cultural icon. The fact that this piece is written like Wikia fan cruft doesn't help the cause, but I feel sure there is scholarly commentary on the Drago character as a cinematic manifestation of the cold war. Keep and improve. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being a cultural icon, without sources to back it up, is not a reason to create a stand-alone article = it still fails the GNG (it does however suggest a redirect is completely in line). I agree that there are likely scholarly articles on Rocky IV and the Cold War, but Drago is not treated as a separate entity from that consideration - he's part of the "package deal" of the imagery of Cold War Russia that the film gives. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 30 years later, still a notable cultural icon and arguably the most familiar Russian cultural stereotype of the Cold War era. Reliable sourcing doesn't appear to be a problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your second source is a graduate thesis so unless the author is a notable critic, its not an RS. The first barely touches on Drago from an out-of-universe standpoint. The last source is the type that I've pointed out before: that while Drago is called out as a symbol of Cold War USSR at the time of the movie, the representation of Drago is nearly inseperable from the discussion of the movie itself - Drago is just one figure of every other Russian character involved to show the cold efficiency that resonated with critics. Drago himself is not separately notable from this. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where do you base that premise on about graduate theses? That generally means they have been researched and reviewed by a teacher/professor etc.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've been through the process. The rigor in fact checking and review for thesis is far far looser than the peer review for academic journals (also, this appears to be a masters' thesis, and while the process varies from school to school, the only review that may have taken place was the author's professor/mentor, and not multiple people). Further, there's no sources used in that section, so that's mostly the author's interpretation, which I'm not saying is right or wrong, but simply lacks any weight as a student's thesis. It would be far different if the work was summarizing others' opinions before adding their own, but even then we'd then turn to others' opinions. Even if I take that as an RS, Drago is barely touched on, and again what's there (in google's preview) is better situated for talking about the cultural aspect of the movie being about Cold War USSR right in the middle of the real Cold War, Drago being just one facet of that image. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this article is deleted, then the article on Clubber Lang should be deleted as well. He is also fairly well-known as a symbol of the Cold War. -- Another n00b (talk) 07:07, 29 August 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 Ain't Nobody Got Time for That. Material may be merged from the article history. Jujutacular (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Brown

Sweet Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not certain this subject, a person known for being part of a meme, meets the notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reluctant keep. Good God, this is one of the most unencyclopedic topics I've seen on WP. But she does seem to meet WP:GNG, and I suppose she has made a lasting impression in her "field", in ways both good and bad. See this article: [54]. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With no malice toward Kimberly "Sweet Brown" Wilkins, what made her notable was the (somewhat amusing) meme that evolved from her (chance) TV interview, not some particular talent, skill or accomplishment on her part. The meme (or the YouTube video that contributed to it) has its own WP article Ain't Nobody Got Time for That, which identifies Ms. Wilkins as the "source" of the meme; hence appropriate recognition exists in WP for her only (known) contribution to popular culture. However, as of now, this is her only notable accomplishment (subsequent notices, such as the movie appearance, just reprise her interview) so WP:BLP1E applies. Unless and until she finds a way to make herself notable for something else (and not just a local advertising celebrity), the article should go. Dwpaul (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of which yet conveys notability. At the moment, she's only notable for one thing; when either of those are released, if she gets proper coverage on them, then we can remake the article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No evidence has been presented that the subject passes WP:GNG. Meeting WP:NHOCKEY is questionable at best, but even this does not guarantee notability if substantive sources cannot be found. Jujutacular (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Lawrence (ice hockey)

Jim Lawrence (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Eredivisie is not a top professional league. Hwy43 (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't see how either Eredivisie or the Central Hockey League is a "top professional league" or a league considered "the highest level of competition." Hwy43 (talk) 07:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Eredivisie is the "top professional league and/or the highest level of competition" in the Netherlands. --Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 17:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't interpret criterion 1 or 2 of NHOCKEY applying to "top professional league and/or the highest level of competition" in any given country if they don't state such. In the absence, I interpret it as worldwide and it is difficult to agree the nomination is incorrect without any qualifier.

