Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 3

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 2 February 4 February >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Devlin

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

Having worked with someone notable does not make one notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Subject lacks the multiple, independent third party reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage that is required to have an article here. Some reliable sources mention the person in passing while discussing the main topic, but he has not been the subject of any articles, as discussed on the talk page. DreamGuy (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His life story also has not been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film.

Devlin has played a major role in significant and well-known Feature Films and Still Photography Fashion and Advertising Campaigns.

As a result of his depth of knowledge, Devlin has been a contributor to cinematography books [1], [2], one of which was reviewed by "American Cinematographer" magazine.

The book review referred to the group of contributors(with Devlin being a member) as being "the best of the best"[3]. This demonstrates Devlin is regarded as an important figure or is cited by peers.

Mr. Devlin has given many magazine interviews , most of them are Film Industry related, not a mass market tabloid. listed below are some of the articles Devlin has given.

The topic of magazines articles cover the art of cinematography, D.P. and camera info, the grip's rigs, and Devlin's lighting scheme and choice of fixtures.

Lincoln,[4]

Minority Report,[5]

Catch Me If You Can,[6]

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,[7]

War Horse.[8]

"Saving Private Ryan" [9]

To further demonstrate that Mr. Devlin is regarded as an important figure and respected by peers. Jim Jannard the owner of RED Digital Cinema hired cinematographer Devlin and director Bill Paxton to create a short film to advertise his new RED EPIC-M[10] The Introduction of the RED EPIC-M is a big deal. Jannard is worth $3b[11] and is financing the development of the EPIC camera to create to most widely used professional digital cinema camera system in the world. In 2012, Jannard launched an advertising campaign with a 8 page fold out in the April-September 2012 edition of Vogue magazine featuring The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo star Rooney Mara, shot on EPIC by director David Fincher and Devlin[12]. In fall 2012, Dolce & Gabbana hired Devlin to light the "Dolce and Gabbana Collection for 2013"[13]. It is notable that Devlin is respected in both the Fashion World as well as the Hollywood film world.

Devlin was nominated for Outstanding Cinematography at The International Film Festival of the Art of Cinematography Plus Camerimage).[14]

Lincoln was nominated for Outstanding achievement in cinematography by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. It is the third film Devlin has lit that has been nominated. One (Saving Private Ryan) has won.

Devlin's Lighting Director collaborations with Matt Mahurin,Steven Klein[15][16], Craig McDean, Steven Meisel, Annie Liebowitz and Inez van Lamsweerde and Vinoodh Matadin[17] are certainly worth exploring.

There is alot of information out there to make a rather interesting article, based on lighting styles and not on big hollywood fame WP:FAME. I feel that there may be a case of WP:ZEAL to delete what could otherwise be a truly interesting article.

- 69.144.126.122 (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INHERITED. Being associated with famous projects and people does not make one noteworthy unless one is also the subject of commentary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of the books and magazines reference his working in the entertainment industry as the basis for his inclusion in those publications. All people who work in the entertainment industry are associated with famous projects and people at some level. The topics of the referenced articles that interview him are based on who he is, what he has done, or his knowledge, not who he has worked with. He obviously is a recognized lighting expert. -- 99.98.44.85 (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of people who are quoted as "experts", but that does not mean they meet the notability requirements. There is no indication that he has done anything that is "new standard" / "breakthrough" / "style/presentation/results that is obviously HIM" / "widely copied". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:44, 6 February 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:25, 26 January 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, MBisanz talk 21:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is/Was mostly a gaffer or lighting technician. Only listed as a cinematographer for one short. A gaffer or lighting technician is not a "creative" position, thus not eligible for WP:FILMMAKER. Lincoln being nominated for best cinematography goes only to the cinematographer, not lighting technician/gaffer. "Nominated for Outstanding Cinematography at The International Film Festival of the Art of Cinematography" was about a five minute short in a "small" film festival, plus he didn't win. Refs in article are only just a brief mention. I'm able to find a few interviews, but nothing more. He doesn't pass the "independent" and "significant detail" provisions of WP:GNG. Bgwhite (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bgwhite. I've heavily edited the article, particularly toward the beginning, but my take from reading about Devlin and the sources was that calling him a cinematographer was a major stretch and that he is essentially a technician who has worked on some major films with some major directors. He has also tried to dabble into more ambitious things but based on sources thus far hasn't achieved sufficient notability to warrant an article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 00:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russian-Ukrainian wars

