THC Science

< 16 August	18 August >

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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On My Way (song)[edit]

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

This article has no sources that indicate notability. All the sources are just chart lists that happen to include this song in their list (or are dead links or the song's video on youtube or the artist's general web site, which doesn't seem to mention the song, or a place to download the song, or the artist's twitter account, etc.). The article was created (recently, 31 March 2013) by a user that has been previously blocked and repeatedly warned about creating spurious discography articles with no evidence of notability, and has subsequently continued the practice. The article has been tagged for questionable notability for a week, with no response. Once the article was created and stabilized (around the end of May 2013), it seems to have been basically abandoned by its creator and the community in general – except for a renaming discussion that raised some policy issues and had a rather questionable outcome. BarrelProof (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. BarrelProof (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the song just made it into the news on Thursday: [1]. On the other hand, I do support the idea that treating this obscure song as if it's the only "On My Way" notable enough to have its own article, and therefore we can tolerate its stupid WP:PDAB, is crazy. The On My Way (Ben Kweller song) is at least as notable, being in a book, as this one is in a news item. If we can't get the title fixed, maybe I'll vote to delete it after all, then when it comes back it can be properly disambiguated. Dicklyon (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at that Gazette article you cited. In my opinion, it is not evidence of notability. It doesn't discuss the song in any depth or even say what the song is about – it is just a concert announcement about a music festival that mentions that one of the performers will be this artist and that one of the songs he will perform is this one. Anyhow, whether the article goes away or not, I'm really more interested in making the WP:PDAB situation go away. Maybe I should start a move review, but deleting the article would solve the problem. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite the fact that I do very much love the song, basing my view on Wikipedia guidelines such as notability, this song does not meet the notability requirements. There are millions of songs out there and one cannot create an article for every song based on where it falls on a few charts or the number of you tube videos it promotes. One of which is produced by people directly related to it. Specifically it fails at WP:SIGCOV (including the gazette article) and WP:GNG maybe one day that will change, however, today my view is to delete. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Charlie Brown (singer) after that article is restored and expanded using available sources, e.g. Huffington Post, The Independent, Reveal, Daily Record, Digital Spy, Female First. The coverage that's out there and the major chart hit mean that an article on the singer is appropriate. There isn't enough to justify a separate article on the single, but the chart information should be retained and merged. --Michig (talk) 06:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pointless to be deleting first charting single of a singer getting media coverage. I couldn't find an AfD for the original Charlie Brown (singer) article (created stub), was there one? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Charting on seven national charts passes WP:NSONG. Aspects (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you can read it that way. WP:NSONG says "have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works ... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. ... a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." Here, we don't even have coverage of the song in the context of an album review. We have no WP:SIGCOV of the song at all. The mere inclusion of a song in a chart list is not significant in-depth coverage. Proper coverage should be WP:INDEPTH, WP:DIVERSE, and should have WP:PERSISTENCE. Simple WP:ROUTINE content like cursory reviews of recent releases and concert events is not enough, and we don't even have that. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; you have got to be kidding me. It charted in the top ten in three charts (WP:NSONG criteria #1), including one the other side of Europe from where it was released, there is a reasonably detailed article there (main criterion) - what more can you possibly ask for?--Laun chballer 18:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep; The song has peaked to number 7 on the UK Singles Chart, number 10 in Scotland and the song has also charted in Australia and Belgium, it passes WP:NSONG. Greenock125 (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A proper article really needs to contain more than chart list placement numbers, regardless of what values those numbers have. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speed Procedural Close – Sure it is Charlie Brown's only hit in the United Kingdom, but not every song article is perfect. Billboard Man (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Give it time to grow. At present it fails the main para of WP:NSONGS Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. At present it has information about the single, about the video and about the chart entries - but it has nothing, zilch, zero, nada, about the song. A song article with nothing about the song? --Richhoncho (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:USERFY available on request. Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Matthew Wise[edit]

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

No indication of notability on google, gnews, gbooks, etc [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep because there is something about this that asserts notability. However I concede that I have been fooled to a great extent by the incoherent clutter into believing that at least one of the references given must satisfy WP:RS. I checked each of them and failed to find that to be the case, hence my week keep is based more upon emotion than on fact and policy. I suspect it needs WP:TNT whatever the outcome of this discussion. It's certain that the main contributing editor needs careful mentoring and advice, but they seem unresponsive. Fiddle Faddle 23:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have, at last, found a WP:RS reference here and added it to the article. The article remains a ghastly mess, but does, now, pas WP:GNG for sure. Fiddle Faddle 20:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, incomprehensible mess, probably composed by the subject of the article. This is not the place for Damon Matthew Wise to publish his resume. --Laser brain (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe not all of it but at least most of it. Much is unreferenced. Facebook is not an appropriate reference. Neither is another Wikipedia article or their talk pages. We need independent sources and it needs to be written in a more neutral tone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally we are not here to host peoples CV's. Many of the refs listed do not even mention the person this article is supposedly about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per laser brain. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request The main contributing editor is a self identified Asperger Syndrome diagnosed person. I have spent some time finding a suitable mentor and other people who will work with him/her to turn the article into a form where it is possible to save it. On that basis I am going to ask for a WP:IAR solution, something unusual. That is that this AfD be closed for now with a special closure, perhaps referencing WP:AUTISM as a justification. The outcome should be that the article be moved to a WP:AFC status in order that the editor and mentor(s) can work on it unhindered by deletion discussions, and that there is no prejudice to re-creation once it has been through the AFC process.

I believe that this would fulfil the quite reasonable arguments that the article in its present state be deleted, and take the pressure off what seems to be a high functioning autistic editor to deliver to a time deadline. I believe that this solution should be implemented without delay, and explained in detail to User:AspieNo1 perhaps directly, perhaps through the mentoring team. I see no harm in temporary protection for this article to prevent re-creation until the AFC process has completed satisfactorily, but I would not class it as a deletion per se as an AfD outcome, rather as a "Special closure to allow the article to be worked on in a protected environment". Fiddle Faddle 19:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out request. No longer required. Fiddle Faddle 13:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That protective environment will be called a Sandbox and we should encourage him/her to do so. I must add, that the person about he/she writes about is quite notable, as the size of the article implements.

@Doc James: The Facebook reference I have moved to the external link. I also cited naked references, and pretty much clean up the article to bring it to some readability standards.--Mishae (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Size of an article does not represent notability. I could write an article like this for any person on the planet. I guess the question is should each of us have an article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see more WP:RS citations have been added. These are sufficient to verify notability and the article now passes WP:GNG in spades. It is by no means a good article, not even wholly intelligible yet, but AfD is not a cleanup process. Fiddle Faddle 23:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference I am able to see that could be classified as independent and specific enough to help pass WP:GNG is the RTE link. Because the other links (that I can see) used from independent sources do not appear to mention Mr. Wise at all, I am somewhat skeptical of the paywalled articles used here. If the first reference, from the Irish Times, does in fact mention Mr. Wise by name, then I would agree that it passes GNG, but at the same time much of the article as it exists right now seems WP:UNDUE. I agree this is not the place to sort that issue out, but after checking the references I am still hesitant to say that it does pass GNG. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 23:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See this version now added to the article, and a reprint in an Autism specialist item. GNG is not not eally an argument any more. What we need now is article quality, but that is not for AfD. Fiddle Faddle 00:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the unreffed / poorly reffed content I deleted was returned moments after I deleted it [2]
Have people bothered to look at the refs provided? Take a look at this one [3] does not mention the subject of the article. How about this one [4]? Also does not mention the subject of the article. No forums are not reliable sources [5]. This ref does not mention the user in question either [6]. This is not published anywhere notable and is not a reliable source [7]. This looks like self promotion and someone wanting Wikipedia to host their CV. User should take it to their sandbox. Having a disorder is not justification for us keeping an article they have worked on. Just because someone has received a couple of comments in a newpaper does not automatically make them notable. We need "significant coverage" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead states "he had participated in over 1200 newsprint and radio programs" The ref is [8] and does not support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This looks like it is being written by the person in question. Who else would now these sorts of details [9]? And not provide references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For now at least. The article is such a mess, I tried to read the citations and copy edit but I can't figure out what the hell is going on. Who is this guy and WHY is he notable? I would like to see multiple RS covering his notability. Maybe I am missing it, but no for now. --Malerooster (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This ref was used to show he has run for local office.[10] He received less than 1% in each effort. This would not reach notability for a politician. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While reminding us all that AfD is not a cleanup operation, I agree that the article remains a mess. Malerooster's point (broadly) that the mess conceals notability is well made. We are dealing with a most unusual editor here. Please read WP:AUTISM. Some of the issues the editor appears to have include a delay in processing language before the language is understood. With care we can handle that. tame the article, and guide their hand. Pre-empting the argument that "WIkipedia is not a care programme", I agree. Even so the AfD process is not urgent, it has an elapsed time. I'm 80% confident that the mentoring that has been put in place will bear fruit in time, because the mentor has a deep understanding of Autism and Asperger Syndrome. If time here runs out, then userfying the article makes the most sense, and doing so without prejudice to its later re-creation. Fiddle Faddle 08:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Userfy - This article has been cleaned up significantly since its creation. Also, the subject appears also notable for his fandom links as well as his activist efforts. --Auric talk 11:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unless the article receives edits that destroy its current state, a state that is sufficiently clear, has as much extraneous clutter as possible removed, and is as NPOV as many editors working towards the goal of keeping the article can make t, I think there is no need to userfy now. It is still not a glorious article, but it is an acceptable article. It passes our minimum standards with ease at present. Fiddle Faddle 13:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have recommended that the original creator userfy the article and I will help him to work on the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If necessary sandbox it while it is undergoing repair, but do not just delete. I believe that course of action would reflect poorly on WP. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sending to their sandbox would be okay by me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just because the persons work is on Autism and Aspies doesn't make it eligible to use WP for advertisement. A m i t 웃 15:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of the things one can criticise the article for, advertising is not one I can see. If its there it is an element that can be removed. Where do you see it? Fiddle Faddle 15:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability claim seems to rest on having been the subject of a Human interest story, but the media turns out large numbers of these types of stories every day, and Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Possibly at the weak end of keep, but he is of some notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Levy[edit]

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

Non-notable reality show contestant. Redirects are repeatedly undone. There is no justification for a standalone article and all relevant material already appears in the Big Brother Canada article. Whpq (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he is covered adequately by List of Big Brother 1 HouseGuests (Canada)#Gary. PK T(alk) 13:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He is not independently notable. SL93 (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While a competitor in a nationally-broadcast reality show can become notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, the mere fact that they appeared on a reality show is not in and of itself sufficient. (Even a competitor on American Idol or The Voice, for instance, still has to actually pass WP:NMUSIC the same way as any other musician does, namely by actually recording and releasing an album, and isn't automatically notable just for being on the show all by itself.) This article makes no serious claim that he's notable for anything more than happening to appear on Big Brother Canada, which at this time just makes him a WP:BLP1E — even the person who actually won the first cycle doesn't have an independent article yet (and might never, unless she manages to parlay her win into a more meaningful claim of sustained notability), and Gary Levy is hardly more notable for coming in second than Jillian McLaughlin is for winning. Delete and lock the redirect so that anon IPs can't keep reverting it; List of Big Brother 1 HouseGuests (Canada)#Gary is as much as we need about him at this time. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Big Brother 1 HouseGuests (Canada) and then Protect the page. Given the repeated recreation, I don't think it's unreasonable to require that any attempt to recreate the article go through WP:DRV. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice towards moving or a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal[edit]