    If the spirit and intent of both criteria truly is by country, NHOCKEY should be amended to explicitly say so. It would therefore prevent potentially unnecessary AfD nominations. Regardless if this is the case, I maintain my nomination per WP:SPORTCRIT and by failing WP:GNG per below. Hwy43 (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. NHOCKEY only presumes notability on the basis of certain arbitrary criteria. It does not, however, guarantee it. This article fails WP:GNG pretty badly. I'm not finding many trivial mentions of him, let alone anything substantial so as to meet the notability threshold. Resolute 18:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Jim Lawrence is a retired professional ice hockey player who passes NHOCKEY having played in the Dutch Cup and Eredivisie which is the top level of play in the Netherlands. Outreels (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I have already explained why passing NHOCKEY does not guarantee notability in this case. Se also WP:SPORTCRIT, which is the basic criteria for the sports notability guideline, which an athlete also has to pass for NHOCKEY to even apply. Would you care to address that aspect of the problem? Resolute 16:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – WP:NHOCKEY is only a presumption of notability. WP:NHOCKEY is not a checkbox list where you can say that "This player meets criteria x of WP:NHOCKEY, so this player should have an article!". Even if the player meets WP:NHOCKEY, you still need to find references that assert the player's notability for Wikipedia. Heymid (contribs) 08:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Played in the Netherland's top professional league to meet the criteria of WP:NHOCKEY. Presumption of notability has been established per WP:NSPORTS, and Dutch language sources can presumably be found (and nom has provided no "proof" that such sources do not exist to rebut the presumption). Dolovis (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence that he meets WP:GNG, nor WP:ATHLETE as the league is not listed for that matter Secret account 02:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as WP:NHOCKEY states "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league such as ...". There is no mention there of a requirement for it to be worldwide nor is there a requirement for the league to be specifically listed whereas it say "such as". That being said, this individual does meet this requirement as Eredivisie itself means "premier league" and being the only league in the Netherlands, is the top league (as well as the bottom). Technical 13 (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not believe he meets the definition of WP:NHOCKEY: "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league such as ...". To me the word "top" signifies an internationally recognized elite league, and not the top league of any given country. I think that the listing of leagues following the "such as" supports this. They are all top, as in internationally recognized elite, leagues. If it were to mean all top level leagues of any particular country than a league such as the Eredivisie or Thai World Hockey League would be listed as well. Ravendrop 19:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As with Ravendrop, I do not believe the word top refers to the first division in each country, but rather the top leagues throughout the world. The AHL is not the top ice hockey league in the US/Canada, but I don't think there would be much debate that it is closer to being considered an elite league than the Eredivisie. Patken4 (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 01:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zero1 Australian National Championship