edit
Russian-Ukrainian wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Invalid disambig page: None of the "wars" listed are known as "Russian-Ukrainian war. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian People's Republic & Cossack Hetmanate where countries, and it is argued by scholars that they where predecessors of current Ukraine. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against UPR (a single valid entry), but it does not change the fact that none of the other listed conflicts are called "Ukrainin-Russian war" in scholarly sources. And it is not wikipedia job to invent terminology. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also do think that the term Russian-Ukrainian wars is misleading; how about making a page List of wars on the territory of Ukraine? That could fill the gap of the missing Wikipedia article List of wars involving Ukraine (with a re-direct). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They , and List of military conflicts within the territory of Ukraine, are valid possible pages, but they have no relation to the one under discussion, with invented names. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS I have indeed read scholarly sources about Ukraine . — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:37, 29 January 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, MBisanz talk 21:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Melissa Ketunuti

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

Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS applies. Good people get killed everyday.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC) ...William 15:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also find it bad that some people are deleting information with the edit summary that they could not find the information, yet if you read the reference you will find it. The result of removing information is that the article becomes a skeleton of an article, basically "a woman died". If an article is simply "a woman died" then I would agree that it looks like an easy delete decision when, in fact, it's a wrong decision influenced by misinformation read by the user. Gravelocator (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's all that's happened. A woman died, it's solely being discussed within one city's press, except a British tabloid published a story on it. It cannot be the "big murder of the year or decade" because it's only January and they caught the killer within a short period of time. THere's nothing that makes this murder worthy of encyclopedic coverage because it has no impact.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FACT CHECKER: Philly.com called the coverage "relentless" which led to the hospital staff meeting at the chapel, which shows that it is the big murder of recent times. FACT CHECKER: It is NOT solely being discussed within one city's press. It is reported in Australia, Canada, UK, Philadelphia, Arizona, Georgia, Reuters (international press), US press (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN), Washington DC, New York, Boston, etc. As far as no impact, there is discussion of tightening licensing laws because the alleged killer was not licensed.Gravelocator (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. WP is not breaking stories (1st criteria for deletion). This is not a breaking story.
2. WP should not use "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. This article is not #2.
3 and 4. This doesn't apply; these criteria are for who's who and diaries.
Therefore, all 4 criteria for deletion under NOTNEWS doesn't apply to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spevw (talk • contribs) 03:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If User:Gravelocator is correct in that the murder is "plastered" over the Philadelphia news, then that should be a keep. The murders that are most high profiled and covered will generate traffic and interest to Wikipedia. I see that there is one article in the Metro Newspaper that says she was 1 of 6 murders in Philadelphia that weekend but a Google News search of the other 5 show extremely little or no coverage except for the 1/6 article. See http://www.metro.us/philadelphia/local/article/1160359--chop-doctor-melissa-ketunuti-was-one-of-six-homicide-victims-this-weekend This is objective proof that this murder is far more notable than the average murder (as the other 5 have virtually no coverage, making her's in the top percentile.) You are almost never going to get outside objective proof of notability but this Metro article is an exception and proves the point of notability.
I fully understand how people think WP is full of junk, articles on sex positions, video games, porn stars, high schools and think WP should only be about George Washington, Obama, France, etc. but by the criteria we are using, this article passes.
If the closing administrator is hell bent on deletion, I would recommend merge and redirect to the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) because years from now, people will still inquire in WP about the CHOP doctor that was killed. There is a lot of detail in the article that will be permanently lost to research access if this is deleted. If merged, then if there is a huge upswing in interest after the trial, then we can reconsider and retrieve the data. Spevw (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A newsworthy story is not an encyclopedic event. That is what WP:NOTNEWS means. I doubt that this even requires any coverage on CHOP, either. She was murdered, this is bad. However, it's not something that is of note.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As horrid and sheer evil this particular murder seems to be, it does not seem to be sufficiently notable. It reads , rather, as an obituary, rather than being a proper subject of an article, for example with several sentences/infobits like: "She did one year of general surgery residency at Georgetown and had to switch to pediatrics at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), where she initially had some academic difficulty, but took criticism well at CHOP". The info that a deceased doctor took criticisms well is an appropriate, and important, element in an obituary, but definitely not within an article.Arildnordby (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be precise. I find the article adequately sourced, sufficiently well-written and keeps its focus. It is the notability issue I have problems with.Arildnordby (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • New information for the decider of this deletion attempt -
  • Only the one above delete comment by Arildnorby was done after major improvement of the article. Before, the article was written like crap but it is now much better. So, the bulk of the delete people were looking at the crap version before major improvement (acknowledged by Arildnorby).
