Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 June	21 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shōninki

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

Article about a book on ninjutsu whose only source is the book itself. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Jakejr (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not because of importance, as I think this book is mof enough importance to possibly deserve and article, but because most of this article is lifted from another internet site and is WP:COPYVIO MartialArtsLEO (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that the book is significant and the only source is a fawning review of questionable reliability.Mdtemp (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the book was what the article claimed it was there would certainly be references about it, but there aren't so, either it's very minor of a hoax of some description. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Warstar & the Warstars

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

Non-notable band. Fails WP:BAND. May have barely enough significance to avoid speedy deletion under WP:A7. —teb728 t c 23:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 20. Snotbot t • c » 23:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, clearly also an autobiography. Hairhorn (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I came close to speedying this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:05, 27 June 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. Given that even users suggesting the article seem to suggest that the article needs better sourcing, I believe that the consensus here is to delete that article as no significant additional sourcing has happened since the start of this AfD. Neither have any sources been presented to this AfD. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oishi Shinkage-ryū

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

This article about a martial art style has a lot of problems. The main ones are that there is a lack of significant coverage (fails WP:GNG) and there's nothing to show notability (fails WP:MANOTE). Jakejr (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article needs work, not deletion. I have added a reference from koyryu.com which originally appeared in Aikido Journal #104, 1995 which should deal with the notability concerns. jmcw (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll check the status of the article before the end of the AFD to determine my final vote.MartialArtsLEO (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did some clean-up and removed the tags (the list of techniques should really go). The school has had more inpact on Japanese martial arts than just historical precedence if it truely was responsible for the introduction of the shinai.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trimmed the list to the headers.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Peter, but this article needs some additional sourcing and research. Please take the time of this AFD to make it better and take Peter's advice in dropping the list of techniques.MartialArtsLEO (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but only if expansion and sourcing occurs. If not, however, I would have to suggest deletion. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands I'm not seeing the significant independent coverage required to show notability nor do I think the subject's notability is shown in the text.Mdtemp (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the absence of significant third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage, it's hard to see how the basic notability criteria are met here - unless any of the "Keep" voters can actually add some solid sourcing demonstrating notability. --DAJF (talk) 13:34, 25 June 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Musō Shinden Eishin-ryū

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

This article has a lot of issues, but the main probles are that it doesn't seem to have significant independent coverage and doesn't show notability--so it fails both WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Jakejr (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly merge into Iaido - I do see a lot of Google hits for the Japanese spelling 無雙神傳英信流抜刀兵法, but it's hard to tell which of them might be considered a reliable source. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Iaido this art is a Koryu.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see notability or signficant coverage for this style. If kept, the article needs to be pared down (such as removing the list of kata).Mdtemp (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As with Oishi Shinkage-ryū those lists need to be cleaned up.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search didn't find support for notability claims and the article's sources are of questionable independence and reliability. That is, I found nothing to show they meet WP:RS or WP:V. I'm open to change if more sources or info are provided. Papaursa (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Boxing Foundation

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

Article about a boxing organization with no WP:SIGCOV and no claims of notability. Jakejr (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing to show notability and the only source is the organization's web page. Even the article describes the organization as "lightly regarded" and "a stepping stone" for fighters.Mdtemp (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no question the organization exists, but the article gives no independent sources. My search didn't find significant coverage in reliable sources. I also found it strange that an organization founded in 1988 has 8 vacant world titles. Papaursa (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a promotions company with very little actual coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:21, 27 June 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. --BDD (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Widow Inheritance at Kano Kanyilum

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

Unencyclopedic original essay or original research. Prod removed —teb728 t c 23:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essay. Already deleted once today as copyvio, but I don't see a source. Hairhorn (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The user recreated the page as Widow inherintance at kano Kanyilum. I redirected that page to Widow Inheritance at Kano Kanyilum. -- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as recreated unencyclopedic essay. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:23, 27 June 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 Alliance-Union universe. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mazianni

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

This article describes a concept from a work of fiction with only in-universe material, and sourced only to primary sources. I am unable to find any coverage of this in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm the article creator. The Mazianni are a major element in five of Cherryh's novels (and a board game). It's my understanding (though I could be wrong) that common significant elements in major works of fiction qualify for articles. Alternatively, I wouldn't object to a merge and redirect to Alliance-Union universe. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - There is no specific notability guidelines for fictional elements. The closest we have is probably the essay, WP:FICTION, and the manual of style entry for fiction, MOS:FICTION, so the applicable notability criteria would fall back to WP:GNG. I wouldn't object to a merge, but I do note that the target article for the merge is rather short on sourcing too. -- Whpq (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What about inherited notability? WP:INHERITED states that while "notability of a parent entity or topic ... does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities ... notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances". The five Cherryh books that the Mazianni feature in, and are common to, are all notable. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - I think the key phrase is "certain circumstances". If you refer to WP:BKCRIT, you'll see that point 5 is a form of inherited notability; that is to say that an author is so notable that his entire body of work is deemed notable. Conversely, authors would inherit notability from their works; see point 3 of WP:AUTHOR. I don't see this ficitonal element as being such a special circumstance. -- Whpq (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, #5 is merely common sense expectation that works from major authors will of course be covered in independent publications. This doesn't magically lift the requirement for these articles to be ultimately based on independent publications (and however unlikely it may seem, if it was established that no external coverage existed on the subject, then an article on a book from a major author could be deleted or at least merged). Beyond that, there is no "magically inherited notability", and WP:GNG states that "no subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists".Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a merge into Alliance-Union universe would work best? Bondegezou (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Alliance-Union universe. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endlessly (song)

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

Notability not supported by independent coverage. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 14:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And how can you make an article this long, yet be so clueless as to not add a freaking category?! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Industries

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

No sources listed that are independent of the subject. Cursory research only shows some articles related to the company's immigration-related conspiracy charges, which aren't sufficient for WP:CORP. L Faraone 17:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources provided are too closely related to the company to be considered independent. Better sourcing would be needed to satisfy WP:ORG, Edison (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allwinner A31s

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

This article fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. I cannot find enough sources to show this product is notable on its own. Many of the articles I found on this product appear to be developed from press releases. User226 (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a product guide. Same for the other single-product articles Allwinner A1X maybe too as the product line? Suggest trying to add independent sources to the Allwinner Technology so it does not get deleted might be a better use of the single-purpose account User talk:PersephoneII which seems to be creating them (up to three months ago)? W Nowicki (talk) 19:07, 25 June 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something Strong

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

This article does not appear to meet notability per WP:NALBUMS. I cannot find information to prove that this album is notable on its own. User226 (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:18, 20 June 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mervyn Spence. I'm not seeing much coverage for the album; Allmusic has two sentences within the bio for Spence, and that's the most I can find in (online) reliable sources. Gong show 00:42, 30 June 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mit Peck

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

This article does not appear to meet notability per WP:NALBUMS. I cannot find information to prove that this album is notable on its own. User226 (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vulfpeck. I'm not convinced the band is notable either, but the article exists and isn't under AFD at the moment.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Y not? 20:45, 28 June 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Kumar Pandey

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Also note that WP:Notability is not inherited. Ansh666 21:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Gauri Shankar Pandey. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:15, 20 June 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chain of Command (video game)

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

Contested PROD from May 1; contesting editor User:X201 added a single source (which I found) - concerns about WP:N on talk page (by User:OlEnglish) and WP:ONESOURCE. Since article has not been improved since X201's small addition, taking it here (see this for X201's comment). Ansh666 20:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 21:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking evidence of independent in depth coverage as required by the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out to be a hard title to search for, but I found no additional reliable sources. delete. Hobit (talk) 03:13, 21 June 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nu gaze

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

Completing nomination for BROBABOT, whose rationale was posted on the talk page and is included verbatim below. On the merits, I make no recommendation. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least this article needs to be retitled, if not deleted. "Nu Gaze" hearkens back to terms like "Nu Metal". What's more, the entire concept of "Nu Gaze" bands seem to be the figment of someone's imaginations. The vast majority of these bands are heavily influenced by shoegaze, but are what most people would describe as simply indie. This is not a distinguishible musical movement in any way shape or form!!!!!!!!BROBABOT (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Still needs cleaning up but still should stay per arguments from all the prior AfDs. --Michig (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned there are no valid arguments on the prior AfDs. Any investigation of the sourcing on this article will reveal that NONE of the links refer to "Nu Gaze" as a larger movement. What's more, none of the bands listed in this article are part of an discernable "scene", but are more of a reflection of where independent music is at in the 21st century (fragmented and drawing inspiration from every genre of popular music imaginable.) The bands listed here are seperated by both time and space, and are in no way indicative of any cohesive or conscious musical movement (to put it concisely: they have nothing to do with each other.) The very existence of this article implies that "Nu Gaze" is a scene analogous to The Scene That Celebrates Itself, which even a cursory reading of the two articles will reveal is simply not the case. At the very minimum, the name of the article should be changed to "Shoegaze Revival" (i.e. Post-punk revival) to reflect its broadly defined parameters.BROBABOT (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources within the article are not the issue, nor is the question of whether this is a cohesive musical movement. There are many sources that refer to this genre/subgenre, and the article should retain the title that is the most common term used. --Michig (talk) 17:55, 12 June 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, SarahStierch (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:12, 20 June 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nellie, 1983

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

No notability per WP:NBOOK seen. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Major contributor is Xeteli who also created another article of a book on same topic 25 years on.. Nellie still haunts which is also at AFD now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:14, 10 June 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, SarahStierch (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the event article. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:12, 20 June 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. Custom and practise is that this is too early per CRYSTAL so the delete arguments are the correct ones but the custom is also to undelete/recreate as soon as there is something substantive such as competeing teams to report. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2015 IRB Junior World Championship