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

In my opinion, the very existence of this article is completely UNDUE. It seems to attempt to list every single source related to this scandal, and that's not what we're supposed to be doing here--especially not if it concerns BLP matters. In relation to the Rob Ford article, it's completely over the top--this timeline is half the size of that article, where this already takes up an enormous amount of space. Basically, what we have here is a shit magnet that invites the inclusion of every single thing. Delete as UNDUE. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets Notability (events): "event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)." The news media have determined that all the events reported relate to the on-going scandal. The story has received almost daily coverage in major Canadian media, and to a lesser extent in foreign media, for three months and has even been spoofed on Leno, Jon Stewart, Jimmy Kimmel and the Taiwanese animators. Note also that major media, including the Toronto Star and the Huffington Post have timelines too. TFD (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That they have it doesn't mean we have to. After well, we're WP:NOTNEWS. "Almost daily coverage" is a bit of an overstatement and, at any rate, the kind of coverage it gets is just typical for the celebrity-obsessed media, in print and online. Being spoofed on Leno means, as you know of course, nothing besides that it's being covered in said media, after which the media can report the spoofing on Leno, after which we can report that--and all of that's trivial. Is there any indication that this is having a lasting influence on anyone but the subject? Are policies being adjusted? New measures announced? You're confusing gossipy celebrity coverage with real coverage. Point to one thing here, just one, that is of "historical significance". "Politician gets caught doing something bad is, of course, not one of those things". Drmies (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TFD, but monitor carefully for WP:BLP concerns. If it were in the main article, it would definitely be WP:UNDUE, but it's not. Ansh666 22:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Rob Ford video scandal and restructure. The very existence of a timeline article violates WP:NPOV. Why can't this information be included in an article summarizing the topic, like the ones on scandals involving other politicians? If there's no summary article, piling this info into a timeline makes the issue seem very drawn-out and complicated (sure, it is, but this structure makes it seem more so), causing undue weight to be focused on the topic. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a drawn out and complicated issue. Each news report brings new information about different people involved and the roles they may have played. Listen to the clip in today's Toronto Star ("The Story So Far"), which says it is one of the most complicated and difficult stories they have covered in 30 years.[11] A timeline approach seems like the simplest, most straightforward approach until the story is ultimately told. TFD (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep per tfd. The article is completely sourced. The article will be controversial until the story comes to its conclusion. Moving the content out of the Rob Ford article was done to satisfy blp concerns. This timeline article alleviated a lot of debate about it being undue weight within the rob ford article. This article should not be closed for the same criticism. Alaney2k (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep per tfd. Article represents and documents important information which will be of lasting historical significance, regardless of the outcome. It also represents information which will prove valuable to future researchers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlieworton (talk • contribs) 10:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep Very well sourced. Similar articles have appeared in major media publications. Not sure what the issue is here, Rob Ford's alcohol and drug abuse, and the existence of this video have been very well documented by multiple very good sources. Nfitz (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is quite simple: spelling out every detail of a "scandal" as reported in the media is overkill. That this would be UNDUE in the article, as said above by Ansh666, is actually an indication that this is UNDUE in the first place. If a specific timeline pertaining to a BLP is too long to be placed in that article, it's simply too long--and splitting it off is basically coatracking. "Lasting historical significance" is a bunch of humbug appropriate for tweeted headlines, not for an encyclopedia. You're talking about a mayor with a possible drug issue whose picture was taken while he was holding a crack pipe or whatever--there is no "lasting historical significance", and if you think so, you don't know what the word "history" means. Napolean going into Russia, that's historic. A coup d'etat in Egypt, that's possibly historic. This? It's a spot of fly poop, nothing more. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TFD. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Watch for WP:BLP concerns. Kimera757 (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While this content was very much undue weight in his own standalone biographical article, spinning it off into its own separate article is not "resolving" undueness — it's piling even more undue weight on top, because the burden of weight is higher, not lower, on a standalone article than it is on a subsection of another one. I'm no fan of Rob Ford and think he's one of the worst things ever to happen to this city, trust me, but it's inarguable that the guy is a perennial drama magnet whose article is unusually prone to agenda-oriented editing and bias issues which are incompatible with Wikipedia's purpose and mission, and which need to be very carefully monitored for BLP compliance. Accordingly, I've always been of the view that we should just avoid writing about any controversy that doesn't have meaningful and concrete long-term consequences for him (i.e. the impeachment/unimpeachment yes, Sarah Thomson's ass no.) So until such time as the video actually gets out to the public, such that it can actually be properly verified what's true and what isn't and what effect it is or isn't actually going to have on his career, this stuff is still WP:UNDUE, and a WP:BLP violation, no matter where you put it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If as you state, he is a 'drama magnet', then any responsible/respectable article on Ford will include sections on those things. So, it would be wrong to not include that. So, going from there, how much is too much? This we must judge according to every article. I think we must simply judge inclusion in the Timeline article on its merit. While it would be great to get larger, complete articles on say, every mayor in Toronto's history, we are nowhere near able to do so, while with Ford, the ability to find content is easy. But that doesn't mean that this mayoralty is not notable beyond past mayors. I think we can examine this past few years as exposing a lot about the politics of Toronto, and historians will be referring to this period. Anyway, to the crack video scandal. It is definitely not over. We don't know either way it will go. But that also means it is difficult to judge its notability as a whole. I would at least let it ride until the conclusion in the coming months. There will be some criminal trials coming up. That will put an end to it, because not long after that, there will be a municipal election. If Ford is re-elected, I think the video becomes irrelevant. This scandal is also notable and instructive in the process of media coverage in this time period. A lot of people are surprised that Ford did not resign. That, I think a lot of people expected, would have been the more likely outcome by now. But Ford is staying on. The political strategy of that, and how it is handled, is notable. Alaney2k (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emporis[edit]

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

AfD restarted due to convassing and sockpuppetry issues. Previous rationale was "no indication of notability, unable to find sufficient RS (Gnews, google) to establish. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 19:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)" Black Kite (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A widely-known and widely-cited database for construction and architecture. The German Wikipedia cites this article from Spiegel Online which has substantive information about the website. The Emporis website has an "In the press" page which lists dozens more articles from reliable sources referencing Emporis or its awards. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well known site listing information about skyscrapers. Widely used and recognised as a reliable source for tall building articles in Wikipedia and many news organisations worldwide. Compares favourably with the CTBUH. Astronaut (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with its characterization as WP:RS in and of itself, as that would suggest that buildings listed by it were prima facie notable. I agree that the listings are widely referred in to in RS and thus notable. The citations on the page, though, are entirely self-sourced to the company's page itself, or to press releases. I would be ok rescinding my nomination, but something really needs to be done about that. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 21:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree with your assessment that it is not a reliable source simply because "that would suggest that buildings listed by it were prima facie notable". It is the same argument as suggesting a newspaper is not a reliable source simply because it carries some trivial news. As for the in-page citations, I have added several additional citations from reliable third party sources showing that Emporis is recognised as an authority on the subject by many others and its annual Skyscraper Award is internationally recognised by reliable third party sources as well. I hope you will now consider rescinding your nomination. Astronaut (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tune.pk[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEBCRIT. I could find only one reliable source mentioning this site. Not enough to satisfy Wiki standards for notability of a website. SMS ^Talk 17:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 17:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More source:
ProPakistani
Spider Magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedowaisalichishti (talk • contribs) 14:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first source you mentioned is not a reliable source. Second one may be a WP:LINKVIO. --SMS ^Talk 12:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: mentioning reliable source by the deletion nominator and other two sources this and that, it seems to me the subject passes the general notabilty, as I remember that for the notabilty at least one reliable source is required?.Justice007 (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is a perennialy popular site. Especially after youtube was blocked in Pakistan, users have switched to Tune. Pointless nomination. Fai zan 01:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Needs significant coverage from a reliable source to pass WP:GNG. The source only shows trivial coverage.--Zayeem ^(talk) 14:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nominator makes, in his deletion rationale, an argument that the article meets GNG. So long as the article meets that rationale, the article is deemed notable. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NaiLab[edit]

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

This article jams two non-notable topics into one page. NaiLab and Sam Gichuru may meet WP:GNG but they fail WP:ORG and WP:BIO. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Gichuru. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject meets WP:GNG then it is notable. There is no requirement to meet any further notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case why do we have all of the notability guidelines for specific topic areas? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I've seen it explained to you several times before that a topic is regarded as notable if it passes either the general notability guideline or one of the special guidelines. There is no requirement to pass both. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If a subject passes the general notability guideline, then there is no need for it to pass other notability guidelines. The reason we have notability is to make sure that a reliable article can be written from a sufficient amount of coverage in reliable sources. Notability guidelines exist to provide instances where we can assume such coverage exists. If such coverage does exist, then the topic is notable, regardless of other guidelines. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Superman: Requiem[edit]

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

More promotional editing around Cupsogue Pictures (afd) and Gene Fallaize (afd). Non notable fan film. There is no "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". Nothing historical about the film and there is no major awards.
The page has many sources but there is a lack of independent reliable sources. The best there is a local BBC puff piece about look what this local person is doing. Nothing significant. The rest are a mix of blogs, press release, crowd sourcing, imdb, fan sites and primary. None are good sources for notability.
This page was writteen by one of the team that made the film. Also rather telling about the intent for this article is the cherry picking of quotes. It is reviewed on the Movie Review Sunday blog (not MovieReviewSunday.com) which gives the movie a bad review (concluding"Maybe if it was cut down to 30 minutes, it might be salvageable, but in its current incarnation it's a big waste of time. 2 stars."). The author of this page, trying to keep things positive, ignores the basic premise of this review and cherrypicks the one good thing from the review. Wikipedia is being used for promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up a lot of the puffery and removed almost all of the sources that were on the article. Most of them were blatantly unusable as RS beyond a reasonable doubt and the ones remaining are predominantly primary sources or ones that could be trivial at best. Fortress of Solitude has some vague assertion of an editorial staff here, but I'm leaning towards it being non-usable since it's not entirely verifiable if there is an editor or how thoroughly they check stuff. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree that this looks to have been a fairly blatant attempt to advertise the film, given the tone and the edits by the original editor, who seems to have attempted to add the film to as many articles as possible. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd done some searching while I was editing the page and decided to do a little more after trimming the article down. I just can't find anything other than the BBC article that could be considered a RS. I see where Oh No They Didn't linked to the posters and where ComicBookMovie.com did some articles. The problem here is that ONTD isn't really considered a RS and the posts on CBM.com are all by "volunteer contributors", which means that they could be by anyone... even a member of the film crew, which is likely given the tone of many of the articles. In the end I have to say that this is a delete. One item of note is that the page is put in the template "Superman in popular media", so if/when this is deleted then we'll probably need to do a thorough cleanup to ensure that all of the redlinks for this film have been removed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The film has one strong source, BBC, as discovered by TG, not enough for GNG. When the film is released in November it will receive a lot of coverage (since the BBC is already covering it pre-release which is unusual). In November, it will surely become notable. Personally I think it's a waste to discard TG's work at cleanup when the article will just get re-created. Not sure how to approach it but perhaps recommend saving the content and setting a reminder to revisit in November. In fact, I will go ahead and do that just in case. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the film has been released. In fact, it's been released for nearly two years. What are you talking about? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, right. I must have looked at all the "Retrieved 9 August 2013" in the References and neglected to look more closely, assumed it was a new release. That is today's episode of "what I am talking about". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 19:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had similar findings as Tokyogirl79. Generally, fanmade content would have to be very, very, very unusual to be notable enough for an article, and I'm really not seeing that here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muntaizir Bhittani[edit]

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

Notability not established. Opinion piece. No references. WP:PEACOCK. Not written in encyclopedic tone. Portions not written in English. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found one reliable source with significant coverage for his real name, Hamesh Gul. The article should be moved to his actual name if the result is keep. Source - Chicago Tribune. SL93 (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The above Tribune article appears to be about somebody else entirely as that person is a painter, and the subject of this article is a poet. I could find no sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I think the idea of giving the article a month or so to see if its obvious issues can be addressed is a good one. If not, another AFD can always be opened. Black Kite (talk) 09:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional films[edit]

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

Too broad of a list. There are hundreds of fictitious films, and it is constantly growing. Furthermore, what makes these notable? Just because one work of fiction makes up a work of fiction, does not mean it's notable. (I will like to include similar articles in this discussion, but I don't know how too) JDDJS (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the topic appears to meet notability guidelines per WP:NOTESAL as seen by a reference like this. However, I would suggest starting over with the list and require selection criteria, in this case requiring a secondary source to add an item. This list reminds me of List of teen films, which was this before I argued to keep it and revised it. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To follow up, I was thinking about whether or not we could just depend on primary sourcing. However, WP:PRIMARY states, "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." This article is based on primary sources, so we should make it dependent on secondary sources. JDDJS, if you have other articles you want to nominate, it may be a good idea to do them separately so each topic can be evaluated on its own merits. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The similar articles I want to add are basically everything in Category:Lists of fictional works because it is all pretty much the same scenario. To be consistent, we should either keep them all or delete them all.