  • One week after the murder, the murder is now covered on U.S. national TV on the show "Inside Edition". This is no obscure murder or memorial page. The event was also covered internationally and in other countries.
  • As it was mentioned above, WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. Some people do not want it saying it is not news. However, as someone pointed out, the NOTNEWS actually has 4 criteria, of which this article doesn't meet any of them, therefore, should remain as an article.,
  • I cannot help but wonder how many of the delete people are fundamentally opposed to "Murder of" articles, just like some are opposed to other kinds of articles. This article meets the criteria to be an article. Gravelocator (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Please keep the discussion about whether the article is able to meet Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, not about other editors. The question is not whether editors are fundamentally opposed to "Murder of" articles. It is whether Wikipedia should have an article for every murder. I'm still looking for some evidence of notability for this one. The fact that it's being reported as sensational news doesn't necessarily mean that it is sensational news. The article quality is perfectly OK, but that is not the point either. – Wdchk (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you think this is overall noteworthy, do you agree that even a well-written article like this contains stuff that should be purged, for example obituary-like info that Ketunuti took well to academic criticism? That shows she was a decent person, but is it noteworthy for Wikipedia that she was a decent person?Arildnordby (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're actually shooting yourself in the foot with the Inside Edition addition. IE is referred to quite commonly as a tabloid. Check here[1], here[2], and here[3] for three examples. WP:SENSATION reads "Tabloid or yellow journalism is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article, due to the lack of fact checking inherent in sensationalist and scandal mongering news reporting." Honestly you need to put things in perspective. This article is a clear case of recentism....William 16:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. heavily improved since afd started. It is a big story and seem to come over the notability threshold with this improved version.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Although this case has made international news (perhaps unsurprisingly due to its grizzly nature), we need to ask whether it will have enduring notability. That is, will people remember it in the future? Right now I think it's too early to say, but if it became a watershed moment in the modification of a law or guideline then that situation would change. For those interested in a guideline for Wikipedia concerning this, I wrote an essay about crime-related articles a few months back, which might serve as a useful basis for any rules. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Murders like this happen EVERY DAY. While they will all have extensive local coverage, there is no evidence of this case having a lasting effect on society or affecting anyone other than the victim's friends and family. The duration and depth of media coverage likely will not last long anyway. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on errors of above delete comment. Murders like this do not "happen EVERY DAY". Name the murder than happened like this today. None exists. Name a murder today that was this well covered by reliable sources. None exists. Re-read the WP:EFFECT. Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline,.....then read the general notability guidelines....this passes. Also re-read WP:EFFECT which says It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. The bottom line is that this article DOES meet the notability guideline in many ways, not just one. It also meets MANY criteria that the guidelines say, if met, makes it probably notable. Don't like the rules? Then write to WP to complain. Gravelocator (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete US coverage is STILL..local coverage. A man gets angry at "haughty" (she was not, but the article indicates HE thought so) client, kills her, and then tries to cover his tracks by a) making it look like a fire and b) trying to appear normal at other jobs. That¨s it in this case. There is no particular cruelty or bizarre motive here; nor is there any particularly interesting form of coverup, nor has the police work any extraordinary features. The only thing that seems to catch the eye about this case is that a professional exterminator killed his client. I don't think that is sufficient for notability.Arildnordby (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see nothing that suggests this murder meets WP:N/CA and WP:CRIME. This case seems to have only WP:ROUTINE coverage in regards that there was press for the crime, trial, and sentencing, but no significant coverage beyond that had any lasting effects. The keep arguments largely seem caught either in personal opinion or based on the scale of the murder in terms of the city and the local. Wikipedia has mandates beyond. Lastly, the fail to adequately address the policies directly in how this article meets specific points in crime and event related Wikipedia policies. Mkdwtalk 06:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A number of other "Murder of ____" articles have withstood the deletion process according to my research. Such statement is often met with "other crap exists" but the fact that those other passed the deletion process says something. Also, even if you think it fails one guideline, as long as it passes another one, say, notability or general notability or something else, it qualifies for an article. The Barack Obama article fails the criteria for WP:MUSIC even though President Obama sings in public. Yet, that article passes the general notability guideline and is not subject to deletion. Gravelocator (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was not a routine murder (the kind that garner little or no publicity) and people will continue to seek information. This page will be quite useful as the trials and appeals happen and people turn to the Internet for information.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This IS, on basis of the FACTS, precisely a routine murder, with no significant particulars to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. The ONLY unique detail here, is that it was a professional exterminator who became a murderer. That's it.Arildnordby (talk) 21:24, 3 February 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, MBisanz talk 21:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Inbetweeners episodes. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Camping Trip