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

Unsourced article about a future sports competition. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. - Mr X 19:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 19:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 19:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is referenced and is of a notable event. --Bob247 (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: IRB already declare Italy as 2015 host. Here the official link: New Zealand and Italy to host JWC 2014 & 2015. Giskard (talk) 08:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of independent in depth coverage in reliable sources. The same non-independent interview-based article on two sites does not notability make. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Giskard. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I can see how it is a little too soon to write an article about a 2015 sport event, however WP:CRYSTAL refers to "unverifiable speculations", here everything is verifiable and the event is obviously notable. Cavarrone 06:36, 30 June 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. Fanwank made me smile Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fanwank

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

Nonnotable neologism/dicdef Staszek Lem (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It appears that this article has been merged, split, deleted, and undeleted in the past. If it is deleted, a soft redirect to wikt:fanwank seems to be in order. Cnilep (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply throughout this activities the article was utterly unreferenced, i.e., itself was an example of fanwanking in times when wikipedia was rather lax about its content. Therefore any merges/splits (if any) were in fact propagation of the violation of wikipedia's the most basic rule WP:NOR. Moreover, it was tagged to be merged in "fanon" however this tag was removed as no consensus, and I saw no tracing of merging. I see no signs of splitting. It was restored on the basis or copyright preservation of the possibly re-used content. I don't think we must protect copyright of stuff added against basic wikipedia rules. Let them sue, and I am sure an admin will gladly restore the content into their user page. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable neologism. Edison (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It seems to me this is an important concept that warrants an article. A quick Google search demonstrates the term is being used widely. I've added a good academic journal citation to back the main definition. However, WP:NEO requires not just usage of the term but WP:RS articles about the term and I've done less well so far on those. A wiktionary re-direct, as per Cnilep, would be my second choice. Bondegezou (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Fandom. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:27, 27 June 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Incoherent vulgarity. Warden (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am with Warden on this one. This is not an encyclopedia article. -- Y not? 16:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SK and WP:SNOW. Warden (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fons Hickmann

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

Last discussion withdrawn for no reason. Not sure if notable. From what German I can read, the only hits on Gnews are passing mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Possibly the nom. of the second AfD read the first AfD. The arguments there , which indicated a remarkably high number of good sources, still hold. Sufficient apparent secondary coverage. The German WP has in general a considerably stricter requirement for notability than we do, and I would normally defer to them on German topics. I don't see that it has ever been even challenged there. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close per DGG's sound arguments. And it is barely the work of a moment to discover, via Google translate, that the nominator's assertion that the GNews hits are only "passing mentions" is completely unfounded and utter nonsense. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So are you going to add the sources, or just let it stink up the joint forever?! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wishes to merge the content into Honor killing#Europe however, please do come and see me on my talk page and I'll restore the article for this to happen. Should anyone be so inclined as to wish to create a redirect, please do so. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honor killing of Arash Ghorbani-Zarin

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

~~Only marginal coverage of a single event, unclear how this meets WP:GNG and warning tag has been present for over 2 years with no corrective action. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)~~ Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [1]. Unscintillating (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of consequences of this event which could make it encyclopedic. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to fail WP:NOTNEWS. Only one-time coverage (ok, two articles in approximately one month). 86.121.18.17 (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Crtew (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. A significant event discussed in numerous books. Failure of WP:BEFORE. -- 203.171.197.13 (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not discussed in any of those books. It has at most a few sentences about it, basic facts within a paragraph that also covers other stuff. That makes it perhaps worth mentioning at Honor killings#Europe, nothing more. The coverage in those books (just two really, not counting the court proceedings volume and the obscure/self-published) isn't even making any sort of commentary that you could use to expand this article with some kind of academic insight. If kept, this is likely to be a WP:PERMASTUB. Not a good idea when a larger topic exists. At best this should be merged, but target there article has plenty of examples already. Given the lack of specific commentary in sources, I'm not even sure what this would add, besides "here's another case in Europe". 86.121.18.17 (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- Honour killing of Arash Ghorbani-Zarin or just Murder of Arash Ghorbani-Zarin : this is an English article and should have an English spelling. So-called "family honour", part of the efforts of south Asian men to control their womenfolk by fear of being murdered, is a significant social problem. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's a big problem in the UK, then perhaps Honour killings in the UK should be created first as a sub-article of Honor killing. Having a bunch of permastubs all relating to the UK is less informative for the reader than an overview article which could also include statistics, etc. There are certainly sources which provide an encyclopedic overview [2] [3]: "the UK had recorded at least 2,823 "honour" attacks over 2010. Some forces showed a jump of nearly 50 per cent in such cases from 2009." The topic should probably be made broader than (successful) killings, e.g with 'crime' or 'attack' in the title. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, for what it's worth, most articles in Category:Honor killing in Europe follow the present naming convention, not the one you propose. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Honor killing#Europe Darkness Shines (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Honor killing#Europe. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:29, 27 June 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. SNOW keep. Large number of JSTOR hits alone make this an untenable nomination, made possibly in bad faith, and certainly not competently. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Sheep Look Up

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

I don't believe this book is notable, references only one potentially critical review. Doesn't seem to be much coverage and the book is very lowly ranked in Amazon. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [4]. Unscintillating (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Weak keep. It was nominated for the Nebula Award for Best Novel. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It won a Hugo Award. The whole thing can't be viewed, but it along with his two other books were critiqued in a article. Here is a |review in another publication. A |review in a literary publication. SL93 (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, speedy close. While it did not win the Hugo (the ref cited above is in error; that was Stand On Zanzibar), it was nominated for the Nebula, placed sixth in the annual Locus Poll, was reviewed contemporaneously in nearly a dozen genre-related publications, and has dozens of substantive news hits -- not to mention fifteen pages of Google Scholar hits. Not that anything beyond the Nebula nomination would be necessary, it's as definitive an indicator of notability as there is for genre fiction. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firm Keep. (and probably WP:SNOW)htom (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of characters in Rayman. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Globox

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

~~Fails WP:GNG, tag present for over 1 year with no corrective action taken. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)~~ [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [5]. Unscintillating (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Unsourced article, no sign that the character has notability independent of the Rayman series of video games. Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of characters in Rayman - Heh, I remember Globox. However, he's not an independently notable character, and the article is completely unsourced, so a merger is not appropriate. This is a very plausible search term, however; so the aforementioned redirect is the best course of action. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Crtew (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised, but in my opinion, this AfD is entirely valid, even if the others weren't. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Per Lukeno and my comments above. Lacks notability, but does seem like a plausible search term, and the "list of characters" article for the series seems to be the best redirect target. Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#3: banned edit. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Kleinbort Krauze

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

~~Fails WP:BLP and GNG, Notability tag present for 2 years with no action. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)~~ [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [6]. Unscintillating (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, Speedy Keep: Helen Krauze is an award-winning journalist with over 50 years of experience. Fresh sources have been added so that her article no longer fails WP:BLP. Furthermore, her awards establish her WP:Notability as a journalist. On the occasion of her 50th year as a journalist, she published a book of her "best of" interviews and she received WP:SIGCOV for her work and for her career awards around this time. Besides her lengthy career and her awards, she is of special interest as a female journalist in Mexico and as part of a very small minority of Polish-born Jewish refugees from World War II. She was also part of a notable group of female journalists who joined together to encourage Mexican women to become journalists. Crtew (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also nominators cannot vote. Please remove your vote. Crtew (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Returned to remove nominator's vote and change mine to speedy. The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Crtew (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SK 2a The closer should keep in mind the large number of nominations made on a large, diverse set of articles that the nominator made on the same day.Crtew (talk) 05:35, 22 June 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.

Fons Hickmann

The result was Nominator withdraws nomination. Keep UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Fails WP:BLP, no secondary coverage asserted and notability tag present for almost 4 years with no corrective action. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)~~ [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [7]. Unscintillating (talk) 13:24, 23 June 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 Progressive Canadian Party#PC Party leaders. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Parsons

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

Minor party leader and unsuccessful candidate. Not notable. Aaaccc (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley. As a losing candidate for a federal election, a redirect is more appropriate than a deletion. Enos733 (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, people don't get redirects for losing. 117Avenue (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from WP:POLOUTCOMES "Unelected candidates for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into long lists of campaign hopefuls, such as New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010." There is RS coverage of her campaign. Enos733 (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- Possibly to Progressive Canadian Party#PC Party leaders, instead. Dru of Id (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An unelected candidate doesn't qualify for an article just for being a candidate, true, but per WP:POLOUTCOMES a party leader can potentially qualify for an article on the basis of being a party leader ("Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success.") That said, however, we still have to be able to properly source an article about the person as a topic in their own right, because without that they still fail WP:BLP — and in the absence of such sourcing, the most appropriate solution is to redirect them to the article on the political party that they led. Redirect to Progressive Canadian Party#PC Party leaders — Ernie Schreiber should go with her, for that matter, as he's entirely unsourced now that I've removed the dead meetup.com event listing that article was passing off as its only source — but by virtue of being a party leader, she (and Schreiber) would be allowed to stand as an independent topic if better sourcing can actually be cited. Bearcat (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Progressive Canadian Party#PC Party leaders as per above. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:31, 27 June 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 via CSD A7 (Non-admin closure). — sparklism ^hey! 14:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Groovin' Reels

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

~~Fails WP:BAND. Notability tag present for 3 years with no corrective action. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)~~ [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [8]. Unscintillating (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Crtew (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#3, the nomination is a banned contribution. No one has seconded deletion, so this discussion is speedily closed. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Badmarsh & Shri

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

~~Article fails WP:BAND/GNG, warning tag present for 5 years with no corrective action. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)~~ [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [9]. Unscintillating (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that the article needs to include some references, but there's plenty of coverage in reliable sources to show that WP:GNG and WP:BAND are met, as a WP:BEFORE search would've revealed. Examples are: [10] [11] [12] [13]. Thanks. — sparklism ^hey! 06:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Sparklism. Passes GNG/BAND. --Michig (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, speedy keep: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Crtew (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Removed nominator's vote inside of nomination. Crtew (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SK 2a The closer should keep in mind the large number of nominations made on a large, diverse set of articles that the nominator made on the same day.Crtew (talk) 05:35, 22 June 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. SNOW. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helga þáttr Þórissonar