Zero1 Australian National Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination for 101.173.170.151, rationale is as follows: Contested PROD. This title is not notable and has no independent reliable sources to prove it. Notability is not inherited from the core Zero1 promotion. I have no opinion. Hut 8.5 11:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - the IP's nomination statement makes no sense. We're talking about a national-level professional wrestling series here, which is clearly enough for notability. WP:NOTINHERITED is utterly irrelevant; and, besides, the National Wrestling Alliance ran the series originally, and that would also make it a notable one. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The IP's nomination makes perfect sense. There is no evidence (except in the name of it) that the title is a national level title, and the name is not enough. Therefore is relies on the notability of Zero1 itself, which is very much about WP:NOTINHERITED. Ditto the NWA. Where is the evidence that this title is notable by itself? Nowhere that I can see so it fails WP:GNG. 58.164.105.136 (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on that statement, I have no doubts whatsoever that you're the same user as the original IP. Exactly the same misinterpretation of guidelines and policies. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very paranoid assumption may I say. Do show how the title is notable by itself in Australia without relying on the core promotion. If you can't then WP:NOTINHERITED is a valid argument. The nominating IP didn't invoke WP:GNG just as an aside. If I was equally paranoid I'd accuse you of WP:COI, but I'm not so I won't. 58.164.105.136 (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please tell me how the fuck it is possible for me to have a COI, given that I live on the other side of the world entirely, and don't follow the wrestling scene. You and the nominating IP are on exactly the same ISP, and making exactly the same point. Again, this is a national-level championship run by a notable promoter, and previously it was run by an even more notable promoter. That's enough for notability. There's the inevitable coverage about the namechange, such as [55], there's things like [56], [57], and probably a lot more for someone more experienced in what constitutes a reliable source for wrestling than me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know you preach knowledge of the rules - how about WP:CIVIL hmm? Same provider? So what? And it's not the same point being made. Similar yes, but the exactly the same. Where is the evidence that this is a national championship run by an AUSTRALIAN promoter? Where is the AUSTRALIAN evidence? You're giving overseas evidence only. Where's the Australian coverage? Nowhere like I said. Therefore it is a national championship in name only and inherits it's notability from a Japanese (Zero1) or American (NWA) promotion. You admit to being on the opposite side of the world. I actually live in Australia and I know of the promotional arm, and it's a non entity like everything else pro wrestling in Australia (see the fact that no current Australian promotions have articles for proof with a number deleted by AfD). Zero1 itself is notable, but only in Japan where it makes it's home - and maybe America. Not anywhere else. If it is, please provide mainstream evidence that is AUSTRALIAN. And for the record, this so-called "national" title has only ever been defended in Perth and Adelaide and it hasn't been defended in Perth for years. Thank you. 58.164.105.136 (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Show me where coverage has to come from the particular country for it to count towards notability. That's right, it doesn't have to be. And the fact that the series has been run by two major promoters, REGARDLESS of whether they're Australian or not, means that it is notable, particularly as there are multiple sources that cover it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The promotion that runs the title is in Australia. You're still violating WP:NOTINHERITED with these comments. You would need to prove that decisions relating to the title came from Japan or California as the case may be, and not from Adelaide or Perth. 58.164.105.136 (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see there's no point debating this with you. Read this and understand that the promotion that runs this title is only an affiliate of Zero1 in Japan and not under Japanese jurisdiction. Thank you. 58.164.105.136 (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Bizarre that an alleged national championship has attracted no reliable press coverage at all (based on my Google search). Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The IP nomination statement may not be the best worded, but I understood it to mean that the championships itself is not notable, and notability is not inherited from Zero1. In any case, there simply is no coverage in reliable sources about this event. -- Whpq (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tend to agree with the IP and those above that the championship fails GNG and its notability cannot be inherited.LM2000 (talk) 06:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 01:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Mexico (disambiguation)

University of Mexico (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically unneeded per WP:TWODABS. If the UNAM is the primary topic when refering to "University of Mexico", the hatnote {{for}} is used instead of a DAB page. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I'm sure there's a University of Mexico already covered. 184.158.96.194 (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Secret account 01:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robotic clusters

Robotic clusters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article summarizes an uncited (per google scholar) 2012 Robotics and Autonomous Systems paper. The three other citations provided in the article (Quinn, Martin and Stoica) are reliable, but do not mention "robotic clusters" at all. The concept has not caught on beyond this single paper. In my opinion, this is a straightforward case of non-notable original research. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article creator appears to have a conflict of interest. The one paper's lead author is Ali Marjovi. This article was started by Ali.marjovi (talk · contribs), and he uploaded its one image. Chris857 (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  06:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney James Van Pelt

Sydney James Van Pelt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable.
SPA editor doesn't exactly instill confidence either.
This same page created across other wikis (e.g., es.wiki) isn't a good sign either.
Cheers. Qwerty Binary (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was in Medline but no longer. Some caveats about Medline in WP:NJournals, not an automatic notability. And only 1 year's (volume) of the journal were indexed (out of 17).[60] Looks like one good source (Gravitz, Melvin (1987)). Still believe Van Pelt, his Society and his Journal would be notable as a single article, harder to justify three articles. No information would be lost combining and maintain redirects. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That remark in NJournals is because many people equate PuBMed and MEDLINE. The latter is selective, but the former contains not only MEDLINE-indexed journals, but also journals that are in PubMed Central, which are not necessarily notable. That this journal was indexed for only 1 year is not much of a problem, I think. It's not like it was delisted by MEDLINE or something like that, indexing stopped simply because the journal folded. Both the journal and the society have histories independent of van Pelt, so I don't think that merging them there is appropriate. The histories of the journal and society, however, do overlap, so merging the society into the journal article makes most sense to me. --Randykitty (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK good enough. I've change my vote to Keep and worry about merge elsewhere. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, with a question: So is the idea to keep the article and improve it, then? Whether or not the answer to that is a yes, I have sincere and serious questions about having three, let alone this one article or an article composed of the three articles. For what it's worth, hypnotism as a page is very poorly done, especially with its treatment of its medical uses, legitimacy, or efficacy.