The sources have nothing to do with why I nominated this article for deletion. I nominated because I do not see how this is notable. Fictional works include fictitious works in them all the time. Why should we list all of them? JDDJS (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTESAL says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." The reference I linked to shows that people do report information about this topic. Wikipedia follows suit with what others do. See the top of Talk:List of teen films. We could mimic that kind of selection criteria. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to approach this is to focus on only films that feature fictional films. We could move it to List of films featuring fictional films. I personally think "featuring" suggests noteworthiness, meaning that a secondary source has highlighted it. The current scope is too broad, since it can include TV shows or literature that feature fictional films. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of teen films is a completely different scenario. Teen films are a type of films, and everything in that list has its own article. "featuring" does not mean a secondary source has highlighted it; it just means that it places an important plot point. I will be perfectly fine with Category:Films featuring fictional films; however this article is like having an article List of fictional characters or List of film characters. They make fine categories, but are way too broad for an article. JDDJS (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CLT, categories and lists are not mutually exclusive. I think a list is beneficial here because we can identify the films that have the fictional films, the release year, and provide a description. A category can work as well, but a reader would have to go to each article to find out about the fictional film, and even that may not jump out in a standard article. I still think we can ensure that such a list is dependent on secondary sources per WP:LSC and WP:SECONDARY. I've put together a few lists of films featuring common content, and I think we can do that here. Also, one thing I learned in my research of this topic is that "films within films" or "movies within movies" is a common term. We have the article story within a story with a "Film within a film" section (which is an unreferenced mess, unfortunately). I think we can set up a well-maintained list here, something like List of films featuring surveillance. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is an interesting one. Right now, it seems to be more of a navigation list than anything else... but how many links to The Simpsons do we really need? If each fictional film were MENTIONED in an article, and LINKED to the relevant mention in that article, I would be OK with it as is, and it would then become self-trimming if the destination articles didn't mention it--or if that reference were removed from the target article as insufficiently important to mention. Still, I'm not sure that the categorization in use here is actually helpful. Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 169 films mentioned by the Simpsons, 8 for South Park, 17 from The Family Guy, 36 from Futurama, 71 from Spitting Image. Some TV programmes just seem to churn out fictional films. What makes an item notable enough for this list?, Asses of Fire was a major part of the plot for the South Park film, and even has its own redirect, whereas Spaceballs 2:The search for more money was just a one line joke in the original film.Martin451 (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Too broad of a list" is not a valid deletion rationale. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. Per WP:SALAT lists have to have the correct scope and common sense says we must delete lists whose scope cannot be repaired with normal editing or by limiting/expanding the topic. The scope of a list is perhaps the most important indicator of whether a list is appropriate for Wikipedia. Lists with too large of a scope may violate WP:NOT and oftentimes try to cover more than one single, well-defined topic. Lists with too narrow of a scope may be unneeded or nonnotable. Them FromSpace 02:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much too broad of a scope for an encyclopedia article. As an article, the topic is too large and sprawling; a natural expansion of the list will leave encyclopedia territory and enter into the realm of TV Tropes. This would be beyond our scope and would damage our reputation and reliability as an encyclopedia. Getting into official policy, this violates WP:NOT as a directory since the items on the list have nothing to do with each other... they are too loosely associated with each other for the list to be of encyclopedic value. Breaking off some of these featured into their respective series (Simpsons, Splitting Image, etc) would be acceptable if any of these smaller topics have notability. Them FromSpace 02:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not think that we can limit the scope to "films within films" or something of that nature? A quick Google shows numerous sources about this topic, and it is possible to list films where they have been independently noted. With this selection criteria, we can define our scope. The policy also says, "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic." Erik (talk | contribs) 12:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable films within films would drastically cut this list down. I count three instances (although there are probably more) in the current list where the fictional film is notable. Cleaver, See You Next Wednesday and Asses of Fire. Of course with that title we also come up against the problem of MST3K.Martin451 (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:STAND and WP:NOTESAL, and tighten up per WP:SALAT and WP:LSC/WP:CSC. I find Erik's suggestion above to rename as List of films featuring fictional films (or a related List of works featuring fictional films) and MST3K's suggestion toward addressing notable works to be quite sensible in controlling the article's content and scope. There's rarely a need to delete what can be addressed though regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise I think it's pretty much agreed that in its current state, the article is not worth keeping. The debate is whether or not it can be improved to be a good article. I do not feel that it can, but I am willing to see what happens. I purpose ending this AFD as "nomination withdrawn", and give the article a chance to be improved. Then, in one month, I will take another look at the article. If I see that it's on the right track and becoming a decent article, I'll leave it alone. But if I don't feel it's on the right track, I'll start another AFD. JDDJS (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem? After reading the above discussion, I do not think we can state it "is pretty much agreed" this one "is not worth keeping". I think it might be agreed upon that the article would benefit from focus and editorial attention. Or are you suggesting we toss out everyone's contributions under WP:TNT? Being problematic is not a valid criteria for deleting topics which might otherwise be corrected through regular editing. I do however, much appreciate your offer to withdraw, think both Erik's and MST3K's views are worth taking to heart, and a discussion of the how's and why's can take place on the article's talk page. But per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, WP:DEADLINE, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:WIP, we need not insist it all be done within 30 days or promise a return to AFD if not so speedily addressed. Cheers Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying that the article has to be fixed in 30 days. That's not nearly enough time. But 30 days is enough time to make some progress, and judge which direction the article is going in. And I think I might have said it wrong, but what I meant is that everyone agrees that at the least the article needs some major clean up. JDDJS (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keeps - The "too broad scope" calls are honestly baffling - that a list is long does not mean that its inclusion criteria are vague or indiscriminate. If anything, it can be split into sublists, but this is an argument to create more lists, not to delete this one -deleting it, to quote a comment above, would indeed damage our reputation as an encyclopedia (as many deletions baffling to our readers regularly do). Topic is notable, as evidenced above. --cyclopia ^speak! 20:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A laundry list does not educate and without context it cannot inform. Therefore it fails on WP:PURPOSE (Yes, I know it is only an essay, but it is relevant to a number of policies and guidelines including NOTDIR and others quoted above). In the event that the list is kept I trust those that advocate keep and clean up do so, rather than just walking away from the article. Like my mother used to say, "clean up your own mess" --Richhoncho (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yasaman Madanikia[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG or any special area notability guidelines. I am also convinced this is a WP:VANITY piece. First, the article seems to have been written by an SPA blocked for a WP:UAA violation, and was tagged as possibly autobiographical (probably because there are early life details in the article that were not mentioned in any source cited). AQs for actual content, the article calls her a "sex researcher", but she has done nothing that would be considered such - she has not worked above the undergraduate level. Undergraduate papers and a poster presentation at a conference do not meet WP:ACADEMIC. She was an "expert" for an app along with several other people (she was the most junior). The extent of her involvement is unknown. Her media coverage is local only (Burnaby Now is a local weekly). She was called a "sex columnist" but has written only twelve articles in eight months for HUSH magazine, almost all editorials, between Oct. 2012 and May 2013. That's more of an "occasional columnist", and just because it's on the Internet someplace doesn't make her notable in and of itself. She was a contestant (one of at least 40) for Miss World Canada, but I have been unable to discover if she even made it out of the website-based voting into a "real" pageant event (according to her FB, that page was a People's Choice award, and only the highest voted went to the final; it wasn't her). and she certainly did not win (and no named runners-up). MSJapan (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further - Just to solidify the vanity/SPA nature of this, per her FB page, Madanikia translated a work by Arash Bineshpajouh into English. The same person created both articles, but created this one first. MSJapan (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Kabirat (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She is not notable under WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage aside from an interview in a community newspaper. As a sex researcher, she fails to meet WP:ACADEMIC. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arash Bineshpajouh[edit]

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

This article does not meet GNG. Apart from a lack of coverage in English in the first place (which presents a bit of a problem), there seems to be nothing solid in GNews, either. The subject's last name was suppressed in the VoA article, so I'm not sure who even made the connection there. Addendum from following notification links: The article creator appears to be an SPA that was blocked for a UAA violation. This article has previously been speedied, recreated, and prodded. MSJapan (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter, (constabulary) @ 17:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter, (natter) @ 17:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further - it appears that, per her Facebook page (which I perused for a related AfD), the translator of his work into English was Yasaman Madanikia. The same user created both articles, but created the Madanikia one first. MSJapan (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Kabirat (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bárbara Seixas[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There are three Author repeatedly removes Notability tag. BVBinfo is a database, FIVB runs the Cahnpionships and awards she has gotten, and Volleywood.net has one paragraph for many players: "So happy for all the winners and of course all the beach volleyball players who competed this season. Despite a few tours getting cancelled, 2012 still marks as one of the most memorable seasons in the history of the FIVB Swatch World Tour." Surfer43 17:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep Easily meets WP:NSPORTS. Lots of refs including Gneews could have just been WP:BOLDly added. Drive-by tagging should be avoided. Sam 🎤 07:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter, (talk) @ 17:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter, (orate) @ 17:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Sam Sailor. FvSBG (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The article had a sourced assertion at the time of notability as she was a bronze medallist at the 2013 World Chjampionships. A simple Google news search shows tons of results. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdraw. SL93 (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Call of the Wild (2007 film)[edit]

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

I found no coverage that would make this pass WP:NF. Non-notable film. SL93 (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did manage to find one source with significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per topic meeting WP:NF, and shown through article improvements made since nomination. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While this isn't the most notable of films, enough reliable sources cover it in detail for it to warrant an article. Googling "ron lamothe" "call of the wild" gave me some, plus the ones MichaelQSchmidt added. Here's one I found that hasn't been mentioned yet 1. I would add it myself, but I'm tired and also on mobile. Will do so tomorrow. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 04:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks.. one I missed. Will get to it in a couple minutes. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that for me. SL93, what do you think of the article now? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 06:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG > WP:NF. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Only the creator of the article objected, and I feel that their arguments have been convincingly refuted.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of political parties by the number of members in them[edit]