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

~~Notability not asserted. Delete UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)~~ [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [14]. Unscintillating (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Keep For a story to survive a thousand-odd years is a good basis for its notability. Aside from the external links in the article, a Google Books search on Helgi Thorisson indicates various references to this story. AllyD (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Flateyjarbók: the article has no content at all. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. The topic is obviously notable; whether this should be redirected/merged until someone writes a more substantive article is a routine editing decision that does not involve any deletion process. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a stub with more links to reliable sources than actual content. It needs to be expanded, certainly, but I don't see how this subject wouldn't be notable. Notability is most certainly "asserted" and demonstrated, and the subject easily meets WP:GNG. - Sudo Ghost 04:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#3, the nomination was a banned contribution. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization

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

Not sure how this article is notable. No asserted coverage aside of that it is an organization that makes endorsements but any organization can. At best, barely notable. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [15]. Unscintillating (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, speedy keep IVI-IPO provided key endorsements early in the careers of some of the brightest moments in Illinois politics, including Harold Washington and Barack Obama. Links to here from about a dozen content-space articles, including two Barack Obama project articles (Barack Obama social policy, Illinois Senate elections of Barack Obama). Beyond "an organization that makes endorsements" it is an organization that gives out recognition awards (Carol Ronen, Pat Dowell) and registers and educates voters. IVI-IPO helped organize resistance to Chicago's Parking meter deal, bringing suit against the city. IVI-IPO administers and publishes online candidate questionaires, including some basic biographic information, which are important sources for several articles on Illinois and Chicago politicians. Article is rated by Illinois and Chicago projects. Hugh (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC) (minor contributor)[reply]

Speedy close, Speedy keep: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Crtew (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: removed nominator's vote inside nomination Crtew (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SK 2a The closer should keep in mind the large number of nominations made on a large, diverse set of articles that the nominator made on the same day.Crtew (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Hugh & Crtew. Coverage of subject satisfies WP:GNG & WP:ORG.--JayJasper (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Pakistan landmine blast

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

Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary sourcing and violates WP:NOTNEWS. Indrian (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RUNOFTHEMILL WP:NOTNEWS stuff. Ansh666 20:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Event with world-wide resonance in sources (apart from the BBC news in the article, one can find it in Arab News and Russian Pravda, among others). I doubt a mine explosion killing 26 wedding guests is "routine" or "run of the mill", thus it passes WP:NOTNEWS. --Cyclopia^talk 12:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- News reports in close proximity to the events they cover are considered primary sources. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in secondary sources. You have yet to explain why you feel this event is special enough that we should make an exception to one of our generally accepted standards. Indrian (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - "News reports in close proximity to the events they cover are considered primary sources. " - This is new to me: can you link me the relevant policy? --Cyclopia^talk 14:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, the policy part is that we require secondary source coverage to establish notability. This is actually also reflected in WP:NOR, which specifically states that articles should be based on secondary sources, with primary sources used cautiously for descriptive information. WP:NOR also gives a basic definition of a primary source as "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." It then goes on to list a few examples and link to definitions from several prestigious research institutions. A useful essay (not policy) that goes into more detail is WP:USEPRIMARY. Basically, wikipedia uses the generally accepted scholarly definition of a primary source, which includes news reports that are recounting events or quoting individuals close to events. Newspapers are secondary sources when they provide in-depth analysis from the reporter/author based on research from other primary or secondary sources or if they are discussing events long after they happened. Any textbook on historiography or historical research methods would define newspapers in the same way, though I have none at hand to quote. I hope that helps. Indrian (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, so nowhere is to be found in our policies and guidelines that news reports are primary sources of an event. That's what I thought. Most of the relevant paragraph in the essay WP:USEPRIMARY is indeed completely at odds with accepted practice at WP:AFD and other notability discussion, where news sources are considered regularly building a case for notability as reliable, secondary sources. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I cannot speak for how other people may confuse primary and secondary sources in debates, but our definition of primary source does not deviate in any way from the accepted definition amongst scholars (the people that came up with the idea of primary and secondary sources in the first place) and our policy page in fact links to definitions of the term primary source that includes newspaper articles. So yes, our policy does include newspaper articles that are reporting on events. Any contradictions you have seen around here are based on user error. Indrian (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        What you call "user error" I call "de facto consensus", given that we're not talking math. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Consensus cannot override policy (unless a consensus is reached to change policy, of course). Just because a lot of users get it wrong does not change the definition of the term, nor does it change the fact that by linking to definitions of primary source that explicitly include newspaper articles WP:NOR has spoken on this issue. WP:NOR itself does not state that the examples it gives of specific types of sources is an exhaustive list. Furthermore, by specifically linking to scholarly resources that define a primary source to justify the policy, there is a clear intent by our policy to use the standard definition codified by the scholarly community. Our policies do not need to exhaustively define terms that have a general meaning already. Our policies only need to be exhaustive when our use of terminology differs from the standard, ie "neutraility" or "original research," which are terms of art on the project. Primary source is not, and therefore our policies need not cover the issue in great detail. News reports already fall under the general definition of a primary source as stated in our policy, since they are "original materials close to an event." That they are not listed as an example later in the definition is immaterial. Indrian (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Local consensus cannot override policy. But the global factual consensus in these discussions, as far as I have seen (and I participated in quite a few, in the last few years) is that news sources do constitute secondary coverage for the purposes of notability. In this case, it means the policy -being it descriptive usually, not prescriptive- oughts to be updated. But there is no need for it, because nowhere in our policies news reports are considered explicitly primary sources -all the rest is wikilawyering. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, I see where you are coming from. I still disagree, but the rationale makes sense. Indrian (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 26 people dead. Let's just consider whether anyone could nominate such an incident for deletion if it happened in Britain or the USA without it being laughed out of AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I did not realize that AfD was all about personal attacks rather than policy debates. Thanks for enlightening me. And here I was thinking there were standards for admins on wikipedia. Indrian (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good grief, in what way was that a personal attack? I was pointing out that a similar incident in Britain or the USA would never even be nominated. Which is true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I probably overreacted a bit, but you were basically accusing me of nominating the article based on some cultural bias rather than my actual concerns of a lack of secondary sourcing and no chance of the article growing beyond a stub. I would nominate an article on a Western tragedy for the same reasons. Indrian (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I wasn't accusing you of anything. If it happened in the west it would be covered extensively by the media and written about endlessly on the internet. We have to combat systemic bias concerning incidents which happen in countries in which the media and internet (especially in the English language) are less established. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough, my apologies. Indrian (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability seems to be established. Everyking (talk) 00:33, 23 June 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Pugsley

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

The phrase "world famous in ~~Poland~~ Sutton" springs to mind. A colorful character but all the references are to Sutton and Croydon newspapers. He does even seem to have made it to London-wide sources, still less national ones. In a straw poll conducted recently in Sutton, three people had never heard of him and two did know of him but agreed that he might not pass muster for Wikipedia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original research much? But yeah, you are probably right. One of my more irresponsible articles.--Laun chba ller 20:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I've had a think about this (and since when was a straw poll of five random people in Sutton a reliable source?), but having read the news articles, I think they're very much local journalists using this guy as an "an finally" piece without him deliberately courting the publicity. Therefore I suggest he's a low profile individual as described in WP:LOWPROFILE and per the BLP guidelines and since Wikipedia is not the news (in Croydon, Sutton or elsewhere and especially not when the news is about a man missing his cat - good grief....), we should exercise restraint in giving him an article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I see no evidcne of him being the head of a religious organisation. I see nothing notable in his bio. He looks to me like a crank who has appointed himslef to a grand title. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, purely because this source is from an American (New York) paper and thus is beyond the scope of WP:LOCAL (or whatever the policy is).--Laun chba ller 17:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That single non-local "source" is a web only tabloid that isn't even notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. I confess to having never heard of the New York Daily Sun until now. I see that they also have an article on the Jesus Man of Sutton.[16] Go figure. (haha - I notice that the bread crumbs for those two articles lumps them under the title "click bait".... see Hook, Line and Sinker.) First Light (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Return (2010 film)

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

Unreleased independent film. The article was probably written from someone close to the production since I can't find any coverage of the film. The link to the production company's website is dead but it appears to have changed names and is now known as CotLu Films. Interestingly, the company's bio of Edwin Lewis (who wrote the script) confirms that the project (shot in 2010) is still unfinished and concedes that it's not all that good! [17] Pichpich (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per last part of WP:NFF. Ansh666 20:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under WP:NFF as an unfinished project that has not received coverage to meet WP:GNG. I'd suggest the author take it into userspace, but his last edit was Spetember 2010.[18] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:50, 22 June 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. --BDD (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2014 FA Community Shield

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

Far far too early for article creation. The match will not take place for another 14 months and the participants won't even be known till next May -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 08:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WE will not even know who the participants will be until next May. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 23 June 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 as G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. On a side note, I've noticed that the editor's name was the same as a marketing group's and I've blocked him based on the username, with the coda that if he can show that he is not here to create spam articles and will change his username, that I'm willing to unblock him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wish Group

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

Contested PROD. See PROD notice for reasons. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 18:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article contributor's only Wikipedia contributions have been about this firm and its new COO. The article sources are a stack of primary sources. No evidence of notability found. AllyD (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. On a side note, I'm probably going to nominate the affiliated article Frank Cianciulli for deletion sometime soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:30, 21 June 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2B-P-25

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

Fails WP:GNG - could not find WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Someone might need to check for reliable Russian sources. Ansh666 18:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet Wiki notability requirements. The main source of information on the internet for this firearm seems to be Wikipedia itself or a Wiki mirror.--RAF910 (talk) 14:53, 25 June 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Russian table cited for reference does not even mention this gun. Only 2Б-А-40 is in that table. Article fails WP:V. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:57, 30 June 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2B-A-40