Whether or not a journal is indexed by MEDLINE/PubMed/Ovid/WoK/WoS/G Scholar/whatever shouldn't in and of itself be a sign of a journal's notability or lack thereof, in the case of those that aren't indexed. However, these do roughly indicate whether a journal may be notable enough.

My main complaint with the British Journal of Medical Hypnotism is that medical libraries and other academic libraries do not carry this journal, either as hard-copy versions or e-journals. In fact, in order to determine whether this was notable, I had to go out of my way to hunt down issues of this journal. Further, this isn't a journal with any significant readership and isn't particularly well cited, even in its area of academic rigour. Its contributors do not, in fact, number that many.

As for Dr. van Pelt himself, his work does not seem to have lasted the test of time and he has not left enough of a legacy. van Pelt appears not have be adequately notable per the appropriate notability criteria. As an alumnus of the Sydney Medical School, he does not appear to be recorded in the School's annals, which is further suggestive of his lack of having made enough of a mark to be included on Wikipedia. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because virtually nothing in the article is verified. Of the three references listed, the first is impossible to evaluate, being both offline and in a foreign language; the second is a dead link; and the third does not appear to mention the subject at all that I could find. I don't doubt that he existed and so on, and I recognize the difficulty of finding sources for someone of his generation - but I need to see some supporting evidence for the notability claims like "pioneer of modern medical hypnosis and hypnotherapy". I am open to changing my opinion if verification can be found. --MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Search of Google Books and Google Scholar confirms that he wrote books; nothing else. If he was such a pioneer, wouldn't you think somebody would have written ABOUT him somewhere? --MelanieN (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to British Society of Medical Hypnotists, as notability for the subject seems difficult to establish. The content can always be split out as and when appropriate sources are found. Deletion wouldn't be helpful, as it's a plausible search term. -- Trevj (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are enough reliable sources here... Not having sources on-line in English is not a valid deletion criterion. Technical 13 (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep article appears to meet WP:ACADEMIC. Nothing too puffy in the article either, unlike many of these borderline academic cases. -Drdisque (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. After 2 relists, this deletion discussion has no additional support - and it's been asserted that WP:NASTCRIT#2 is met, which is a reasonable argument. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 42

Gliese 42 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:48, 11 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!* 05:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Our galaxy contains billions of stars. Those few hundred which are close enough to be of special interest and study should all have articles. Warden (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The link to the University of Heidelberg reference is not working. Data about the star are noted at SIMBAD (the second reference) under the name LHS 1163. Similar data are provided at NEXXUS 2 under the star's various codenames. The star is mentioned at the Sol Station reference, listed as CD-31 325 A.
The point of contention is criterion 2 at WP:NASTCRIT. I do not believe that NEXXUS 2 or SIMBAD are of direct interest to amateur astronomers, nor are they of high historical importance. However Sol Station has a relatively user-friendly interface and fairly simplistic language. I think that Sol Station is of interest to amateurs. Also, Gliese 42 is within 50 light-years of the sun, putting it in a sub-group of 155 K-type stars. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus even after discounting several with faulty rationales. Secret account 01:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 146