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

List of political parties, exclusively in Europe save for a few isolated random exceptions, arranged by how many members they have. I'm really struggling to think of a single reason why this would even be a useful or interesting comparison to be made across international borders in the first place — so the Chinese Communist Party has more members than the Swedish Moderate Party does? Great, now tell me why I should think that matters. China is a single-party state in which there isn't any other political party that anyone can join, in a country with a population of about a billion, while all of the other countries with parties listed are multiparty democracies whose entire population is smaller than the membership of the Chinese Communist Party alone, so the list just isn't giving me a useful point of comparison from one party to another. But even more importantly, the number of members that a political party has is in a constant state of flux: new members join, and old members die or move out of the country or quit, every single day, which makes a list of this type unmaintainable cruft that would literally have to be updated daily to remain accurate. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unmaintainable because of constantly changing numbers, and as there's no single source collecting this, the most recent available data for each party will not be from the same time. That, and the fact that countries have drastically different voting population sizes and political structures, keeps this from being a meaningful comparison. postdlf (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per concerns noted above. Not much more I can add. Ansh666 19:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, although not much policy has been cited. I guess WP:V could apply, as it would be hard to verify membership numbers, as Bearcat pointed out. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, the list does not compare like for like. The criteria for joining a party vary from one country to another. e.g. in China (as above) people might have benefits from joining, better job opportunities, better schooling for their children etc. In some states in the US people need to be affiliated with a party to vote in it's primaries. In Israel with direct PR there are 12 parties in the Knesset with a further 20 in the most recent elections.Martin451 (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Isn't the "list of countries by population" a constant fluxuation? why should the article be deleted? it needs an update once a month, not more, Just the name of the article is a litlle problem, and by the way, it's not just europe, you can add all parties in the world, there is nothing sayng just about Europe, I just couldn't find more Parties outside Europe with acurate references to them... so there are allot of parties that are not added to the list, since I have not found any reference, and it is an interesting list, maybe not to you, but to other people it might be interesting, to know wich is the biggest party in the world, and wich is the smalest, maybe they want to add their party to the list...
The list is about members of each party around the world, not the criteria wich you need to join, and the benefits of joining the specific party... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexaHR (talk • contribs) 12:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an apples-to-oranges comparison that simply doesn't tell you anything meaningful about any party. The population of a country puts a hard, impenetrable cap on how many members it's even possible for a political party in that country to have, for starters — even if every single person in Bermuda were a member of the One Bermuda Alliance it would still have less than one per cent the number of members that the Chinese Communist Party does, and that's before you even consider the fact that the One Bermuda Alliance is one of several political parties in Bermuda while the Chinese Communist Party is the only political party in China. And what value does it have to even look at the membership numbers of a political party in, for instance, a violent dictatorship which uses state force to obligate support of the dictator, and thus members aren't necessarily joining the party because they agree with its ideology, but rather because they're afraid for their lives if they don't?

A list that compared political parties by their market penetration (i.e. their membership as a percentage of the country's total population) might actually tell you something useful (but it couldn't be collated without a whole lot of original research calculations, so don't try it), but raw numbers just don't convey anything useful. And the fact that you explicitly admitted that you can't find accurate reliable sources for most political parties in the world, for that matter, should have been a clue that maybe this wasn't a good idea — for most political parties, in fact, there are no sources for their membership data except the parties themselves (i.e. invalid WP:PRIMARYSOURCES.) Countries' total populations are different; since countries conduct censuses, there are reliable objective sources out there for the data — and the fact that those sources don't keep a perfect up-to-the-minute running tally doesn't matter, because saying that a country has a population of 50 million, falsely implying that it's a constant total that never goes up or down, is not the same thing as saying that a country had a population of 50 million in its 2010 census.

And furthermore, all you have to do to be part of a country's population is to exist in that country — whereas joining a political party is a choice that you have to make, and by definition that choice is inseparable from the social context that you live in (the membership criteria, the benefits, the social power structure of the country, etc.) Is it a one-party state where there's no other party for you to join even if you wanted to? Is it a stable multiparty democracy where you have complete freedom to join any political party you want? Is it an in-name-only multiparty democracy where the party in power still routinely uses harassment and intimidation and violence against the opposition parties? Is it a corrupt country where your ability to even get a job in the first place might depend on joining a political party? Is it a more free country where you also have the liberty to not give a hoot about politics or join any political party at all? So you can't say that the list isn't about those things — because they're built right into the very definition of how the choice to join a political party gets made in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy redirect. Article was redirected in 2009 and undone without consensus. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GIR (Invader Zim)[edit]

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

mostly unsourced fancruft, I see nothing here that isn't already covered in List of Invader Zim characters. suggest deletion to avoid repeated reverts of the redirect. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zim (Invader Zim). Frietjes (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ktiv hasar niqqud. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 19:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ktiv haser[edit]

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

There is nothing wrong with this article. However it is completely and verbatim repeated as a section of Ktiv hasar niqqud so it doesn't seem to have a purpose. The various forms of writing are best discussed together, so I propose that Ktiv haser become just a redirect to the "Ktiv hasar" section of Ktiv hasar niqqud. Zero^talk 13:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. default to keep (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Hunting[edit]

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

Not apparently notable - not seeing significant RS coverage. The only coverage that appears to be more than a passing mention is a WP:LOCALFAME-at-best story in the home and garden section of the Free Lance-Star and a paywalled Detroit News piece about a campaign contribution he made. (It's possible that the Beldon Fund may be notable? But there's no article to redirect his name to.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the time it struck me that the largest political donors were notable, but I'm not sure what the rules are on business figures notability at Wikipedia.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I rarely vote "keep" on BLP AfD's, but this article is very well-referenced and appears to squeak by WP:GNG. Unless I've missed something, being paywalled in no way makes a source less acceptable. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain which sources you believe make him notable? I don't think the paywall is an issue, there just isn't enough coverage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 13:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Alavi (game developer)[edit]

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

A game developer is not inherently notable for doing the work he is paid to do. This game developer developed a game with an unpleasant, perhaps notorious, scene it it, but that of itself does not render him notable. WP:BLP1E applies for this item. The scene might render the game itself notable, but the developer does not inherit notability from the product. A number of the sources in the article are, at best, questionable with regard to WP:RS Fiddle Faddle 13:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification of nomination to be clear, my nomination means that I believe the subject does not pass BLP1E. Fiddle Faddle 08:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all relevant info to Controversies surrounding Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2#"No Russian". Borderline, but I personally think it fails WP:BLP1E. Roughly half the sources are WP:PRIMARY, most of the rest focus on that one thing, the only source that potentially talks about him in more depth is in print only and in Persian, so I can't judge it. Ansh666 19:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:NOTINHERITED and no other reason for passing WP:GNG has been given. Almost all sources are directory entries, not about the person or primary/self-published. I guess the Persian book would count for WP:GNG, but it's still just one. Even with more sources, the content would not warrant a split from the main article(s). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per sources below. Still very centered on 1EVENT but at least other aspects are mentioned now. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Kabirat (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Nominator's text of nomination seems logical but I don't know how it applies to this person or other people whom I know to have articles. For instance, same pretext seems to apply to Mark Russinovich and Richard Stallman, as they are only famous for one event and what they do as their jobs. J. K. Rowling and J. R. R. Tolkien are not even famous for one event, but for a series of books. (This person has also developed a series of video games.) So, I am really confused. I read WP:BLPNOTE and it says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This article seems to fit this description. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't want to argue too much, but it doesn't fit -- the only reliable?, secondary, independent, significant coverage source is the Persian book and marginally the Kotaku piece. Others talk about the game, the mission, the reception. The designer is not the subject of these articles, and the brief focus between the lines on him is not significant coverage. They don't discuss his past, his influences, his work other than this one COD mission. This is (for now) a typical WP:1EVENT. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm. Your argument is at very least fathomable, not to mention that it is standalone, as opposed to a defense of the nomination. I can see that the sheer amount of coverage on one of the people that I mentioned outweighs Alavi's one to million. Perhaps it is because Iranians neglect to cover their notable citizens as broadly as Americans and the British do but again, I am definitely not feeling eligible to say whether Wikipedia should lower the bar for them or it is their fault. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wouldn't create this article if I was not sure it met notability criterias. He's not a WP:1EVENT person. He had a major role in creation of some of Call of Duty Series' titles. Alongside designing "Call of Duty’s most controversial moment" (acording to PC Gamer), He is responsible for some of the most intense and memorable campaign levels in Call Of Duty history" (per Edge). He has made a significant contribution to AI system in one of the titles in the series, and has designed more than 10 levels in the series, some of them are notable (Such as "Red Army Training", "Crew Expendable", "All Ghillied Up", etc.) and have won significant critical attention by reliable resources. According to WP:CREATIVE, he's notable. I've also added some new secondary sources to the article. Unfortunatly, I don't have much time to improve this article for now, but I'm sure I'll find many resources about his works. PC Gamer had published a 10-page section about his mod too, when he was not a proffessional. If anyone can help me to find it in the archives, I would be much grateful. Pahlevun (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Distiller[edit]

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

Article does not comply with Wikipedia notability guideline and does nothing but offering a vague description of the subject. Does not have any sources. Adobe Acrobat already does a better job, so anything a merge can do is already done. Codename Lisa (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

keep WP:NOTTEMPORARY Like MS-DOS and WordPerfect, this is a piece of software that was at one time important but has since been discontinued. However for much of its history, this was a commercially significant means of generating PDFs. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article as nominated was poorly sourced, but I've cleaned that up and I believe it should now be clear that it passes WP:GNG. Although obsolete now, this should be irrelevant for notability as Andy Dingley has already noted. I don't think the proposed merge to the parent Acrobat article would be helpful (and in any case AfD is not for proposing merges): that article is already clogged with version history and lists of components, and doesn't really cover any of those components in any depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with a merge to a section with Acrobat. The important thing is to note that Distiller was the route from PostScript to PDF. This sometimes hid as a route indirectly from a printer driver, but Distiller's trick (and what it was regularly used for specifically) was to be a PostScript processor. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Perhaps that's the best option because in some minor instances, the article had confused Distiller with Distiller Server. Distiller is not discontinued; it comes with Adobe Acrobat. Distiller Server is discontinued. Plus, the wording looks pretty much like Adobe Acrobat now. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Acrobat and the PDF format is one of the fundamental pieces of software in computer science history. I favor the lowest of low bars for inclusion here; this is not promotional or commercial, it is historic. For example, HERE is a nice history of PDF from prepressure.com, pointing out the relationship of the Distiller program to the history of PDF. Carrite (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You are right but this is not nomination for deleting either Acrobat or PDF. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hikmet Geckil[edit]

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

Biography of a Turkish molecular biologist, apparently heavily edited by the subject himself. Being an autobio is absolutely no reason for deletion, of course, but does give a certain assurance that anything that might make the subject notable is present in the article (especially since it has been tagged for notability for about a month now). However, the subject does not appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC and article creation seems to have been premature. The Web of Science lists 30 publications that have been cited 329 times (h-index = 9), so even assuming that these are all by the same person, that is not enough to meet WP:PROF#1 (especially since molecular biology is a high-citation-density field). The only award I can find is a Fulbright fellowship, of which there are thousands each year, so PROF#2 isn't met either. Geckil is not an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (#3). The article lists him as being the "lead editor" of a textbook, but that seems to concern translation only (see also here) and therefore does not meet #4 either. There is no evidence that Geckil at this point meets any of the remaining criteria or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. His citations aren't quite strong enough to convince me of WP:PROF (although they're not far off) and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too early. May get there in time. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, I don't usually like to say "per nom", but in this case the nominator has done their homework and I concur entirely. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfyso the article can be finished.(Non-administrator closure.) Kumioko (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FirstHealth of the Carolinas[edit]

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

No article information, references or categories, just an infobox. May also be an advertisement. Kumioko (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have a thought that this article was meant to be submitted through articles for creation based on the fact that this new editor has one article that was created via AFC and posted on the article page (now moved to talk) that stated "...page that hasn't even been approved yet...". I suggest transferring this obviously in progress article to AFC where it can be worked on out of article space. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - As I suspected, this is an article by an editor new to Wikipedia. See this post on User talk:Rb4584 which indicates that editor thought he was working on a draft and not a live article. -- Whpq (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11, with the summary "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Essay, original research, no independent sources." (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lower ganga basin water management plan[edit]