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

Fails WP:GNG - could not find WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Someone might need to check for reliable Russian sources. Ansh666 18:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet Wiki notability requirements. The main source of information on the internet for this firearm seems to be Wikipedia itself or a Wiki mirror.--RAF910 (talk) 14:54, 25 June 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of the dozen or so article on obscure Soviet stuff recently nominated, this the only one that actually has some sources backing it up. There are some pictures of the gun here (you need scroll down, actual pictures are [19] and [20]). I haven't read through all that page to see if it was just a prototype or what, but I suspect so given that serial numbers 1 and 2 are shown in the first pic. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps redirect later. Ok, I've looked through a printed biography of Kalashnikov (in Russian). It turns out this 2B-A-40 was a competing design made by A. S. Konstantinov in 1956; it entered trials in 1957, together with a bunch of others as a possible replacement/improvement of the AK-47. 2B-A-40 was probably not selected for any service, for it was rejected in that trial; none of the competitors were a significant improvement on Kalashnikov's gun that was already in service. It could be mentioned together with the rest in the history section of AK-47, if it even had a paragraph on the 1957 trials, but there currently isn't one. If we had a biography of Александр Семенович Константинов (but he doesn't even have one in the Russian wiki), this gun should also be mentioned there. There isn't really any useful content in this stub. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Someone might want to look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Uayoa; there are a lot of articles in need of attention, all created by a group of accounts sharing similar characteristics. Not all of their creations are bad, but enough are misleading/uninformative, like this one was. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Someone: I'm not sure, but I don't think links to external images count as sources (correct me if I'm wrong). Anyways, I don't doubt that these weapons I've AfD'd existed, but they simply aren't notable enough, even to the Russians. I think the editor is trying to be useful, but doesn't have the concept of notability in mind. Ansh666 17:50, 30 June 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AO-65 assault rifle

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

Fails WP:GNG - could not find WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Someone might need to check for reliable Russian sources. Ansh666 18:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet Wiki notability requirements. The main source of information on the internet for this firearm seems to be Wikipedia itself or a Wiki mirror.--RAF910 (talk) 14:55, 25 June 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:41, 27 June 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. --BDD (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2B-A-30

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

Fails WP:GNG - could not find WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Someone might need to check for reliable Russian sources. Ansh666 18:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Assuming the picture isn't fake (it looks pretty dodgy) this is an AK-47 derivative. Perhaps worth mentioning there if a reliable source can be found. The giant table cited has a 2Б-А-40 but no A-30 or A-35. Anyway, that's insufficient for WP:GNG. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet Wiki notability requirements. The main source of information on the internet for this firearm seems to be Wikipedia itself or a Wiki mirror.--RAF910 (talk) 14:56, 25 June 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. --BDD (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cytosorbents

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

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Not a single reliable source referencing 'Cytosorbents.' The only reliable source, the New England Journal of Medicine is a reference to products not sold by Cytosorbents. EzPz (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing both WP:NCORP and the WP:GNG. Although there were plenty of press releases to review, significant independent coverage wasn't found. Also considered refocusing the article on their flagship product CytoSorb and significant coverage to support that wasn't found either. (I see the AFD is listed with the CSD G11 criterion, which isn't directly applicable to an AFD discussion, but I didn't find the article in its current status overwhelmingly promotional enough to qualify for CSD G11. If I thought it did I would have short-circuited the AFD by tagging it with that CSD instead.) Zad68 01:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. My search results were the same as Zad's: just press releases and a few routine business listings. --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 22 June 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. Per Wikipedia:Deletion process#No quorum Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Think of Me

AfDs for this article:

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

The information on the article is mostly insignificant. It appears that "Think of Me" was once before brought up for deletion, in April 2006. The verdict was to delete, but some of these pages have sprung up again. The song is not important enough to merit its own article. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed this nomination and added it to the log for June 5th. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:24, 12 June 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) 18:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical), and merge any relevant content in there. The song appears to not be independently notable, despite the enormous success of the musical itself. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I've come to the conclusion that the consensus is to delete the article as no sources have been forthcoming, as per DGG's suggestion. I'm also concerned that those wishing to keep the article appear to give no rationale relating to our policies or guidelines. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HALO Maritime Defense Systems

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

Looks like corp advertising as per WP:SPAM, and lacks general notability. References are entirely primary sources,most linking to promotional sites or the company's own website. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm voting as a new editor, granted, but I do know that Halo is well known in defense and in the Navy where I work. I respectfully request that you count my vote as a subject matter expert. Halo Maritime is a significant part of tactical military and port defense. It's a well-known name in defense.Navynuclear (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hi Navynuclear. I am an ex-squid myself. My urge to delete is not based on whether or not the subject of the article exists, or is even widely used. There are a lot of criteria for having a Wikipedia article but the most important one is notability. The standards are explained here WP:N. Wikipedia is not just a collection of random knowledge and there are fairly strict standards for what does and does not qualify for its own article. Other requirements include the need for significant in depth coverage by reputable secondary sources. You can read more on that here WP:RS. And finally we have to be ever vigilant against allowing Wikipedia to be turned into a platform for free corporate or personal advertising. Once you have been here a little while you will be amazed how many new articles are just thinly disguised SPAM. See here for more on that WP:ARTSPAM. I try to spend at least one night a week on what I refer to as Wiki Crank duty (Navy inside joke) which is New Article Patrol WP:NPP. And it is rare that I don't end up nominating 10%+ of the new articles I review for deletion on that and other basis. Thank you for participating in this discussion and and THANK YOU for your service to our country. I hope you stick around.(ex PC2 USN) -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain The problem here is that the sources seem to be based on press releases for the company. Otherwise it doesn't seem like spam, but a straighforward description. One good news or magazine source that is truly independent might be enough, if you can find it. DGG ( talk ) 14:19, 5 June 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, SarahStierch (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Del-leaning Neutral Refs seem to have been improved since nomination, doesn't look too much like WP:ARTSPAM - but still has a little bit of sales-y language (although that can be fixed without deleting). So the real question is WP:GNG/WP:CORP, and I'm not particularly convinced it meets either. But maybe another couple good sources can clear that up. Ansh666 20:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP, which it does not meet. All the references are not RS. -- Y not? 14:52, 20 June 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) 18:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More notable sources needed and needs only direct historical information, but is a notable company and serves a notable purpose of national security. Sherwood10 (talk) 15:42, 25 June 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth O'Keeffe

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

An article on a run of the mill local councillor probably created by the subject. Self-promotion without evidence of notability for Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG Charles (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines are that a politician needs to be "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[12] This also applies to those who have been elected to such offices but have not yet been sworn in." Subject has been a member of East Sussex County Council since 2005. In England and Wales a County is equivalent to "sub-national" office. Subject is currently group leader of the Independent Group, only female group leader in the council, and Vice Chair of Health Overview Scrutiny Committee. This can all be verified on East Sussex County Council website. In 2005 was the first female elected Independent as opposed to politician who has left a party and not yet joined another one. "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7]" Subject holds records for numerical and percentage vote at both Town and District level, and has the largest numerical or percentage majority at the most recent County elections. This is verifiable from data held on County and District websites and records of Town votes. Subject is the first Independent (as defined by election to a political post with no political party) to be Mayor of Lewes (post currently held) and previously Vice Chair of Lewes District Council. Subject has also been Lewes Personality of the Year Sussex Express local coverage can be checked to verify this, also Argus newspaper. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Subject did not post the original entry. Subject was a lot less notable when someone probably the subject thinks a relative (computer literate children?) put the entry up and it does need work to bring up to date to add references and recent events, which might increase notability value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin1962 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These claims re. the subject indicate that you may have a conflict of interest.--Charles (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- NN -- Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 18 June 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) 18:06, 20 June 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. --BDD (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Martin (footballer)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:FOOTY and WP:GNG. The PROD'er presumably meant WP:NFOOTY, which the article fails, since the LOI, the only league in which Mr. Martin has played, is not fully pro. Since the sources listed, two match reports and a transfer announcement, do not amount to significant coverage, the article fails WP:GNG as well. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 23:34, 21 June 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. Thrice deleted means salt to me. --BDD (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Oxenford

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Has been speedy deleted A7 a twice before and keeps getting recreated by SPA/COI accounts, sources are misleading, I already fixed one, but aren't significant coverage. Recommending delete and salt. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the previous AFD which ended in A7...so I guess salting really is a good idea. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Can't really speedy this since it's different enough from previous persons. In the meantime (which may be short if it SNOWS) I'm going to prune this just a bit. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional. Gamaliel (talk) 18:15, 27 June 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhgad Academy of Engineering

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. SarahStierch (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an officially accredited degree-level educational institution. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Degree-granting institution affiliated to the University of Pune. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 24 June 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.