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

No encylopedic content and unlikely to ever have any. Indiasummer95 (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 29 January 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, MBisanz talk 21:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Browne

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

As an MMA fighter he had no fights for a top tier organization, so he fails WP:NMMA. As a boxer, he fails to meet WP:NBOX. His title is from a minor organization, and not a world title at that, plus Boxrec currently ranks him 65th in the world. Finally, the article has no sources except for links to his MMA and boxing records. Papaursa (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The article needs some work but I would say his ranking as a boxer, world title and MMA fights combined deem him notable. WP:NMMA does not apply to boxers, not sure if you were aware of that Papaursa. Sepulwiki (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course WP:NMMA doesn't apply to boxers, but WP:NBOX does. The article claims he's both a boxer and MMA fighter, but he doesn't meet either notability criteria. Also, he doesn't hold a world title--he holds a regional title from a very minor organization. He clearly doesn't hold a world title from a major organization nor is ranked in the top 10 by Ring magazine. Papaursa (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the World Boxing Foundation website [4]says that Sakiusa Mekemeke is their Asia Pacific heavyweight champion (and he's had a total of 3 fights and 2 wins). Papaursa (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of the coverage added falls under WP:ROUTINE--fight announcements, results, his record, etc. There is no significant coverage of him from independent sources. As the above IP pointed out--he doesn't meet any of the 3 possible notability criteria that would apply to him. Talk about resume padding--he's unbeaten and his last opponent has 67 losses. Mdtemp (talk) 20:52, 29 January 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, MBisanz talk 21:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This discussion has died out without a clear consensus being formed. Perhaps a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) concerning league cup matches is in order to clarify things. J04n(talk page) 11:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Higgins (footballer born 1993)