Gliese 146 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Though I haven't found any articles about this star individually, it is one of only 155 K type stars within 50 light years of the sun. These are of especial interest for habitability searches since due to their long term stability, planets orbiting them may be more habitable even than those for G type stars. As a result there are many studies that include these stars, and for instance Gliese 146 has 48 citations in its SIMBAD bibliography, which is typical for these stars. I think myself that due to the special interest of these stars for habitability, and their accessibility for observation from Earth, that it would be appropriate to include a list type article of all the 155 candidates and to have separate entries for each one in wikipedia, including both those known to have planets and those not yet known to have planets. Robert Walker (talk) 10:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Information in the article is just a listing of technical data. Sources on the SIMBAD pages show no special interest in this object - it was studied along with thousands of others in large-scale surveys. The main "reference" in this article is not a professional source. It's an artist's website, stacked with the previously available (from SIMBAD) technical specs. The 48 papers mentioned above will merely list this object as one of many. None of the papers (that I could tell) singled the object out for special scrutiny - except for perhaps the 1953 paper, in which this object was one of five studied. Nothing here indicates this object would pass WP:GNG, let alone WP:NASTRO. The one sentence of the article that attempts to establish notability shouldn't be an issue here: notability for astronomical objects is not inherited. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 12:56, 15 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!* 05:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge then redirect to a new list of the nearby K type stars. There are a bunch of these K type star articles up for deletion, and they should all get the similar treatment. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Our galaxy contains billions of stars. Those few hundred which are close enough to be of special interest and study should all have articles. Warden (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Graeme Bartlett. Warden's vote falls under WP:ILIKEIT, as does most of Robert's. I don't see why we should delete the article altogether; precedent is to have list articles of non-notable planets, and I think doing the same for these sorts of stars is a good idea. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't misrepresent the !votes of myself and Robert Walker. Our case is based upon the proximity of this star which means that it is studied more closely than the average star in our galaxy. Robert Walker provides details of the resulting large number of citations which testify to this scholarly interest in the topic. The suggestion that we have some personal affection for the topic seems absurd. Warden (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Would be of great interest to astrophysicists. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Gliese_146 -RoseL2P (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that nearly all of the links to it are from the template of stars within 40-45 light years of the Sun, so that's a misleading gauge of the relevance of the article. If something is discovered around it, then it would clearly merit its own article; at that point, there would be significant coverage that doesn't exist now. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 10:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I encourage users participating here to carefully read Notability (astronomical objects) before leaving a vote. The votes for "keep" and the arguments used therein are uninformed as to the consensus guideline on articles for astronomical objects. Objects do not have inherent or inherited notability, no matter what class of object they are, or what their distance should be. Start with WP:GNG - if an object cannot pass this, and Gliese 146 cannot, then it surely won't pass WP:NASTRO. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RoseL24 and Robertinventor. There is sourced, reliable information about this object, it seems widely cited, and there is no clear benefit to our readers or the encyclopedia in deleting this article. This ongoing effort to delete perfectly neutral, sourced and meaningful articles only to comply robotically with a guideline seems disruptive to me. WP:NASTRO seems to fail in these cases. --cyclopiaspeak! 09:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into list of nearby stars or delete: plainly fails the "significant coverage" component of WP:GNG. There's nothing notable about this particular star; it's just in a potentially-interesting class of objects. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 10:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for the reasons listed above. It is an interesting star for several reasons, most importantly the fact that it's our galactic neighbor. Andrew327 17:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sheldon Foote

Paul Sheldon Foote (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTE. All the citations used are not reliable sources, they're blog sites. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources of this person that I could find. Transcendence (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TCN7JM 02:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TCN7JM 02:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

California State University Fullerton Publications: 4 | Citations: 1 Fields: General Economics & Teaching, Business Administration & Economics Collaborated with 12 co-authors from 2002 to 2007 | Cited by 5 authors

  • comment Transcendence has demonstrated a destructive pattern of afd's for articles on terrorist-style attacks with national and international coverage, or individuals connected to state sponsors of terrorism as Foote shows clear ties and bias towards Iran. Redhanker (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • His academic sourcing is pretty sparse, how does he pass the criteria of WP:PROF? Foote actually seems more "notable", if he is, as an anti-Semitic commentator on Iranian owned Press TV, which has been banned from the European Union, see Press_TV_controversies#2010. Interesting how his Wikipedia article doesn't mention this, Google "Sheldon Foote anti-Semitic Press TV". But that is a one-event thing. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per David Eppstein. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 01:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The notability hook here is not as an academic, but as a public intellectual holding very pronounced views on the Middle East. The question is whether he passes GNG; that's unclear to me — probably a close call. His message has been picked up by the far right Institute for Historical Review, see HERE. A very controversial figure with a substantial footprint on the web, which indicates to me that we should go the extra mile to see if there is adequate sourcing to support a GNG claim. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've spent considerable time taking the Google results down multiple pages for a number of different searches. I'm not finding anything that counts towards GNG. Feel free to disregard this opinion if sources appear, as this is clearly a public figure. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 26 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_August_25&oldid=1142632900"