We Can Fly

The result was Speedy keep - nominator withdrew and no other !votes. (Non-admin closure) Ansh666 18:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm sure this is a notable song that can be put on Wikipedia, but this article looks like it's more info for Fly from Here (song). EditorE (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait. This is a part of "Fly From Here". Sorry. Deletion withdrawn. EditorE (talk) 16:59, 20 June 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zeemo

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

Simple case of a not specially notable company. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this company is notable. (Possible CSD G11 as it does have some promotional text remaining, that the firm's services "can help you to reach clients".) AllyD (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 21 June 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. --BDD (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ByADL (ADL)

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

Not even a description language - just a proposal for an expanded one. No attempt made to show that anyone has taken any interest in. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable and doesn't even exist. SL93 (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be one graduate student project? No evidence of notability. W Nowicki (talk) 18:57, 25 June 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mangeons Veg

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

Hopelessly stubby article about a non-notable TV show. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its only source is its website. — Wylie pedia 10:12, 26 June 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:INeverCry per CSD G3, as a blatant hoax. (Non-administrator discussion closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Idol Juniors

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

The article is an orphan, fails WP:N, and doesn't cite any sources. Chihciboy (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 It's surprising that this got a year and a half here. Pop Idol hasn't screened a minute on British television since 2003, for one. For another, all of these names are WP:MADEUP, the "auditions" are limited to Medway region cities, and the heck if Simon Fuller would let someone "own" one of his franchises. And also, American Juniors hasn't aired for years. To top it off, the original editor of this, TheTalentShowJuniors2012 (talk · contribs) only edited thrice to this article. Tag applied, but if speedy is declined definitely delete. Nate • (chatter) 23:06, 20 June 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. --BDD (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alan DeGennaro

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

Doesn't fulfil WP:NCOLLATH, least of all for a team that doesn't have its own article. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete assistant coaches normally are not notable and I cannot find a guideline where this one in particular shows notability. Would change my position if it were presented.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seriously? The "head strength and conditioning coach" for the Carnegie-Mellon Tartans? Sorry, but this is an extremely weak article topic, and I see no signs of in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding significant coverage in independent, mainstream media sources or other reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Farshid Haidari

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

Article lacks sources and notability--fails WP:GNG, WP:MANOTE, and WP:KICK. Jakejr (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete This appears to be nothing more than a self published biographical Facebook page WP:NOTFACEBOOK. Single source does not exist.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've found nothing about the subject in Persian. Note that there are other persons with the same name but nothing about this one.Farhikht (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced BLP about a subject that meets no notability criteria.Mdtemp (talk) 16:23, 24 June 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Jarvis (karateka)

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

I don't think he meets WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG, but I don't have strong feelings. I came across this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts/archive 17#John Jarvis (karateka) so I thought I'd bring it here to determine consensus. Jakejr (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:SIGCOV. Nothing found in independent sources, most hits seem to be specific karate sites (admittedly I didn't search thoroughly). Would change to Keep if (an) appropriate source(s) were added to article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment more information found at http://www.amazon.com/John-Jarvis/e/B0034PFBIO/ but nothing solid in VIAF (which implies that none of the books have been published by large publishers). Stuartyeates (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no indication that bio is reliably sourced.Mdtemp (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, but it documents parts of the subjects' life not in other sources and may assist users in finding reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see notability as an author and I don't think he meets WP:MANOTE either.Mdtemp (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for the moment. He may have some claims to fame, being noted as one of NZ's most qualified karate teachers and possibly one of the sports founders in NZ. Need to do more research. I don't know enough about karate at this stage but the 100 man match is meant to be a major achievement. At a global level he might not make it though. NealeFamily (talk) 06:59, 26 June 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 -- Y not? 13:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Moraes

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

MMA fighter with no significant coverage (only routine sports coverage) and no top tier fights (fails WP:NMMA). Jakejr (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepTop Ranked MMA Fighter who is on the verge of contending for a MMA World Championship for World Series of Fighting on the NBC Sports Network. JMichael22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being on the verge of contending for a championship that doesn't show notability (please see WP:NMMA and WP:MMATIER) certainly doesn't show notability. Jakejr (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep - While he doesn't pass WP:NMMA, he is ranked in the top 10 among his weight class by Sherdog. ~~With some better sourcing,~~ it should pass WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After looking over the seven sources listed a couple more times, I feel comfortable enough with their significance to change my vote to a hard keep based on WP:GNG.

Also added two new significant sources just for good measure. Luchuslu (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Does not currently pass WP:GNG or WP:NMMA. Sherdog rankings are not a notability criteria and "with some better sourcing, it should pass WP:GNG" is meaningless. The question is showing that significant coverage. This appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON.Mdtemp (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How could Sherdog rankings not be considered toward notability when the heiarchy of organizations for WP:MMATIER was based entirely on the number of fighters ranked in the top ten of their weight class in each organization? Luchuslu (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rankings used to determine organizational notability were based on a poll of MMA writers from a variety of magazines and websites, not from a single website. The point being made in the notability discussions for both fighters and organizations was that a fighter couldn't be notable if he didn't fight at the highest level. This is a good case in point--Moraes has no fights against anyone ranked in the top 10 or for any top tier organization. Papaursa (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But fighters that aren't at fighting at the highest level (i.e. "top-tier organizations in WP:MMATIER) can still pass on WP:GNG grounds. Moraes has been the focus of significant coverage in MMA Junkie (USA Today's MMA wing) and MMA Fighting, plus he's received additional coverage as a top-ten ranked fighter by Sherdog. Some of his other sources are trivial, but my opinion based on WP:GNG is that he warrants a stand-alone article. Luchuslu (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI its' not just Sherdog's rankings. He also ranks in the top ten on ESPN's Bantamweight ranks. Luchuslu (talk)

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. soft delete = prod Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sehrawat

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

Although there are references to people bearing the various spellings of this gotra as part of their name, there seems to be no real information out there in reliable sources that discusses the clan as an entity. As such, it fails WP:GNG. Sitush (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 20 June 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:42, 27 June 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. Withdrawn by nominatory and no other meaningful arguments for deletion. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bless (game)

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

Seems like an advert for the game to me. Seems to have some coverage but not enough. Maybe suitable for Speedy G11 but I am not sure. Tyros1972 Talk 12:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could be notable later, but as is the article is effectively unusable. I agree it needs some meaningful claim to notability which is lacking from the article. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 20:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article is formatted badly, but IGN is certainly a RS in this context and their coverage is non-trivial. Not sure about the other source. But if it's reliable, this meets WP:GNG with the sources in hand. [21] appears to be reliable also. Hobit (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as pointed above IGN is a reliable source, and the game is also among the "Top 12 MMORPGs To Watch Out For In 2013" by Forbes: [22]. Google News archives provide a bunch of news articles and reviews about this game, I doubt they are all unreliable, some of them: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. Cavarrone 06:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned up the text (removing advertising etc) and moved the page to Bless (game). OSborn ^arf_contribs. 23:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw AfD Thanks OSborn it's actually starting to look good. I think this is obviously a keep as IGN as a very reliable source, so I am withdrawing the AfD as keep. If someone would be kind enough to close this. Tyros1972 Talk 23:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Richard Barrett-Lennard, 5th Baronet

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

per WP:Notability; no evidence provided in the article of any notability; as we see it notability is not inherited nor is it conferred by a non-noble title Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article may only be a stub, but it cites an obituary in the Times, and entry in Who Was Who. He is said to have been a bank chairman. Both references are subscription only, but there is clear assertion of notability for the purposes of WP. --AJHingston (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Vice-chairman of a major financial institution and got an obituary in The Times. Maybe only borderline, but sufficient for notability nonetheless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing presented so far satisfies WP:Bio. There are countless non-notable vice presidents in banks, since anyone higher than a teller is likely to be a VP. Job titles are very cheap, and customers like to think they are talking to someone important. Baronetcies do not provide inherent notability, nor does being included in Who Was Who. Edison (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The TSB and the Norwich Union were major British financial institutions and the situation in the UK was rather different from that in the US. The chairmanship of the regional TSB and the vice chairmanship of the Norwich Union were significant posts. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Trying to deny notability of the subject of a stub article where there is prima facie evidence that he or she meets the criteria is rarely helpful or productive. We could have the same debate for almost anyone who meets notability guidelines. You have to know a lot about somebody to judge whether notability is 'deserved', and almost by definition stub articles lack that. I am not a fan of stub articles but they are allowed and some guidelines actively encourage them, so nomination of them for deletion is best avoided unless there is clearly no assertion of notability or the nominator is able to offer more information such as lack of any evidence of notability, neither of which was the case here. And questioning notability of people regarded as notable in the past falls into other difficulties. It may be a value judgement, or it may be a simple misunderstanding of the significance of a person's role not shared with contemporaries. Confusing a VP in a small US company today with a bank chairman may be an extreme example, but that sort of thing is often easily done. Somebody who was described by contemporaries as a steward or secretary, or simply by rank, may have been highly notable - that is one reason why we say that notability is not temporary.--AJHingston (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was not a vice-president; he was the vice-chairman. That means the second most important person on the board, not some minor functionary with a grand-sounding title. British companies do not have presidents and vice-presidents; that's American terminology. It's generally a good idea to understand what you're commenting on before you comment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is somewhat anemic, but I used the JSTOR tool above and found a number of references to him in the Burlington Magazine. I suspect a more general trawl would throw up more references. Together with the Times obituary and the Who was Who entry, that fulfills the notability criteria IMO. Let's keep the article for a while, but if it remains a stub, merge it with Barrett-Lennard baronets. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS I've just found a rather interesting story about his pictures which I am about to add to the article. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PPS I've now also added his Commander of the Order of St John and corrected the date of his OBE. The article is no longer a stub, so my merge suggestion (above) is now moot. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator None of which has the slightest relevance to WP:Notability - OBEs and and other honours shared by many thousands bestow notability no more than an accidental inherited title Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. It was a DoI, drawing attention to the fact that I had made a number of edits that made me a major contributor to the article. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In actual fact, it has long been consensus on AfD that while the OBE (unlike the CBE) does not confer automatic notability, it certainly does contribute to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per AJHingston's arguements above. Finnegas (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Hartmann

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

I'd come across her a while ago when someone requested that we write an article on a book she'd been writing live. I didn't see where her book was particularly noteworthy and the bigger issue with her is that she doesn't seem to have really been the focus of enough attention to warrant an article herself. The only thing she's really received attention from in RS is the book she wrote live and other than a handful of articles that mention her starting the project and even fewer that mention her completing it, there's nothing out there to show notability for her. The book project falls under WP:ONEEVENT as far as I'm concerned and it's not that major of an event to where she'd pass on that front. Someone came and re-wrote the article to where it reads more like a puff piece for her than an actual article, but it still isn't enough. I'd written up a more neutral version of it, but the previous editor that removed the PROD essentially reverted it to the previous edition and added more puffery to it in an attempt to save it. There just isn't enough out there to show notability for her. She comes close, but in the end falls shy of passing WP:AUTHOR or any other notability guidelines. Also, while this isn't exactly a reason to delete in and of itself, I noticed that this article has had a long-running issue with people coming on that are affiliated with Hartmann or her works in some way and using this as a place to promote her and her work. Now as far as her EmoTrance stuff goes, she very technically didn't create it but expanded on someone else's work. I can't see where she's mentioned that heavy enough to where she'd merit a keep based upon that work either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a rundown of the sources:

Sources

The Mind Body Bible: Your Personalised Prescription for Total Health: The problem here is that this isn't really what I'd consider a RS. I can't verify what her mention is and given that this is in the back of the book, I'm guessing that this is a mention as a list of various things for someone to try as far as alternative medicine goes. That's not what I'd call a mention or reference that'd give notability.
[34] This book isn't considered a RS and besides, she's listed with various others in a business listing style section of various places to try out. Not something that would show notability.
[35] This is a word document that goes over various things, but I don't see where this is even close to being a RS. I have no real way of being able to verify who wrote this, where it was published, if anyone edited it, or if it was peer reviewed.
[36] This THE article is relatively usable, but this is pretty much the only remotely RS about her work with EmoTrance. We need more than one source to show that EmoTrance is really noteworthy.
[37] Primary source, not usable as far as RS goes.
[38] This is a page from the group she created, which would be another primary source.
Oceans of Energy and Adventures in EFT: These are both books she wrote, which would be considered primary.
[39] Another primary source.
[40] Not just primary, but also a link to where you can purchase the book, making it a primary merchant source. This is pretty much the epitome of what would be an inappropriate source to link to in any instance.
[41] Another primary source. Even if someone else wrote it, it's still published on her organization's website and is primary.
[42] I can't really verify the reliability of this source, especially since it seems to read more like a press release than an actual article. I can't verify if this is one of those places that lets anyone write an article (which I suspect it is) or one with a set amount of editors or what. I'm leaning heavily towards this being unreliable, as the article for this suggests that anyone can submit an article.
[43] This is the same THE article that was linked to above.
Energy EFT: Another primary reference to one of her books.
[44] Another non-RS. This is a random website when it comes down to it.
[45], [46], [47], [48], [49] Here's where we start getting to the ones that are usable, but ultimately these all say the same thing: "Hey, this person is doing something interesting". They're good in getting started on notability but ultimately this all falls under WP:ONEEVENT. Some of the mentions are insanely brief (as in the case with the New Yorker and Gizmodo links) and almost all of them say the same thing. When it comes to the Chicago Tribune mention, the article isn't really about her, but focuses heavily on her towards the end. The big problem here is that they're all reporting on this as a lark and this isn't in-depth enough to warrant a keep on this alone.
[50] Out of the sources about the book, this one is completely unusable as a RS.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The whole thing looks extremely fringe to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - because having had my own look, I find myself in almost total agreement with the nom's extensive analysis. Stalwart111 09:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; low notability, and WP:FRINGE problems. The thorough nomination says it all - thanks, Tokyogirl79. bobrayner (talk) 02:27, 21 June 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 King of the Nerds. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Van Norman

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

I am having a really hard time seeing any notability here WP:ANYBIO. Am I missing something? Ad Orientem (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ changing to Redirect as per RCLC below. Fails notability and also verifiability. (I have serious doubts about some of the stuff in the article - fire dancer??) There is lots about this person in social media and self-generated sites, but absolutely nothing at Google News that seems to be about this person. --MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete. No reasonable notability presented. Being once a contestant is no fame. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to King of the Nerds; the subject has received significant coverage by way of being a contestant on a nationally televised program, and thus the subject falls under WP:BLP1E, where all the coverage has been due to the subject being a contestant. A redirect to the television program is a common outcome when the subject has only received significant coverage through the program.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:42, 25 June 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. This is a very close call between delete and no consensus. However, I am strongly pursuaded by the arguments of WP:BLP1E and as such have been swayed towards delete. Had the RaVen Quartet article been more substantial, I may have suggested a move, however, the article is currently a stub and any mention of Natalie Holt would overwhelm the article and still infringe WP:BLP1E policy. If the article is expanded and anyone feels inclined to merge Natalie Holt into it, please come and see me and I'll restore the article so that the merge can take place. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Holt

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

Someone famous only for one event. Though clearly a capable musician (as seen by her credits as a session musician) the only coverage she has received seems to be for her somewhat ill-considered protest. The protest should be, and is, covered in articles about Britain's Got Talent- this article is not needed. J Milburn (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Raven Quartet - this looks like a notable music group. Difficultly north (talk) - Simply south alt. 14:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Looks like"? Do you have any evidence that it satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines? We don't keep articles because some editor thinks it looks as though their subjects may be notable: we need verifiable reliable sources. Of the sources cited in the article, www.ravenquartet.co.uk is clearly not an independent source, www.unrealitytv.co.uk is not a reliable source (it says "Write a review of a show you’ve watched or a single/album you’ve heard. Share some reality TV gossip. If you really loved or hated a show or a particular contestant, tell us why! We’ll publish it right here on the blog. You can contribute as much or as little as you want.") and the others don't even mention Raven Quartet. My own searches have produced no more than passing mentions in reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- I have found some sources, two of which are definitely reliable that indicate they may be notable: M Magazine, BBC Breakfast and BGC Group. Difficultly north (talk) - Simply south alt. 16:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's look at those three sources.

(1) The web site www.m-magazine.co.uk/ belongs to "PRS for Music". PRS describes itself as a "95,000 strong member community, which includes some of the world's best songwriters, composers and publishers" [51], and says that its purpose is "to collect and pay royalties to our members" [52]. It also states that m-magazine "is produced by PRS for Music for its 95,000 songwriter, composer and music publisher members" [53]. Clearly not an independent or neutral source. (2) www.bbc.co.uk/ is certainly a reliable and independent source. However, at present the page cited merely gives a three sentence mention that "Raven" was interviewed on a television show, and was to appear in a concert. There is also a picture on the page, with a note on it saying "This content doesn't seem to be working. Try again later." I guess that means that there is supposed to be a video of the interview, but even if there is, it is not clear how substantial coverage it is. Also, the cited page itself does not actually mention Natalie Holt. (3) We have a page at www.bgcpartners.com/. This page describes an awards ceremony, and gives a two-sentence mention of the fact that the Raven Quartet performed at the ceremony while the winners had their photographs taken. Scarcely substantial coverage of Raven, and again, no mention of Natalie Holt at all.

My conclusion is that the first and third sourced do nothing towards establishing notability under Wikipedia's guidelines, and the second one is of limited value for notability of Raven, and less still for Natalie Holt.

Delete I very much agree. A WP article shouldn't be part of the 15 minutes of fame. I very much doubt, that the public knew her before the BGT egging incident. Even this article was created after that.--Rob.HUN (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore I think that WP should be cleared of all those "celebrities" who are only famous for being "famous".--Rob.HUN (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob.HUN (talk • contribs) 15:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - member of a group that doesn’t meet WP:BAND and a backing/session musician, so not notable outside the BGT incident. (Some of the press coverage has referred to her as a BAFTA award nominee because she performed on the theme to Great Expectations (2011 TV serial), but she wasn't named on the nomination [54]). January (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the Unreality TV reference is unreliable (thanks JamesBWatson for pointing that out, will change immediately), the references provided by Difficultly north show Raven Quartet as a notable group and the references at Egggate show Holt to be notable for one event; per Wikipedia:Notability (music) criteria #6, Holt and Raven bounce off each other's notability. But the article does need work; please allow the full week of AfD.--Laun chba ller 17:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Discogs is also hardly ideal- that's user-submitted information. There are better sources out there (The Telegraph, for instance, has an article about her) but I remain unconvinced that she has notability beyond this incident. J Milburn (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides her notability I'm not really convinced about the sincerity of her "protest". It seems more like fishing for free publicity.--Rob.HUN (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions of Holt herself or her actions are irrelevant to this dicussion. January (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far that's all she could come up with for notability. :) Even this article was created AFTER the incident. That makes me wonder about the author's motives as well.--Rob.HUN (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The article looks one heck of a lot better than when I first saw it (and protected it...), but I'm not sure about the notability. I am prepared to userfy it if it's deleted, if the author wants more time to try again. Peridon (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rob - one more personal attack out of you and I will ask Peridon to block you. How dare you accuse me of assuming bad faith and how dare you sling accusations without doing the correct amount of research. I did not add mention of Holt's faux-BAFTA nomination to the article and had you checked the talk page of Natalie Holt or even the article history you would know that.
Peridon, thank you for your offer. I would be happy for this article to be userfied and this article redirected to the incident while I work on it further should consensus swing that way.--Laun chba ller 20:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed my remarks, because it really wasn't you who added the false BAFTA-nomination. However I still can't agree with you on the notability of this person.--Rob.HUN (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I hadn't been satisfied that the author was making a good faith creation, I might well have taken advantage of the rather virulent IP attack on the article and A7ed it before it was expanded. Now, can we confine things to the notability question? Unless the IP or someone in this discussion is really Simon Cowell, I can't see why a youngish viola player is arousing such a reaction. Peridon (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Purely because of her egg-throwing antics, in a nutshell. However, when I discovered that Holt had done other stuff which - on its own - would have fallen foul of WP:1EVENT, I decided that 1+1=>1 and that she deserved an article.--Laun chba ller 22:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the reaction against her, especially from the IP, some of whose work was revdeled. Peridon (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. All I know is that she launched an attack, live, on a very popular television series and #Egggate is now trending on Twitter. Why is it trending on Twitter? Haven't got a clue.--Laun chba ller 22:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (or move to RaVen Quartet) Prior to the egg-throwing incident, we have two citations that look fine to me, the M Magazine and BBC citations found by Difficultly north (which I've now added to the article). (The argument that M Magazine is not independent seems like an overly broad definition of what "independent" has to be.) So I concur with Launchballer: that prior coverage plus the (widely covered) egg-throwing is enough. Bondegezou (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"An overly broad definition of what "independent" has to be"? An organisation with the avowed purpose of serving the financial interests is to be regarded as an independent source when publishing writings about those members??? What on earth would be a reasonable definition of "independent", in that case? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