edit
Andy Higgins (footballer born 1993) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep He has played a senior game at club level in the League Cup.ref Special situation, I know, but is that above or below the bar of WP:NFOOTBALL? The League Cup doesn't seem to be mentioned on WP:FPL. The-Pope (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cup games don't count especially not the league cup... FA Cup just maybe. In any case the fact is he hasn't played a senior pro league game.Simione001 (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Is this "rule" stated anywhere? League cup seems to be less prestigious that the FA Cup, but unlike the FA Cup, it only includes fully pro teams? The-Pope (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFOOTBALLSimione001 (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I can see a lawyer trying to interpret "playing in a fully professional league" as implying by omission that Cup comps don't count, is that what was really intended? To me a Cup competition consisting of only fully professional teams fulfils the requirement of being a fully professional league. Surely this isn't the first time this has been tested? Are there precedents? The-Pope (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A league game is a league game and a cup game is a cup game. simple as that. They do not overlapSimione001 (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guidelines are written with the best intentions, but they can never cover all the possible scenarios. Unless evidence can be shown that this was discussed and deliberately worded in this way to exclude cup games, you now have both Michael and myself thinking that a cup game between two pro teams is notable. The-Pope (talk) 07:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Show some WP:COMMONSENSE - playing the the FA Cup Final doesn't make you notable according to NFOOTBALL as it is currently worded and we all know that's bullshit. GiantSnowman 14:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – While anyone who played in a FA cup final would undoubtedly meet WP:GNG, NFOOTBALL is only a safety net for players who have not received sufficient coverage. My opinion in this case is that a guy who was hauled off after playing less than 90 minutes of one incidental match, which was not "competitive" in my opinion. The match report linked in the article details how Portsmouth fielded nine teenagers and also describes "a near-youth team". Higgins has not received sufficient coverage to meet the GNG – and quite why we should have such articles on Wikipedia is beyond me. Anyone studying NFOOTBALL will see he does not meet its criteria, as it does not grant an exception for the league cup. I do however believe it would be beneficial to reword NFOOTBALL if there are those who believe it does not serve its purpose. C679 14:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Two fully pro sides in the league or the cup - no difference. The fact that NFOOTBALL does not reflect this says more about NFOOTBALL than this player. It needs rewriting and a new consensus gained on its wording or this sort of discussion will keep coming back.--Egghead06 (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on, you can't suggest he is notable for NFOOTBALL despite not meeting it, because the notability criteria is wrong. Surely he's not notable because he doesn't meet the criteria! C679 20:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of quoting this discredited NFOOTBALL take a look at what actaully happens. Many articles on footballers have been created where their only game(s) have been in the FA or League cups. Recent examples (without any prejudice) being George Colson and Reece Hales. This has been happening for years. Some end up being nominated for deletion, some not. The vast majority would not pass WP:GNG. The result is these deletion dicussions, a hit and miss approach to deletion and confusion. As I say, NFOOTBALL needs changing despite your curious comment of "I do however believe it would be beneficial to reword NFOOTBALL if there are those who believe it does not serve its purpose." --Egghead06 (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And, linking so thoughtfully with GNG, where is the evidence this individual meets GNG? Noone voting "keep" is suggesting he passes it; if the only reason given to keep, NFOOTBALL, is as you say "discredited", surely this is no basis upon which to keep the article. C679 07:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on GNG alone many articles on young footballers who make brief appearances in league or cup would not pass. NFOOTBALL only mentions league. Question - why is making a league appearance for a pro side confer notability and yet making an appearance for a pro side in a cup game doesn't? Different rules? Different governing body? Anything different? Nope - still a pro in a pro side from a pro league against another pro team!--Egghead06 (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Cup competitions often include amateur sides whereas a professional league does not. Either all cup games should pass NFOOTBALL or none not individual games in tournament which also involves amateur or semi-pro teams. If deleted this article can easily be re-created when the individual meets NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. I follow Australian association football and I've never even heard of this guy. Simione001 (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In the case of this player, he played in the Football League Cup, which is only open to fully professional teams, not amateurs or semi-pros.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ultimately, I am in agreement that this should be closed by an admin if contested. The policy states, Players who have appeared... in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable, and A player that signs for a domestic team and has played in any games is generally regarded as notable. nless I am extremely rusty on my sporting terminology, a cup is technically a professional game. In addition, if the cup is between two league teams, although technically not part of the season, it still counts as having appeared in a fully professional league in this case A-League. If you go into fully professional leagues it specifically cites cups as grounds for notability. The discussion about his actual contributions during the league game is irrelevant to the policy or the merits of the article against it. Mkdwtalk 09:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent a few days looking over some WP:NFOOTBALL articles and reading the corresponding guidelines. While I think the article should remain I'm withdrawing my comment in light of my involvement. Mkdwtalk 03:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would imagine that a guy who has played 100 times in a non-FPL would have more people looking for an article than Andy Higgins, but the guidelines are there to help us make calls when the notability is questionable. As for "common sense", does he meet GNG? No. Why? He has not been the subject of significant coverage from independent reliable sources. You can find his existence in reliable sources, as you said; but are there multiple sources which discuss aspects of his career beyond the routine match reports report? No. Thus GNG is not met. Does he meet NFOOTBALL? No. Why? He has not played a minute of professional league football. C679 01:17, 3 February 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, MBisanz talk 21:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see a reason to deviate from WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG here. Higgins is a youth player who happens to have played just over an hour of cup football. It clearly states youth players are not notable unless they've played in a fully professional league, senior international or meet GNG. League competitions are generally more notable than Cup competitions. It also feels wrong for League Cup players to have pages whereas participants in the more prestigious FA Cup don't. No prejudice against recreating if he gets promoted from Perth's youth team and plays in the A-League, or any other fully pro-league for that matter. Funny Pika! 01:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA Western Conference Final broadcasters