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

This is a paper, an essay, justifying a programme of work. It is not a Wikipedia article. It seems to have been created by the plan manager, who appears to have posted his autobiography as well and may be standing on a soapbox. Fiddle Faddle 11:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. Previously CSD-A7 and recreated. GregJackP Boomer! 14:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no obstacle to a substantive article on this topic in the future, one that asserts and verifies notability. Fiddle Faddle 14:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwanese Wave[edit]

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

This is almost entirely WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The article's creator has gone to great length to reference various examples of the influx of Taiwanese culture into the other places in the world in order to demonstrate the phenomena of the "Taiwanese Wave" - a term not mentioned in any of the references. The only reference that comes close - citation 1 and 11 (which is the same source) - mentions the Japanese term for this phenomena in passing. This is not enough to get past the very obvious OR/Synth problem this article has. Singularity42 (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Citation 1 or 11 is'nt the only reference for Taiwanese Wave (Tairyu). Citation 12 also mentions the term 台流 in Chinese characters (小豬台流驅颱征日抱人潮-東京首場粉絲會 1500名櫻花妹傘海迎偶像). The phenomena of Taiwanese wave actually exists not only in Japan but also throughout East Asia & Southeast Asia, it is the truth. Other interwiki of Taiwanese wave is also 台流 and Làn sóng Đài Loan. For the neologism 台流 (Tairyu/ Taiwanese wave/ Taiwanese stream/ Taiwan wind), you can search "台流" on http://www.google.co.jp/ and "台流日本" on http://www.google.com.tw/ . Besides that, please search "台流 F4", "台流鄭元暢", "台流惡作劇之吻", "台流流星花園", "台流飛輪海", "台流羅志祥", ect,... on http://www.google.co.jp/. There's a definition of 台流 (Taiwanese wave) on http://dic.nicovideo.jp/a/%E5%8F%B0%E6%B5%81 (a popular video sharing website in Japan). TaiwaneseWaveVN (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although it's hard for an outsider to verify this does seem real and notable from the sources cited. BayShrimp (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Being able to read Chinese characters (some of which are used in Japanese), I can assure you that this is notable, if only in East Asian sources. Ansh666 19:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rough translation #1:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rough translation #2:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Keep per the term "台流" (Japanese: 台流... interestingly translating as "flow units") contextually meeting WP:GNG.[12] Just as with the Korean Wave, when a neologism becomes so much a part of culture that it is used by and described in multiple media sources, the term gains suitable Wikipedia notability. As the term "台流" is notable, the translation of "台流" (flow units) contextually as "Taiwanese Wave" is the only issue that really needs any discussion... as most non-English sources seem to be roughly contextually translated as "Taiwan Stream", and not as "Taiwan Wave". Our issues with translation of a notable term require discussion, not deletion... and an important point here toward addressing our systemic bias is that while the terms "Taiwan Stream" or "Taiwan Wave" are barely sourcable, contextual use of the term "台流" is eminently sourcable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. I was unaware of such policy. Insulam Simia (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HKFYG Lee Shau Kee College[edit]

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

Contested PROD, non-notable school per WP:NCORP. Creator removed PROD tag and added an event. I would like to remind the author that organisations are cannot be inherently notable; i.e. because of an event or a famous person. Insulam Simia (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a 6 year secondary school this would come under the 2nd point at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and the article has one 3rd party source, the Sing Tao Daily article republished in Yahoo News. AllyD (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Nominator please take not for future reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs)
Keep This school is reported by local media, not just because of one event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffLogan123 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Experience shows that, with enough research, sources can almost invariably be found for high schools that meet WP:ORG. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local and Chinese language sources to be investigated. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maegan "Mayhem" Goodwin[edit]

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

Purely on notability grounds - amateur Peter Rehse (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She fails WP:NMMA since she has no professional fights and nothing shows she's notable for anything else. Jakejr (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too many things wrong with this article to list. Fails WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no professional fights and no other claims to notability. Looks like a fan page. JJL (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - notability grounds, POV, poorly written Okheric (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A poorly written article on an amateur MMA fighter with no claims of notability. Papaursa (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Lavoy[edit]

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

Purely on notability grounds - amateur Peter Rehse (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA because she has no top tier fights and WP:GNG because she lacks significant coverage. Jakejr (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No top-tier fights, poor sourcing. Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Clearly fails both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. I do believe that Peter is wrong when he says she's an amateur, but he's right about his main point--she's not notable. Papaursa (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Places in West Virginia with names involving "Dale"[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Reason was: "This is a random intersection, equivalent to People in Grimsby with blue eyes". It's amusing, informative, even interesting, but totally non notable. This is WP:TRIVIA and has a place in a miscellany, not an encyclopaedia." Fiddle Faddle 06:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure trivia for which original research is required to extract, also fails WP:LISTN. Ansh666 07:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, ListN says " Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability", and SIAs and Dabs (which are directly and indirectly, respectively, what are under discussion) are the soul of navigation.
As to applying OR, SIAs (like Dabs) always entail searches or (often sequential) link-following w/in WP, which saves that labor for (hopefully) multiple users and entails none of the pitfalls that are the reason OR is taboo.

Delete - unless sources have covered the fact that this state is notable for having lots of places called "X Dales" (and I can't find any evidence that they have) then this is pure trivia -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So either

-- your position is that information demonstrably useful to an occasional user, which by luck a couple editors take an interest in, should be discarded if we don't the editor-power to provide the equivalent for all parallel cases ("until everybody eats, everybody starves") OR

-- you haven't grasped the fact that something-Dale, Va. has the luck

-- that Virginia and Dale are common enuf given and sur-names respectively, that someone bothered to see that Dale, Virginia may get entered in search of the famous actor, and

-- that (in light of WP:PAPER even if this is less in demand), there's insignificant cost to adding a bit more content so that someone who says "Damn, was it Avon Dale, Farthing Dale, or what?" doesn't have to figure out how make a vanilla search endurable.

--Jerzy•t 03:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I may have undercut the effectiveness of this discussion by declining to stay engaged head-on with the underlying dispute:

The creator of the former Dab "Dale, Virginia" (whose Dab-content i pulled, renaming the rest as Places in Virginia with names involving "Dale" (not the nominated article) wanted its first entry to be
* Virginia Dale (1917–1994), American film actress

and the succeeding entries to be several places in Virginia similar to the W.Va. ones in Places in West Virginia with names involving "Dale"
Once i looked, and learned that Smith, John is a redirect, i had no more problem with having a "Dale, Virginia" page.
However,
a. the creator is committed to defying Mos:dab#Partial title matches by putting at least some of the place-names above the Mos:dab#"See also" section, and

b. even putting them all below "See also" would preclude the kind of guidance that can be provided via the AfD'd article. ("The dog that wags" the nom'd article, namely Places in Virginia with names involving "Dale", is more significant. But is free of the subtlety of there being "places that were once in Virginia, haven't moved, and still exist, but are no longer in Va.")
--Jerzy•t 03:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for reasons stated in my preceding responses. (I dunno whether this could or should affect your choice: If either of the two SIA's is deleted, the underlying problem won't go away, and either i or the creator of the Dab will eventually jam 2 or 3 pages into one, tagged {{Disambig-CU}}, and take it to for a solution.)--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzy (talk • contribs) 03:38, 18 August 2013‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Dale-ete per nom. There are an infinite number of arbitrary criteria for lists, e.g. Places in West Virginia with names with three vowels. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not ambiguous, notable or useful. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closed early per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwood High International School[edit]

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

Promotional and non-notable. Could find no references where the school is discussed in detail. Page was created with the comment "they have more than 2400 students from 18 countries and deserve to be in wikipedia". Caffeyw (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and overhaul - per (the essay) WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, as a school offering secondary education which can be proved to exist, there's a sort of inherent notability. That said, this article is incredibly poorly-written and promotional, so needs a rewriting in order to meet our standards here. Ansh666 07:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not sure it meets SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It may be a high school, but I don't see it be accredited by an independent body. Also must be careful because what is considered "high school" in one area, may not be the same in another. Caffeyw (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is accredited, here. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The school is accredited for the International Baccalaureate Diploma, which is quite sufficient to prove that it exists and offers education at the appropriate level. We must be careful not to be too narrow in our approach to notability by the way - just as we accept schools for pupils with learning difficulties whose academic outcomes at leaving may be extremely modest, we must also be prepared to include schools which do not fit a standard US model for publicly funded schooling. --AJHingston (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We keep high schools because experience shows that, with enough research, sources can almost invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a poor tool for finding sources on schools in the Indian sub-continent. Very few have much of an Internet presence. We need to avoid systemic bias and allow time for local hard-copy and local language sources to be investigated. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This school has given over 10 trusted sources of news paper and other trusted sites and It is affiliated to International educational bodies like www.IB0.ORG and www.cie.org.uk. unsigned comment added by Bishwa 777 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability has been well-established.Pectore^talk 02:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long precedent, endlessly reiterated and yet endlessly ignored by nominators, that verified secondary schools are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands Chambers of Commerce[edit]

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

Pure promotional. Search only brought up organization websites. No mention in outside sources to establish notability Caffeyw (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - If the author can produce WP:RS then I guess it should be kept, but if not delete since sources now are all selfpublished. SefBau : msg 06:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- The Chambers of Commerce are a leading business organisation, bringing together employers, mainly industrial ones. This article is about the regional level. I note that only one of the six members has an article at present, but that is perhaps a greater reason for keeping this. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then I strongly suggest is for you to look for independent secondary sources. SefBau : msg 17:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per coverage in this Express Star article. 86.136.93.185 (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Los Angeles Unified School District schools#Elementary schools. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valley View Elementary School[edit]

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

Pure Promotional and non-notable Caffeyw (talk) 05:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Los Angeles Unified School District where it belongs as a non notable school per WP:Outcomes#Schools. Nominator please take note for future reference. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Los Angeles Unified School District schools#Elementary schools where it is mentioned. Though the school fails WP:ORG, WP:BEFORE suggests that alternatives should be considered before proposing deletion. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:OUTCOMES#SCHOOLS to List of Los Angeles Unified School District schools#Elementary schools where it is mentioned. (Nominator please note for future reference). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Caffeyw, but I don't understand why you want to delete the page. Please reply! ~GEANETTI~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GEANETTI (talk • contribs) 03:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Bates (sportscaster)[edit]

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

A sportscaster with the CBS Sports Network, not notable. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completed incomplete nom. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All I found were references to this sportscaster in the biographies of CBS sportscasters ( http://www.cbssportsnetwork.com/bios ) and several references to him falling off a stool on camera. If someone can find good independent sources giving more substance to his experience, I would change my vote. Bill Pollard (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet any notability requirements.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Agler[edit]

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

A Miami sportscaster; a non-notable sportscaster. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC) These references are primary sources. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completed incomplete nom. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing that shows he meets any notability standards.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; let me tell you, primary sources are not going to be enough to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 02:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 02:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somatics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This topic does not appear to have attracted a sufficient amount of mainstream coverage to establish its notability Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the article is kept, and if, as is currently the case, the only non-primary sources are critical of the approach, then the article needs to reflect that criticism, while of course maintaining a neutral point of view. (Second comment: I don't see how the AfD is language-related.) Cnilep (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - has anyone examined the quality of the sources online? Bearian (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, before nominating for deletion. As an altmed topic, the sources seem to trace back mainly to Hanna, without much "external" coverage. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 747[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per a SIMBAD lookup, this system only seems to be a data point in more general studies. No suitable references found. Praemonitus (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge however I do not know which article to merge this to. Perhaps there could be an article on binary m type stars. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge to List of stars in Lyra per WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 745[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no substantial sources found; it just occurs as a data point in more general studies. Praemonitus (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to List of stars in Sagittarius per WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Territorial Imperative[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Transcendence (talk) 06:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage in books are a little on the brief side, but there a quite a few of them covering this concept. [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] are just some I found. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through these sources. They don't seem to be about the topic "Northwest Territorial Imperative", but rather just mention it. Per WP:GNG, ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail". If I'm mistaken in my characterization of these sources, please point out which one describes the "Northwest Territorial Imperative" in detail. Transcendence (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[20] covers the concept in pp112-114. But the the other shorter items aren't brief mentions. The inidividual items are small, but the coverage comes from a wide variety of sources. The above is just a sample of what could be found as I simply stopped looking. -- Whpq (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am inclined toward Keep.~~ There are a couple of sources in the Google News archives (one in English, one in Spanish I haven't yet delved into) that look promising. I'll look up old Oregonian stories later today too and see what I can find. -Pete (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: there are academic journal articles that focus on this topic. -Pete (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Project 2000[edit]