M Magazine, AIUI, is more like a trade magazine/site read by those in the trade. They don't cover any and every PRS member. There is editorial control. You can't just join PRS and then have an interview done the next day. Not independent means not a press release by the band or its record label, and this is nothing like that. Bondegezou (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a press release by the band or its record label would not be an independent source, but it is a mistake to think that those are the only sources that are not independent. An organisation which exists to further the interests of a particular group is going to be well-disposed towards members of that group, and is not independent. Also, a "trade magazine/site read by those in the trade" is a rather parochial source, with coverage in it doing little to suggest significance in the wider world, outside that trade group. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Independence' is clearly a continuum. I would disagree with your zeal to reject anything that isn't entirely independent as having no value to attest notability. I also think that dismissing a trade publication as parochial is imposing too high a threshold for notability. Notability generally means notability within one's field. Bondegezou (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as only notable for one event, which is already covered elsewhere. In fact, she's barely even notable for that. –anemone projectors– 15:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not opposed to an article on the group, but I feel it would have to be written from scratch. Someone writing that article would also have to be aware that the article was about the group, not the protest. J Milburn (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, because that would make Holt notable for two events. Support an article on the group, though.--Laun chba ller 17:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability has not been established. This individual's attempt to disrupt a live TV production lasted all of 5 seconds. If that is a benchmark then where is the article on the individuals who disrupted a much more notable event with a bigger live audience and a massive world-wide TV audience during the 2013_French_Open_–_Men's_Singles#Final? Barely a mention. The link between her antics and some group she performs with is tenuous as a means of establishing individual article worthiness. Leaky Caldron 17:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MUSICBIO #1, Holt would need to be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself", which she is.--Laun chba ller 18:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the era of web2.0 perhaps this criterion should be rewritten.--Rob.HUN (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4 Delet, 1 Keep, 1 Move, 1 Indecisive, 1 Neutral (if I counted well) --Rob.HUN (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, but you don't seem to have counted well! I don't get those numbers. Bondegezou (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - how very pisspoor. To copy the list from page analysis:

Rob.HUN - delete
Launchballer - keep
JamesBWatson - delete
Bondegezou - keep/merge (or indecisive, to use Rob's wording)
J Milburn - delete
Peridon - neutral
Gene93k - hasn't voted
Difficultly north - move
January - delete
~~Factuallee~~
Leaky caldron - delete
Cavarrone - redirect
86.42.72.87 - hasn't voted
~~94.27.137.40~~
AnemoneProjectors - delete

Excluding the suspicious accounts, I count six deletes, 3 neutral, 1.5 keeps (counting Bondegezou's as half each because one editor = one vote), 1.5 merges to Raven Quartet, 1 redirect (to Egggate).--Laun chba ller 12:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no RaVen Quartet article with which to merge. I think a suggestion to move to RaVen Quartet is basically a 'keep': it's saying the same material should be kept, whether it's a Natalie Holt article that also describes RaVen Quartet or a RaVen Quartet article that also describes Natalie Holt. Bondegezou (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's 6 delete, 3 neutral, 3 merges, 1 redirect.--Laun chba ller 14:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you counting? AFD isn't closed based on numbers. –anemone projectors– 11:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is it based on? Anyway, I counted because Bondegezou disputed Rob's numbers.--Laun chba ller 11:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion, consensus and policy (because sometimes people will give poor reasons for wanting to keep or delete a page). See also Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. By the way, I didn't mean you specifically, even though my comment came directly below yours. –anemone projectors– 12:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's something a little suspect about counting merge votes as keeps if there's nowhere to merge to. The article, currently, is a badly sourced BLP- the Unreality TV blog and the user-submitted info on Discogs really aren't appropriate sources- this is not really material that should be merged anywhere, and I think any closing administrator is going to be aware of that. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Unreality TV source has now been replaced with one by The Mirror and a source has been added for her playing with Madness. Excluding the Discogs-sourced section, that is two events (albeit one for Holt and one for Raven).--Laun chba ller 14:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty certain that the Quartet is notable- there are three or four decent sources about them. The question now, I think, is more of an editorial one- is it going to best practice to have an article about Holt, or is it going to be best to cover her involvement with the group in the group's article and her involvement with "egggate" only on BGT articles? Bearing in mind that this is a BLP (and she is now probably most famous for something negative), I'd be inclined towards the latter, but I don't think there's a clearcut answer either way. J Milburn (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best thing to do is to simply write the article on RaVen Quartet first - I am happy to do that - store this article at User:Launchballer/Natalie Holt and then talk about whether or not she deserves an article.--Laun chba ller 14:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a great plan. J Milburn (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fourty-eight fucking hours later... I've made a start on RaVen Quartet here.--Laun chba ller 20:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on RaVen Quartet, what's the opinion?--Laun chba ller 22:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Britain's_Got_Talent_(series_7)#Final_.288_June.29, where her "incident" probably deserves to be mentioned (in not more than a sentence!). Not enough notability outside that event to justify a separate article. Cavarrone 12:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was to be redirected, a redirect to the Disruption during final section would probably be better. –anemone projectors– 11:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I doubt that she is notable yet, but I would not oppose reconstructing the article as one on RaVen Quartet. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she's infamous for being infamous for throwing eggs?! That is a classic WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BLP violation wrapped in one. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 19 June 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, Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge as suggested, if the Raven Quartet article being created is though sustainable. DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Miniapolis 17:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 15 seconds of fame and you get a Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrab h (talk • contribs) 11:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

101 Silver Screen Stars

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

I don't believe this 4 disc box set is notable enough Gbawden (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This set has no notability. SL93 (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per this being TOO SOON. While the disk set contains 101 notables, as a 4-DVD-box-set it has not received requisite coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These films and their actors were brought together for marketing reason and not for any critical or educational reason. It sticks in my memory that we had previous list articles and/or categories under this "Silver Screen" banner six+/- years ago. MarnetteD | Talk 23:18, 24 June 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parodies in Animaniacs

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

In-universe fancruft. No secondary sourcing in sight. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Much as I like the Animaniacs, there is a lack of WP:SIGCOV for most of this (Google Scholar had passing mentions as far as I could see). Ansh666 05:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the very definition of fancruft, sourced only to the show itself (and thus being WP:OR as well). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree per TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs). JJ98 (Talk) 17:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Animaniacs or another topic-related article (if there is one). I'm sure there still could be independent sources out there of this, but as it looks the article not significant enough on it's own. EditorE (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Animaniacs#Parodies - that IMO is enough. Ansh666 04:19, 26 June 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. Wifione ^Message 07:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andi Land

AfDs for this article:

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

Since the last AfD, article still reliant on non-reliable or primary sourcing. Her Freeones award is not well known or significant enough to pass PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, this is probably not the place to add my response, but it is a nightmare navigating through this site. I can't find anywhere to add a response to defend the article I have added, I click on links that go nowhere. PORNBIO is quoted but can I find it. It does not appear with a search. I am very frustrated.