edit
List of NBA Western Conference Final broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of NBA Eastern Conference Final broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This grouping does not receive significant coverage and fails WP:LISTN. Information for an individual year is more suited to individual articles like 2012 NBA Playoffs. However, I wouldn't advise merging as the entire list is currently based off discussion forums, which are not reliable. I've also added List of NBA Eastern Conference Final broadcasters to this discussion for the same reasons.—Bagumba (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:04, 30 January 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) 20:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden's Next Top Model, Cycle 6

edit
Sweden's Next Top Model, Cycle 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has no sources, and seems to have little importance. Scientific Alan 2(Click here to talk)(What have I done?)(Me) 22:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you would've taken a closer look, several seasons of this show (let alone of the international version of this franchise) have their own article as well. So I don't think the question of importance is really necessary here. I am now adding some sources. Keep. Shameless (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that other stuff exists is irrelevant. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to delete all 200 articles of this show now? This is a TV hit show of broad interest. I think that is speaking for itself. Shameless (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:10, 30 January 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) 20:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Billy the Kid's Gun Justice

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

This article has no content and does not satisfy WP:MOVIE. Andrew327 20:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Andrew327 20:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think that's a great idea. Andrew327 20:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! We all make mistakes sometimes. Too bad it went unnoticed for so long. --Bensin (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: With a search engine test, I see that this film has a lot of hits in Google Books, but from what I can tell, the film is only mentioned briefly. Is anyone even able to find a capsule review? Also, Google News turns up even less results, also spartan. The film is mentioned all around briefly, but I'm not sure if the topic complies with WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Open to hear what others have to say. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is the version that was nominated. It is still unclear if the nominator reviewed the article's history before nominating it for deletion. I asked the user here but the user has not yet answered. Notability is not a problem since the film has "received significant coverage in reliable sources". --Bensin (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in preserving our cinematic history. We do not expect a 62-year-old film remain in headlines, and have enough verifiability in it being worth mentioning in many books covering films of that period to accept that, even if not all 1940 news sources are in 2013 archives, a western made during world-war two was notable enough to have been included in 1940 news articles even if pushed off of main pages by coverage of the wars in Europe and The Pacific. The article first brought to AFD as lacking content and sourcing, NOW has content and sourcing and serves our readers. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biofunctionalisation

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

This article lacks context or sources. Andrew327 19:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Meiser, F.; C. Cortez; F. Caruso (2004-11-12). "Biofunctionalization of Fluorescent Rare-Earth-Doped Lanthanum Phosphate Colloidal Nanoparticles". Angewandte Chemie International Edition. 43 (44). WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA: 5954–5957. doi:10.1002/anie.200460856.

Schroedter, A.; H. Weller (2002-11-13). "Biofunctionalization of Silica-Coated CdTe and Gold Nanocrystals". Nano Letters. 2 (12). American Chemical Society: 1363–1367. doi:10.1021/nl025779k.
Grancharov, S. G.; H. Zeng; S. Sun; S. X. Wang; S. O'Brien; C. B. Murray; J. R. Kurtley; G. A. Held (2005). "Bio-functionalization of Monodisperse Magnetic Nanoparticles and Their Use as Biomolecular Labels in a Magnetic Tunnel Junction Based Sensor". J. Phys. Chem. B. 109 (26). ACS Publications: 13030–13035. doi:10.1021/jp051098c.
Boyer, Cyrille; Volga Bulmus; Thomas P. Davis (2009). "Efficient Usage of Thiocarbonates for Both the Production and the Biofunctionalization of Polymers". Macromolecular Rapid Communications. 30 (7). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: 493–497. doi:10.1002/marc.200800708.
Wang, C.; Z. Ma; T. Wang; Z. Su (2006). "Synthesis, Assembly, and Biofunctionalization of Silica-Coated Gold Nanorods for Colorimetric Biosensing". Advanced Functional Materials. 16 (13). WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA: 1673–1678. doi:10.1002/adfm.200500898.
Shuhua, L.; Z. Zhang; M. Han (2005). "Gram-Scale Synthesis and Biofunctionalization of Silica-Coated Silver Nanoparticles for Fast Colorimetric DNA Detection". Anal. Chem. 77 (8). ACS Publications: 2595–2600. doi:10.1021/ac0482864.
Stutzmann, M.; J. A. Garrido; M. Eickhoff; M. S. Brandt (November 2006). "Direct biofunctionalization of semiconductors: A survey". Physica Status Solidi A. 203 (14). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: 3424–3437. doi:10.1002/pssa.200622512.
Szamocki, Rafael; Stephane Reculusa; Serge Ravaine; Phil N. Bartlett; Alexander Kuhn; Rolf Hempelmann (2006). "Tailored Mesostructuring and Biofunctionalization of Gold for Increased Electroactivity". Angewandte Chemie International Edition. 45 (8). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: 1317–1321. doi:10.1002/anie.200503292.
Boyer, C.; Volga Bulmus; Priyanto Priyanto; Wey Yang Teoh; Rose Amal; Thomas P. Davis (2008). "The stabilization and bio-functionalization of iron oxide nanoparticles using heterotelechelic polymers". J. Mater. Chem. 19. RCS Publishing: 111–123. doi:10.1039/B815202K.
Bunimovich, Y. L.; Guanglu Ge; Kristen C. Beverly; Ryan S. Ries; Leroy Hood; James R. Heath (2004). "Electrochemically Programmed, Spatially Selective Biofunctionalization of Silicon Wires". Langmuir - The ACS Journal of Surfaces and Colloids. 20 (24). ACS Publications: 10630–10638. doi:10.1021/la047913h.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tally Solutions