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

Non-notable building that was never built. A search for "Project 2000", at least for me, turns up some medical-related thing, which is definitely not this. The building appears to fail WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete fails WP:GNG. All Google News search results are for a Microsoft Project 2000. Adding Bofill to "Project 2000" search yields no results. In a general search (with Bofill) there are some scraps, but nothing featuring this subject.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 13:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article from 2006 about a building project that states ... however it was never built. Fails WP:GNG. Only found sources are one web site and one forum, both confirm that the project was cancelled. --Ben Ben (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Crass[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

nonnotable BLP, local organizer. No available sources about the subject, reads as biographical copy. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Crass is presumed to be notable, because he has been the subject of multiple published[21] secondary[22] sources[23] that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Current Editor (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2013 (CST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just like last time around the ferris wheel and sources cited above and in article. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads as BIO. Most hits of his names are mentions that he was present during certain events. A couple of websites seem to talk a little about him, however they don't seem to be any RS or pieces extensively discussing him. Rather the events he's a part of seem to be what is notable. Caffeyw (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per previous AfDs, subject has multiple, independent and reliable sources as cited. Meets WP:GNG. CooperDB (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are these sources specifically? The three listed above are not reliable for our purposes. There does not appear to be any evidence to support this claim that he meets our standards. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are multiple hits on google covering mentioning his writings, book readings and activism (including a Salon piece) as well as a couple citations in academic works. While most only go into surface detail regarding the subject, together they are sufficient to meet WP:BASIC in my estimation. There is also a large amount of commentary on the subject and his books from the activist press listed at his publisher's website further supporting notability. CooperDB (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If he is consistently quoted by media outlets when he attends notable events, people will naturally wonder who he is and Wikipedia should provide an answer. Just my two cents. Current Editor (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2013 (CST)
Delete This guy is a run-of-the mill writer and minor activist. He has not done anything notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BIO with multiple sources demonstrating notability. As an author and activist, his involvement with social justice issues has been far more extensive than a that of a "local organizer" and any issues with tone can be addressed through editing. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 01:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of stars in Piscis Austrinus. The edit history is preserved so anyone is free to merge content. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 868[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge into List of stars in Piscis Austrinus per WP:NASTHELP. No suitable sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Praemonitus. This object fails WP:NASTRO but redirects are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and leave redirect. This could go to a new article on K type stars. I think the constellation list is not the right place for a redirect as there is already too much detail for this. Normally the list of stars will link to more information, not a circular redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Metamatic (since this has been done, I have redirected). Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Face[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. Beerest355 Talk 22:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Metamatic. The sourced facts about the track and the essential details about the flexi-disc can bet merged to the article on the album that the track was part of the recording sessions for, and which it appeared on in its expanded form. --Michig (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Actually looking at it again it seems that this was a track from the sessions that became his second album, The Garden (John Foxx album), so that may be a better target, or maybe a mention on the John Foxx article. --Michig (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable song. While this could be merged, I would first need verification that someone would actually merge it. SL93 (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to merge it. --Michig (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an entry to John Foxx discography and a mention in the John Foxx article. I don't think there's anything else worth merging, so happy for this to be deleted. --Michig (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dream DRM Receiver[edit]

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

I found no sources covering this in significant detail. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find coverage for this subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Gong show 21:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Black Out the Sun (album). Mark Arsten (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Perfect (Sevendust song)[edit]

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

This song is not independently notable. Even the two references do not establish subject notability or even pass WP:RS. I changed the article into a redirect to the band, Sevendust, but was reverted. Andrew³²⁷ 14:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support a redirect to the album Black Out the Sun (album).—Iknow23 (talk) 04:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Andrews[edit]

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

Non-notable magician lacking Ghits and Gnews of substance. A number of awards, but they appear to be local or not major in nature. If the article could provide support for the awards, this AfD might not be necessary. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No comments in three weeks - clearly no consensus to do anything. No prejudice against simply starting another AFd, though. Black Kite (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArgusMonitor[edit]

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

This article is tagged for lacking notability since February 2010. I tried searching Download.com, Softpedia, Softonic, PC World and PC Magazine but only Softpedia had a small review, which is far from enough for notability. Codename Lisa (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 14:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 14:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a review at CNET. And at Software Informer, and...

OK, here is a lists of the first few reviews I found:

CNET, Software Informer, softpedia, Speed Up Computers

If only Download.com, Softpedia, Softonic, PC World and PC Magazine count as references, you should go and delete the article for Windows 8 as well (because at least I could only find a review for it on PC Magazine and PC World). :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.67.213 (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. None of the links the you supplied contain an editorial review except Softpedia. (An editorial review is one that is vetted after being written, as required by WP:RS.) CNET link contains no semblances of review whatsoever, only the publisher's description. Soft Informer on the other hand, is a notorious unreliable source. Speedupcomputers.org is WP:SPS. Softpedia review is the only valid one here but one coverage is not "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG.

Last but not least, I never said "only". You are more than welcome to search other reliable sources like computer magazines or books from reliable publishers. But sources like Huffington Post, The Register, etc. are not acceptable.

By the way, please stick to AfD messaging format in this page. This is not a community forum. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jason LaRay Keener. postdlf (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Unreinable Compulsion[edit]

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

The film does not appear to be notable per Wikipedia's standards. It does not have significant coverage from multiple reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Nor does it meet any of the specific criteria at the notability guidelines for films. The best source I could find for this film was this blog, which is not reliable. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect for now to filmmaker Jason LaRay Keener per WP:NFF and being TOO SOON. Allow back when released and only if it receives the requisite coverage in reliable sources. SCHMIDT, ^{Michael Q.} 00:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MichaelQSchmidt, that article may not be notable, either. It seems like the only reliable coverage is from The Anniston Star. We would need coverage from multiple reliable sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 13:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addie Lee[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO guidelines. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although she is a decent blues guitarist who has performed for many years, she has never received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and therefore is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the notability guidelines for musicians. She is just a local musician who does not seem to have gained any true notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Self-promotion by someone who has not gained sufficient notability otherwise. Her very tenuous claim to fame was 45 years ago as a brief early member of a local band that much later became notable without her as Fanny (band). She is mentioned just twice on that band's official site [[24]] and has now used that brief notoriety in attempted self-promoting overhauls of the history sections of the WP pages for Fanny and one of its members. Apparently performs locally in the many years since, but not yet noticed. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linati schema for Ulysses[edit]

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

No indication of notability. May be worth transwikiing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also related AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gilbert_schema_for_Ulysses. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Books shows numerous results for the Linati schema in reliable academic books. If the schema is best on Wikipedia, Wikisource or Wikibooks is an interesting question for the article talk page, but the Linati schema is clearly notable for AfD nom purposes. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Green Cardamom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (withdrawn by nominator) (non-controversial, non-admin close) -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 10:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supermini[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Supermini

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

The term "Supermini" is not in common use and is a misleading description which confuses with the BMC Austin/Morris Minis and the current BMW Mini. The reference offered in the article in Section: Origins ot the term are so weak to be risible –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 05:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google search demonstrates that the term is in common use. The argument that this article will cause confusion with either the original 'Mini' or the new 'Mini' doesn't really hold water. --Michig (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. First hit is VW Polo ... no mention of "Supermini" there.
Sincerely,
— Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 06:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the first page of Google results for 'supermini': What Car?: "Best Superminis of 2013", Autocar: "Top 5 Superminis", Which?: "Superminis review", Euroncap ratings for superminis, The Mirror: "MG3 super mini could put car firm back on the road to success", Auto Express: "Best Supermini 2013", Express and Star: "MG unveils new super-mini at Longbridge". See also Google News where there are hundreds of results.--Michig (talk) 07:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a common term in Europe. Sure, the article needs some love and (especially) some references - but the topic is valid and there is a substantial amount of useful material there. It is precisely because of potential confusion with the various cars called "Mini" that we need this article to explain how the term is used. Initially, it was literally used to mean "something a lot like a mini - but better" - and has become a meaningful and well-understood term in the European market where such vehicles are popular and the original BMC Mini was a well-known reference point. Certainly the term isn't very common in the USA...which may have mislead our OP to suspect that it's rarely used. SteveBaker (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - Add Not to be confused with Mini. (Distinguish tag!) - Problem solved!-
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Concur — Because I have garnered no support (so far) and I approve of Davey's ammendment (immediately above), I withdraw my request for deletion.
  Cheers!
  — Gareth Griffith-Jones|The Welsh Buzzard|— 08:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're welcome :) - →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of stars in Taurus. The edit history is preserved so anyone is free to merge content. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 169[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to List of stars in Taurus. It gets a few brief mentions in journal articles, but usually as a comparison star. There's not really enough content to satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a combined article, possibly on near solar class K stars. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of stars in Taurus per WP:NASTRO. We already have a list of nearby stars and this one isn't near enough to be interesting in that respect. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Cox[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Sources barely mention the individual, and do not establish "significant coverage". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, Seems more like a advertisement than a encyclopedic article-
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find sufficient evidence that this person satisfies WP:BIO at this time. Gong show 21:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of stars in Indus. The edit history is preserved so anyone is free to merge content. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 833[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to List of stars in Indus per WP:NASTHELP. Hildebrandt (1993) has a brief discussion of HD 205390, but that likely isn't sufficient. Praemonitus (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Praemonitus. This object fails WP:NASTRO but redirects are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and leave redirect. This could go to a new article on K type stars. I think the constellation list is not the right place for a redirect as there is already too much detail for this. Normally the list of stars will link to more information, not a circular redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of stars in Equuleus. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 818[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge into List of stars in Equuleus per WP:NASTHELP. No suitable sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Praemonitus. This object fails WP:NASTRO but redirects are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and leave redirect. This could go to a new article on K type stars. I think the constellation list is not the right place for a redirect as there is already too much detail for this. Normally the list of stars will link to more information, not a circular redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Emeritus Senior Living. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Boice, et al v. Emeritus Corporation[edit]

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

Non-notable trial level case. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#Notabilty of lawsuits. GregJackP Boomer! 15:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Perhaps we could use some guidelines on what constitutes a notable case, but whatever those guidelines might be, this would not be such a case. bd2412 T 16:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This information currently belongs as a section in Emeritus Senior Living as is, not its own article. Int21h (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Int21h. I already merged a sentence and reference about this case to the article Emeritus Senior Living. The case is not notable enough for a freestanding article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge most of the non-transferred information in to the Emeritus article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 14001–15000#501. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

14597 Waynerichie[edit]

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

I found no sources to demonstrate notability of this. Beerest355 Talk 15:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: per the nom., I could not locate any suitable sources. It doesn't satisfy WP:NASTCRIT or WP:GNG, so I suggest redirecting to List of minor planets: 14001–15000#501 per WP:NASTHELP. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Praemonitus. This object fails WP:NASTRO but redirects are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Puritan's Mind[edit]