I had hoped all my hard work finding many new sources, references, awards, appearances etc would be enough to satisfy everyone, obviously not. I can find links to show she won Gallery's Girl Next Door monthly award twice, (http://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=711325&highlight=gallery+magazine) and (http://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=690181&page=1) but GFY.com links are not admissible here. On the magazine covers themselves it does not mention anything, so they would be no use. I suppose I could buy those issues and scan the contents? She did win the awards, but I cannot find a link allowable on Wikipedia. The sentence stating she is the only person running the site wholly by herself and having her own affiliate program is difficult to justify, except that it is true. I can show that other models don't if anyone wants to dispute it, throw me some names. As an example, if you visit Ariel Rebel's article on this site, it mentions she hopes to have her own affiliate program soon. She has been hoping to do that for nearly five years! Freeones are not sufficient enough of an award. It is the only fan-voted award available, and it did attract 288,000 votes. It is near impossible for some models to win some of the awards deemed worthy to allow an article to appear here. Nearly all the awards are for LA-based models, signed up to studios in that city, where those same studios nominate their own models every time. I want to point out that if you are going to allow just some adult models to have an article here, it should be an even playing field, more categories to allow the ones that don't appear in hundreds of videos, go to all the LA award shows, appear on Howard Stern or visit Hugh Hefner at weekends. 86.2.147.96 (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you got the right place. What is so hard to navigate here? Which links are going nowhere for you? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - I see a link saying 'talk', expecting that to take me to the correct page, but it is a Wikipedia page. Then I try Contribs. There should be a box called Reply that you go to! Grabags (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The relevant criteria for this article will likely be PORNBIO, although I don't know if Wikipedia:NMODEL#Entertainers will help out at all in this case either. The Gallery's Girl Next Door monthly awards aren't gonna help the article very much.
    - I have been told Gallery magazine was the third best selling 'skin' magazine at that time, behind Playboy and Penthouse, possibly one million copies per issue worldwide? Also, I cannot find another model that won the monthly competition twice (although it is difficult to research), which PORNBIO qualifies her as "beginning a trend in pornography", something all the other girls could now aim for!. Grabags (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Also, I cannot find another model that won the monthly competition twice" Are you talking about the monthly "amateur" contest that Gallery used to have or simply that this model was a centerfold in Gallery magazine more than once? My understanding is that Gallery magazine went belly up a few years back, and, from my foggy memory, I'm pretty sure that more than one person won the monthly Gallery "amateur" contest. In any event, I've yet to see an acceptable citation that actually documents that she "won" (it's not really an "award" per se anyways) anything in that particular magazine, whether they are still around or not. Guy1890 (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Until recently, I had never heard of Gallery magazine, but I am told that 20-50 models were nominated/competed each month for the Girl Next Door contest. There are definitely many winners that went on to appear in Playboy and Penthouse. Votes were sent in and the one with the most votes won and gained a $2,500 prize (although they didn't in most cases – it was never paid out from 2006 to bankruptcy, allegedly). Since its takeover a few years back, the magazine now offer a devalued monthly prize of $500, and $500 for the Year award. It appears it once probably was third in line after Playmate of the month and Penhouse Pet of the month. Melissa Harrington has replied to me that she got her $25k prize for being Girl Next Door of the Year 2005. The only way I can find out who won each monthly Gallery prize is if someone has a copy, looks inside and tells me the winner, but I cannot source over 400 copies and prove the statement, that is why I did not add she is the only model to have won it twice to her article. A photographer had most copies from this century and was kind enough to go through them to note the winners, but he ends at 2004. And I am very unlikely to do that research, when it matters not to Wikipedia that she appeared in that magazine, that if it did not appear in Playboy, it does not count. Grabags (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I am aware of how the "Girl Next Door of the Month" contest worked. As for "There are definitely many winners that went on to appear in Playboy and Penthouse", that doesn't appear to apply to this model, and, if it did, that would add to her notability a tad. Guy1890 (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - "I can show that other models don't if anyone wants to dispute it, throw me some names." That's not going to help your case any either. What are the "2011 Best Newcomer", "2011 Best Adult Model", "2012 Best Adult Model", and "2013 Best OCSM" nominations all about? Are those just more Freeones' awards? Guy1890 (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, it is impossible to justify my remark. But it is PORNBIO groundbreaking, to allow the article to stay on Wikipedia. I have contacted lots that may be able to say this, but all of them that replied that their webmaster or partner edits the videos, they outsource photo editing, someone runs the website, organises the shoots etc, even replies to Twitter comments. Every independent female and male, running their own website who replied said they did not do the lot, run the whole show themselves. Although not all did respond or thought I was a looney. Yes, they are Freeones categories. Grabags (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm sorry, but none of the immediate above sounds like it is going to help this article out at all. Guy1890 (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain what GNG is? And what defines substantial, independently-published coverage, please? 86.2.147.96 (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll see GNG mentioned occasionally in these kind of AfDs, though it really seems to me that the above-mentioned PORNBIO is what really matters in many of these cases. See also: Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. Guy1890 (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your continued help to allow me to navigate around Wikipedia. Even though three here have posted 'delete', I consider this article meets all the criteria required with what I've read: hugely successful websites, media appearances, awards, nominations, a career spanning nine years so far, and many magazine articles. If it had said 'appeared in Playboy' it would not have been nominated, which is silly. The adult information section is really lacking on this site, so hopefully this is the first of many that pass the rigorous examination. Thanks again. Grabags (talk) 07:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're unfortunately going to end up being disappointed at the outcome of this AfD. Actually, if this model had only "appeared in Playboy", that might only entitle her to be on a List of Playboy Playmates of the Month, since just being a Playboy centerfold is not especially notable due to some kind of past practice here on Wikipedia. You might be able to make a PORNBIO "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" argument if you had better (or more) documentation of notable mainstream media appearances. The Webdreams thing might apply, but that's only one source, and, in general, I think that YouTube citation links aren't generally going to get it done when it comes to "valid" citations. This model's Gallery magazine appearances don't appear to be especially well sourced as well, but I'm not even sure that it would matter in the end, since, like it or not, I haven't seen any adult models end up with Wikipedia articles solely based on appearances in that (or Swank) magazine. You'll likely be better off just userfying this article (the administrator that closes this AfD could do that for you if you wanted) and seeing if this model does some things in the future that better meet PORNBIO, like maybe winning or being nominated for some more "well-known" or "significant industry awards". Good luck... Guy1890 (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG; subject is not the object of substantial coverage in multiple instances of independently-published coverage in so-called reliable sources, nor entitled to "low bar" consideration for having won a major industry individual award. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Carrite. Promotional gimmickry does nothing to establish genuine notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Finnegas (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 05:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KingdomOfKnights

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

Non-notable unreleased video game. No significant coverage by reliable independent sources to pass the WP:GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 22:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even released yet, and doesn't look like it will be especially notable when it is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreleased video game with no good coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:23, 20 June 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Byrne

AfDs for this article:

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

Requests for significant coverage in reliable secondary sources about the subject have been unmet since March 2008‎. Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for now) - This is an old one, and as I review it - it appears that many of the inlink sources previously included here have been deleted over time. I will go back and review those which I originally found and used when starting this article to see which are still valid. The subject appears to still be a published author and person of note in prior influential government positions and roles in high-profile business. I'll update this and see if it continues to meet the merits of inclusion, as discussed in the last proposed deletion.Mheaddem (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't added any reliable secondary sources about the BLP subject. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - mostly because I was able to find this, this and this (about the same event) and this. There are sections/mentions in books like this and this which should help to verify various career claims. There's also a whole bunch of mentions of him as the spokesperson for various agencies during the 1990s. That such sources haven't been added to the article is a fix the problem sort of problem and WP:BEFORE still applies to old and tagged-long-ago articles. Stalwart111 03:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did BEFORE and your sources are inadequate. The Malaysian Digest link appears to be a press release for an appearance at an event, and it appears to have been written by the subject and published wholesale by "Bernama", the National Newsagency of Malaysia. I don't think that's reliable. The STL link is passing mention, as are the books. If there are no reliable secondary sources about the subject, then we shouldn't have an article. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the Sun Daily link, right? The Malaysian Digest article is 50% editorial from the author about the issue of social media in general and the second half is all about the subject and obviously not a press release. The Sun Daily article seems like an adaptation of a press statement but it's about the same event as the first anyway and so wouldn't count for much either way. The Malaysian Digest is the significant coverage and the Sun Daily is just extra. Half the STL article is about Byrne's take on Web 2.0. I said, quite plainly, that the book sources were mentions but that they might be useful for verifying things. After all of that, though I'm not going to die in a ditch over it, I stand by my position. It's enough for me, though you are free to disagree. Stalwart111 05:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Malaysian Digest article is obviously a press release published wholesale, passed along from the PR agency to Bernama. It's not reliable, and it doesn't even begin to provide sourcing for 80% of the material in this article which comes from the author, not from the secondary sources. There's really nothing to "keep" here, and I'm confused by the efforts to promote this unsourced biography. If he was notable, we would have actual biographical sources about the subject. We don't. Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, again, I think you're getting the two confused. This is the Malaysian Digest one which is written by one of their editorial staff and contains plenty of biographical information.This is the Sun Daily one that specifically credits Bernama. The second one isn't of much value but I think the first one is. In combination with the others I think there is enough. It's not a matter of "promoting" the biography - you nominated it for deletion and I and another editor both respectfully disagree. Stalwart111 04:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BASIC per available online sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:22, 20 June 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. They're WP:CHEAP. Anyone interested in performing a merge is free to use the page's history to do so. --BDD (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Booster bag scam

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

This article doesn't look like a very good article. Should probably be deleted. Elevator85 (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ - Criterion #1 under WP:SK "nomination fails to advance an argument for deletion." --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect - I guess I should have looked closer for another article it could go into. Changed my !vote accordingly. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note ~~No longer valid, now that Tokyogirl has added a delete !vote.~~ (Also, I figure that the comment which is now under the delete vote was meant to be there and not here.) Ansh666 05:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's already an article for this at Booster bag. There's no need for a separate article. I don't really see where we need this as a redirect, as anyone typing this in will be more likely to come across simply "booster bag" if this is what they're looking for. Scam is sort of superfluous when it comes to the search term. This article is earlier, but the other search term is far more likely to be found and is slightly better written. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although... I can kind of see where this should probably be moved to Wiktionary. I can find articles that mention this in relation to various thieves, but what we have here is essentially a definition. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)

Merge content into booster bag. This is a duplicate article on the same topic. 4.238.1.122 (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to booster bag. Don't delete, for external link purposes (article has been around since 2006). A412 (Talk • C) 04:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to booster bag. No need for two articles on the same thing. Info can be merged if well cited. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to booster bag per above (as WP:CFORK). Ansh666 05:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a fork. Unlikely search term, which is the actual article name, plus another word. No need for a redirect either for this or for Booster bag shoplifting, Booster bag theft gear, Booster bag merchandise removal technique, etc. Carrite (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect - If there's anything salvageable about the article, but that in booster bag, otherwise a straight redirect is fine. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Delete I agree with Carrite in that I think someone would search "booster bag" before "booster bag scam." However, I don't think a redirect would be bad either.—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 18:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[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 Kudpung under CSD G11. Graham87 03:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vuly Trampolines

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

Not notable enough for Wikipedia. Many of the listed sources are either primary or parochial, the article has a blatantly promotional tone, and the accounts that have significantly contributed to it are pretty much only here for that purpose. Graham87 00:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Promotional? Absolutely! COI? More than likely based on the SPAs involved! We can also add WP:NPOV based on the potential COI writing in a promotional tone. However, I do feel that there are enough WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. [55], [56], and [57] to start with. I would say the best thing to do is strip this down to the basic facts as stated in the references. Everything else belongs in their brochure in Toys R Us. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per FoolMeOnce2Times. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have been thinking about this and I think that it would be better to have a completely new non-advertising article rather than attempting to salvage this one. Dabbler (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or, it would be easier to keep this article and remove everything other than a paragraph that states who they are and what they do. Stub it out. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with that approach is that it leaves a stub which may never be developed or else will be reverted back to the advertising article we see today as the only editors interested may be the ones with a COI. The company is basically unknown outside Australia but I have no notion about its notability in that country. Dabbler (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it may never materialize, but that is not a reason to delete it. If that were the case, there would be no such thing as a stub template. Also, keeping it on a watch list so that spam does not get added back in is an option. I just hate to see articles deleted because they are too short, spammy, or anything other than un notable, assuming that it is notable. By stating you would create a new article seems to me that you believe somehow that it is notable, otherwise, we would just go right with delete and skip the recreation. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:44, 21 June 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.