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

Closest thing to an RS I found was this, which repeats some of what's on this wiki article. I can't tell if they both came from an older version of the website or what. Anyway, PublishAmerica is a vanity press. JFH (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now My Google searches showed that this organization is fairly active, and its publications are cited in other books and articles. What's missing is any secondary coverage about it. In the future an article probably could be written but not now by WP:Notability. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

isn't that incubation criteria? romnempire (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I don't know how that works. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AI #3 & 5. It seems to me to only apply where there is reason to believe RSes actually exist, but are not readily available. I don't think it's likely there will ever be RSes on this, but someone needs to give a reason that this topic is so important it should be kept and for the fact that no one has been able to find RSes. --JFH (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This looks to me like yet another one-man ministry. I note no link to the founder, which strengthens my view that it is probably NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sherif Francis[edit]

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

A person name "Sherif Francis" who is director, song-writer and so on certainly exists. It is asserted that Mr Francis is "primarily known for the success of his music videos. Also a recipient of a gold album as a music composer for several music hits he produced." As far as I can see, there is no evidence in significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to verify this assertion. Shirt58 (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as Shirt says, no indication of significance, a Google showed his website and not much else, not much in Google news. Mat ty.007 13:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how you came to this conclusion considering you are not in Greece and therefore your Google search result will not be the same as it would be here. He is mentioned in 2 articles in wikipedia. I am not sure how and what constitutes worthy of being in wikipedia but he has directed some of the biggest video clips in Greece and has an amazing track record in that field. I suggest you do your research better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algorhythm gr (talk • contribs) 16:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The general notability guideline for all articles is at WP:NOTE. The more specific guideline for articles on creative professionals is WP:ARTIST. — Gwalla | Talk 19:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Algorythm gr: We can search http://google.com.gr as easily as any other country's Google. The search results are largely the same. Searching the archives, not just recent history, I found a source that might be significant:[25]. But Matty.007 is correct, there isn't much out there. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ensafer[edit]

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

Just another Cloud storage service amongst many others. Shirt58 (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or suggest it be userified by creator User talk:Jvrosnes? I would cite Wikipedia:Too soon although that page only explicitly uses entertainment subjects, it usually applies to these articles promoting new companies, which might be "two kids and an app" or might be "the next big thing". See also Wikipedia:Up and coming next big thing Only way to tell is wait until the products either become notable, or the company runs it course and fades away as most do. Not notable yet. W Nowicki (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the references in the article provide some coverage of this as a start-up proposition, there is insufficient evidence of attained notability at this point. AllyD (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juanin Clay[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTE standards Newjerseyliz (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Right on the edge of notability but playing Jackie Kennedy in a CBS TV mini series tips it over for me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sixten (street artist)[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. yes he was the inspiration for a Green day album cover but I can't find critical acclaim or third party coverage of him. I found coverage for other Sixtens as it is a Scandinavian first name. LibStar (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possibly merge with 21st Century Breakdown, assuming he's not notable? It would be useful to have info on the album cover in the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't see that notability has been established. There is nothing of great significance to distinguish them. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of notability & lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Allen (basketball)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable. A quick google search didn't reveal much. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 00:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor player with little national coverage. Atrian (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please clarify what "minor player" means, specifically as a reason for deletion? Jrcla2 (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NBASKETBALL, specifically #1 which ends "or a similar major professional sports league." Allen played in the highest league in the Philippines, which may not sound impressive to people who don't know international basketball, but the Philippine Basketball Association is a notable league which has been accepted in previous discussions to qualify as a "similar" major league. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; a basketball player, no evidence of notability. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So playing in the PBA doesn't qualify as evidence of notability? Jrcla2 (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note to closing admin: User:WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 is the editor who nominated clearly-notable Kevin Barker for deletion without any justification other than "not even close to being notable." This editor needs to brush up on notability standards and actually cite reasons for deletion. The above "no evidence of notability" is a throwaway statement which is actually untrue; Bobby Allen's article does assert reasons for notability. Whether or not those reasons are valid is what should be discussed here. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous basketball players on Wikipedia who played only in the PBA; Allen was also a Canadian National Team member, was a leading score for team as well, had a long overseas career. He is a legend in Toronto, considered one of the best high school player in Canada. Also he constantly contributes to the local development with his clinic and helping the ABS league - new and only organized youth league in Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corben04 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TCN7JM 04:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to participation in professional league and Canadian National team, per NBASKETBALL. NewAccount4Me (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I held off commenting until I was able to research this case a bit. The way I see it, he "almost" meets notability standards a few times. He was a very good JC player, but that doesn't make him notable. He was a good player on a very low profile college team, but doesn't seem to meet GNG based on his college career. He played a year in the PBA, but that league isn't comparable to those that bestow notability IMO. He played for the Canadian national team, but the most significant tournament I can verify he competed in was the 1996 FIBA Americas tournament, which doesn't bestow notability (no Olympics, no FIBA World Cup). The PBA season is the only pro season I can verify from independent sources (ie - NOT his basketball academy website). So where do the others come from? I see an entry for "Madrid," but he didn't play for Real Madrd (which would have made him notable). Seems to me that a bunch of "almost notables" doesn't make a subject notable. Just my 2 cents. Rikster2 (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NBASKETBALL. It appears that he had success in high school and junior college, played for the Canadian national team in the bronze medal game, at the 1995 FIBA Tournament of the Americas, and played professionally in several leagues, including the PBA. Looks notable to me. Blackjays1 (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NBASKETBALL. "similar major professional sports league." PBA must qualify, he played 3 seasons with two different teams. Corben04 (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't !vote twice - especially as the creator of the article, Corben04. Rikster2 (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've striked his second !vote, and I'm a supporter of keeping this article. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment If the article is written as a stub and with primary sources, it is not notability Jrcla2. The articles I have created under Ashbeckjonathan, most of them had no notability. Even still some of the articles I have created are primary sources. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Bobby Allen Skills Academy website can be used a supporting reference, not as a primary one, to which I agree. However, this Eurobasket link qualifies and it shows he played in the PBA (N:BASKETBALL threshold met). Being a stub, by the way, has zero impact on notability. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Clarification PBA meeting the threshold for N:BASKETBALL is an opinion not a fact. As quoted earlier, the phrase is "comparable league" to those for which notability is presumed (ACB Spain, Lega Serie A Italy, NBL Australia, Euroleague). Not saying you were suggesting otherwise Jrcla2 (I know your opinion is that PBA is comparable), just pointing out that this is open for debate (and IMO may be the point that really determines if this guy is notable). Rikster2 (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that's probably the make-or-break point of the AfD as well. I'm not going to lose any sleep if this does get deleted, but I do think he passes notability guidelines. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1000 NICKS[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. The article says that they are shooting a feature film, but I found no proof of that. This fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TCN7JM 04:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. TCN7JM 04:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This band does not pass any of the criteria listed in WP:MUSIC. It doesn't even seem to pass the GNG. TCN7JM 04:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found nothing that would indicate that an encyclopedia article is appropriate. --Michig (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP1E Transcendence (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think that WP:BLP1E applies to someone sentenced to life in prison for a plot to assassinate a former president of the United States. That is a massive claim of notability that trumps "one event" concerns. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that is somewhat notable. I'm curious what other people think. Transcendence (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TCN7JM 04:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. TCN7JM 04:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course this man is notable as any other terrorist. Transcendence has demonstrated a destructive pattern of afd's for articles on terrorist-style attacks with national and international coverage. Redhanker (talk) 04:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficiently notable and covered, and events are both the attempt and the accusations/trial. Though related, they are separate.Epeefleche (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Seevakumaran[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP1E Transcendence (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator is correct in this case. This person committed suicide for mysterious reasons, but neither the person nor the death is notable. WP:BLP policy applies because the death is recent, and the article in its current form may humiliate his surviving relatives. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tragic but not notable. WP:BLP1E applies....William 11:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logical abacus[edit]

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

Not a single secondary reliable source uses the term "Logical abacus". All GB and JSTOR results are about the Abacus itself. The article as it stands is original research by synthesis. The Legend of Zorro 02:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Mostly an unneeded and unsourced WP:Content fork of Abacus. Ansh666 03:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Keep per below, now that I actually know what the article is about. Ansh666 19:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have cleaned up the article, by removing material about the standard abacus which had no relevance here. It should now be clear that the article is not a content fork. On sources, the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, from which much of the text of this article was taken, is generally to be regarded a reliable source, though as it is now over 100 years old, care has to be taken with it and, where recent sources exist, they are usually to be preferred. Coverage in the Encyclopaedia Britannica should also be taken as a strong indicator of notability - the EB will have used reliable sources back in 1911 and notability is not temporary. There are also in fact quite a few recent reliable sources, including four of] [the] [first] ten GBooks hits. While the article needs rewriting to make its historical context clearer, the topic is certainly notable. PWilkinson (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mashregh News[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. No significant coverage found. Transcendence (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the news agency of the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, commonly called the "Revolutionary Guards". This is one of the most important political factions in Iran. Reliable sources in English are readily available, and I am certain that they are abundant in Farsi. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my nomination, I could not find any coverage of this company. The only things I found were instances of other news sites saying that Mashregh News reported such and such. If you think there are sources, please list them. Transcendence (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When independent reliable sources discuss, analyze and critique their reporting in detail, that demonstrates notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the moment it could be deleted A7 as it makes no claim to significance other than it exists. LGA _talk^edits 02:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have expanded the article, adding several sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For the explanations provided above Kabirat (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article was revised to answer the problems raised above. Crtew (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move. SL 7968 13:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abacus system[edit]

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

Not a single secondary reliable source uses the term "Abacus system". All GB and JSTOR results are about the Abacus itself. The article as it stands is original research by synthesis. The Legend of Zorro 01:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful and redirect to Soroban#Modern use. I personally use this system, but have not heard it called as such. Ansh666 03:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the problem is the title. Wouldn't it be better to change the name then to for example Soroban or Abacus mental calculation system. --Jondel (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, keep and move to "Mental abacus" - google search, google scholar search, journal articles using this term: [26][27], source already in article using this term: [28]. "Abacus system" (or "ABACUS system") is, from scholar, actually a programming/computing algorithm that has nothing to do with mental math. After this little search, the current topic is notable, but there isn't an agreed-upon naming for it; the title I'm proposing is the most commonly used one and the most unambiguous one I can think of. Ansh666 19:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do note delete. Please do not delete or redirect. It is sufficiently notable.--Jondel (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or move to "Mental abacus" (below)--Jondel (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "mental abacus".

Here is a Google Scholar search on "mental abacus".

Here is a Google Books search for "mental abacus".

Here is a Google web search for "mental abacus".

Here is a Google search for "mental abacus" restricted to youtube.com. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me! :)--Jondel (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "mental abacus". Clearly a no brainer. (So somebody had to be the first to make that stupid comment!) Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to "mental abacus". Gandalf61 (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could somebody close this under the "snowball" clause? Michael Hardy (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alahverdian v. Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families, et al[edit]

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

Not notable, pending trial level court case. Soapbox for reform efforts of plaintiff. GregJackP Boomer! 01:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not achieved. As nom says-soapboxing. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - per nom and Xxanthippe. Clearly not a notable case. Stalwart111 03:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be used purely as a soap box. Does not appear to be notable and appears to only receive routine coverage at best. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One legal case out of countless gazillions with no lasting importance to either jurisprudence or American history. Carrite (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As others have noted, this is one lawsuit out of many non-notable lawsuits. Also, it seems that the suit will soon be dismissed, cementing its irrelevance. Seems to be a pice of soapboxing by the plaintiff. NewAccount4Me (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The California Takeover[edit]

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

Not-notable release. Only blog entries and storefronts in the first five pages on Google. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TCN7JM 04:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TCN7JM 04:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NALBUMS and the GNG. TCN7JM 04:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage found includes a brief review [29] and a passing mention [30]; not seeing enough to warrant an individual article (ie, falls short of WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS). I'd entertain a redirect but there does not seem to be an optimal target page. Gong show 17:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pink Martini. postdlf (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discover the World: Live in Concert[edit]

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

Nothing in this article indicates that it means WP:NMUSIC. Trinitresque (talk) 04:21, 10 August 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 August 10. Snotbot t • c » 04:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (alt) (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pink Martini where it is already covered in similar detail. --Michig (talk) 06:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Pink Martini per Michig. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Harris Project[edit]

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

Non notable musical group. Beerest355 Talk 18:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (alt) (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Central Library[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

AfD restart due to canvassing and sockpuppetry issues. Previous rationale was "no CSD for buildings. no indication of notability. building is not complete, and entry was tagged as outdated in 2010. no references, no coverage on google news. uses skyscrapercity.com, a forum site, in its list of ELs. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)" Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per The National, Luxury Launches, AME, and News AZ. SL93 (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All sources are announcements, this library isn't built yet. It is in project status first announced in 2006 for 2008, last announced on 3. July 2013 without giving a specific realisation date.[31] Even the building site isn't decided yet. City Projects in early state can change or disappear. This is a bit to vague for an encyclopedia: WP:NOTCRYSTAL. SL93, this one News AZ have reported a current meeting in a not yet built library and used for that a CGI, stolen from the web site of the architect's office asp. Low quality journalism. --Ben Ben (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Another article, from the same author from 2009, demonstrates was could happen if articles relay only on news about 'real estate investors' future plans: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zabeel Mall (2nd nomination). --Ben Ben (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. GregJackP Boomer! 00:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For sufficiently major projects, even the planning can be notable. A national library is sufficiently major. DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (alt) (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too soon, and the area in particular is known lately for halting planned projects due to financial concerns. Once construction begins or actual permits are issued then create. Caffeyw (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even as vaporware, this planned building has received signficant coverage. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 03:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[32] [33]. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first of those is clearly labeled as a press release. the second is a blog (see WP:SELFPUB) that I don't find any mention of at WP:RSN history. My sense is that it's also non-RS. Got any others? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 17:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NEO N64 Myth Cart[edit]

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

I found no coverage of this unlicensed Nintendo 64 hardware. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (alt) (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Closing early as nominator seeks an outcome other than deletion. I suggest a merge discussion be opened. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Barnard[edit]

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

While the duo appears to have some notability (even if our article on it is gravely under-referenced), Shane Barnard appears not to pass WP:NM. The article has been without references for more than three years, i.e., since before the ten-day limit for BLPs came in. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I have improved this article and added a significant number of references from reliable third-party sources. Subject, while best known as half of Shane & Shane, is also covered as an individual in multiple sources ([34] and [35], for example). Subject meets at least criteria 1, 4, 5, and 12 ([36]) of WP:MUSBIO, any one of which would make him notable by Wikipedia standards. (Many of these sources could also be used to improve the Shane & Shane article, if one were so inclined.) - Dravecky (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (alt) (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nom. There are now nine sources cited in the article, so someone has done some good work. One of them is about Shane Everett; seven of them are about Shane & Shane; one of them is about "Shane Barnard of Shane & Shane". As already stated above, the duo appears to have some notability but Shane Barnard does not. Which of the twelve criteria at WP:Musicbio does he (separate from and as opposed to the duo) fulfil? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply As noted above, I am the "someone" who improved the article and, also noted above, listed the specific criteria the subject meets. Also, when a news article identifies its subject as "Paul McCartney of Paul McCartney & Wings" or "William Shatner of Star Trek fame" that's for the convenience of readers, not an indication that the subject has no independent notability. - Dravecky (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. Hmm, it seems I read your previous remarks with less than sufficient attention; sorry about that. The links you cite as [1] and [2] are the two references from the article that are not specifically about the duo; one is about Shane Everett; the other is about "Shane Barnard of Shane & Shane", as already mentioned above. Neither indicates any independent notability that I can see.

With regard to the twelve criteria: (1) has this note: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases". Where is that independent notability documented? Criterion (4): where is the non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country by Shane Bernard as an independent musician? Criterion (5): what is the evidence that he (as distinct from the duo) has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels, and which labels were they? The article isn't clear on this. Criterion (12): What is the evidence that Shane Bernard (as distinct from the duo) has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shane and Shane: the article suggests no notability apart from the duo. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutron gamma gamma[edit]

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

Looks like nonsense, waddles like nonsense, quacks like nonsense, e.g. "smaller photons", yin/yang symbol for neutron gamma-gamma illustrations ("Instant t + 4.4016x10-24 seconds"?). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a rambling assemblage of physics-related statements that don't really go anywhere. Each component of the information is better covered elsewhere and there doesn't seem to be anything worth salvaging. Praemonitus (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as rambling rubbish. At best OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete looks like someone's personal ramblings.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...what in the world is this?! Ansh666 04:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A good-faith editor could think hard about an important area of modern physics, compile a dozen correct and referenced statements, with some more inferences and statements that are unclear, and fail to have an article which satisfies notability and verifiability. Maybe it could be a springboard to research and theory, but publishing original research and personal reflections is not the stated role of Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - incomprehensible nonsense. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently the article is a translation from Spanish using Google Translate. Alternative theories on neutron structure would possibly belong in our Neutron article (if they are fully referenced, of course). Dbfirs 16:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the author claimed on my talk page that this was a translation from the Spanish article, but actually the Spanish article was created after this one, by an editor using the same name, and it is just as rambling and unencyclopedic in Spanish. Edison (talk)
Delete - Reads like my seventh-grade physics textbook if seventh-grade me had been asked to write the textbook. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Desire to know, is insignificant compared willingness to understand.

MARCOS BUIRA PARDO (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your cooperation. Your views will be included into the global project. (Inside a photon, Neutron gamma gamma, Types of Black Holes, Universes and Cosmos .)

MARCOS BUIRA PARDO (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is some legitimate basis here - you can have a gamma particle with the mass of a neutron and gamma-gamma scattering does occur and has been used in things like searching for the Higgs. However, the description of the neutron as "an expression of fundamental constants" misses that the Ne/Nr/Nm numbers are all defined one in terms of the next. The mass itself seems arbitrary, unpredictable even by the author's original research. Because the neutron is not the only neutral boson that is no surprise! The idea that a pair of photons orbit one another, drawn together by different polarity of electric fields is, well, interesting, but I see no evidence this produces an attractive force of remotely appropriate dimension, nor is the decay after 10 minutes explained. But all that is irrelevant because this is just not being supported by the sources - every one of them is some basic, basic reference not even a crackpot site that agrees with this. So sorry, but no, you can't publish your fun model here as an article. Wnt (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your opinion,(is a nice exposure , and you're the first person who 'understands' the 'model' ) let me a simple question. when a neutron star dies, expelling quarks , gamma or ....? MARCOS BUIRA PARDO (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they do die, but if somehow you blasted one apart, well, as you see in neutron star, relatively little is quark-gluon plasma, and even that physicists can study in terms of the standard quark description. Presenting a neutron as a pair of photons ignores all of the mass characteristics and decays observed among the bosons. Now there is such a thing as photon-photon scattering, and if it is powerful enough I suppose it can generate neutrons along with other particles, but the way you present this doesn't make sense. Wnt (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most energetic manifestation observed in the universe is GRB ( gamma flash ),the death of neutron star .There is not explanation known, in nuclear reaction, capable of generating so much energy. the only explanation is the internal neutron fission , gamma photonsMARCOS BUIRA PARDO (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on gamma-ray burst gives what looks to me like a plausible explanation. Coming up with good ideas can be fun on a physics forums site, and you might be able to phrase some questions focused enough for the Refdesk to handle (though it's not quite as free-ranging a forum - there does have to be an answerable question). But you can't go straight to Wikipedia articles with this stuff. We cover things published in other sources, so called WP:reliable sources, not any thought anyone has. Please try to understand that, because if you don't, there are a lot of people on Wikipedia whose mission in life seems to be to be nasty to people whose editing they see as a problem! Wnt (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutron as a pair of photons ignores all of the mass characteristics....Mass, energy and wavelength are the same thing, look differently. But it is a very good observationMARCOS BUIRA PARDO (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep/withdrawn - seemingly nominated on the basis of a misunderstanding. (Non-admin close). Stalwart111 03:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert G. Flanders, Jr.[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and seems to be a part of a suite of articles written by single-use accounts trussing up subjects surrounding Nicholas Alahverdian, which is also being considered for deletion. May also violate WP:BLP. NewAccount4Me (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Welcome to Wikipedia! State Supreme Court justices pass criterion #1 of WP:POLITICIAN. This one is easily verifiable with a Google search if present references aren't strong enough. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, wow, I forgot what "associate justice" meant. Massive brainfart. Just trying to clean up the mess associated with all of these single-purpose accounts on the Nicholas Alahverdian article. This might not be the right place to ask, but how should one handle the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth & Families article? Just make it better? Thanks! NewAccount4Me (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep State Supreme Court justices are presumed to be notable, and no contrary evidence has been presented. This is not the appropriate venue to discuss how to improve other articles, except to say "improve it". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the AfD initiator and now believe this article should be kept. As I stated above, I mistook "associate justice" as a different meaning. NewAccount4Me (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Alahverdian[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:PERP, and I didn't see any other criteria he'd fall under. Should either be deleted or redirected to Alahverdian v. Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families, et al, but perhaps that article should be deleted as well. The edit history for the article is also a bit sketchy with a lot of WP:SPAs. Odie5533 (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or perhaps redirect to Alahverdian v. Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families, et al, if that article meets the notability guidelines for court cases (I'm not sure what those are currently). I added the notability tag to the article and I'll repeat what I said on the talk page "Subject of article does not seem to meet WP:GNG currently. The article does not violate WP:BLP because everything is sourced, however the source articles do not verify notability. The only thing that comes close is the court case mentioned at the bottom, however, that still fails to meet the guidelines for a bio article (or even article pertaining to the event laid out within WP:CRIME. Also, I have suspicions the article may have been made by the subject, which isn't expressly forbidden on Wikipedia, but doesn't help the argument that the bio was made simply due to the subject's notability." 97.91.179.39 (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am the above IP address user. This AFD has been blanked once by a new account, cutting off discussion. Is an admin seeing this activity? Thanks! NewAccount4Me (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 01:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as BLP:1E. An spa has been deleting many of this AfD's entries on siscussion pages. Admin attention needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Originator of a legal case, defendant in a legal case, and blogger. Coverage of the first two is superficial; of the latter seemingly non-existent. Pretty clearly either self-written or pay-for-play. It's a nicely constructed Wikipedia article, but on the strict question of whether this subject passes GNG — or any Special Notability low bar — that answer appears to be no. Carrite (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - related AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alahverdian v. Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families, et al. GregJackP Boomer! 02:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E with a good solid helping of WP:OR thrown into the mix. There's a whole section where someone has tried to reinterpret primary source court documents to re-argue a legal case, much of which is a blatant WP:BLP violation. Can someone WP:SNOW close this and be done with it? Stalwart111 03:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:BLP1E at best, and even that might be somewhat generous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I deleted a large portion of the page as a WP:BLP violation and outlined my reasons on the talk page (somewhat limited - it's worse than what I explained, I have further information that I am willing to provide to any admin that needs it). GregJackP Boomer! 05:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yea, google for this guy's name and it turns up a slew of blogs and such where his crusade (against a wide variety of things) is carried out, in excruciating detail. There's nothing of actual notability though, and what reliable sources do make mention of this person do so in the context of the lawsuit and even then only briefly. The lawsuit itself isn't notable either. Tarc (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like others have said, on a good day this might meet WP:BLP1E at best. This isn't a good day. First Light (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the clear consensus already established. No notability established.Jeppiz (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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