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

Challenged prod. Very minor ERP and accounting software vendor. Some industry awards, but nothing to lift it past WP:MILL. Distinctly lacking in external sourcing too. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article needs work, but there are plenty of reliable sources to establish notability per WP:CORP. For example, like this. Andrew327 20:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Not really minor software vendor. There is a huge market in India itself for accounting software, and Tally product along with Finnacle from Infosys are maximum sold accounting software here. And this is not new information, it was true 15 years back too.--GDibyendu (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So where are the independent references, as required at WP? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because they are not used yet, does mean they don't exist - you cannot delete a page because most refs used are from primary sources, right? Check Google News and Google Books links, you'll see plenty.--GDibyendu (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Not sure about the "very minor" and "run-of-the-mill" reasoning above. The referencing is not great, but that is not at all unusual for south Asia related articles - the main problem is finding an external source that is not trying to sell it to you. I think it's one in need of improvement rather then deletion. Astronaut (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Will userfy upon request Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being Ginger

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

I have been unable to find reliable sources sufficient to satisfy WP:MOVIE. Andrew327 19:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to insufficient coverage from reliable sources about this topic. The link that Colapeninsula shared above is a good start, but we basically need to see if this film gets solid coverage upon release. If it does, no problem with recreating the article for this topic. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Userfy. It's just a little too soon for this to merit its own article. I have no problem with it getting userfied, but so far there isn't much. I'd say incubate, but I'm finding some things that suggest that this has been in production for years now and I'm not sure that this will really ever get completed or get that coverage it needs.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Clearly non-notable, unsourced BLP, BLP problems in general Acroterion (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morella Addams

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

CSD removed by anon, doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG. Currently an unsourced BLP to boot. Article and corresponding talk page need salting.  Ryan Vesey 18:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. All deleted as blatant hoaxes — foxj 01:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dinocaeruleus smithii

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

Apparent (but not blatantly apparent) hoax. None of the references are relevant for this particular "species". —Wasell(T) 18:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hogg (sodomy defendant)

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

The person fails the basic notability criteria, as depth of coverage is not substantial. Nothing is known about the person other than the alleged crime. Regarding the crime victims and perpetrators criteria, I would suggest that those criteria are also not met. One of the listed sources outlines the alleged crime in some detail, and the other online source devotes one paragraph to the case. I don't have access to the offline source. I suggest that the alleged crime might be of interest to other articles, for example Capital punishment in Connecticut (as the reasons are given why the alleged perpetrator could not be sentenced to death) or Sodomy laws in the United States; it may well be appropriate to merge some of the content to those articles. Schwede66 18:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Having had a quick look at Category:Zoosexuality, there are other articles there of questionable notability, where the above arguments may equally apply. So if the consensus is to delete this article, and to merge some of the content to other more relevant articles, this may well impact on some of the biographies listed in the zoosexuality category, too. Schwede66 18:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is somewhat obvious that the author of the article would be in favour of keeping it. Anyway, it is not true that nothing is known about the person except for the alleged crime. There isn't much information, but there is a Background section, as is customary in articles about criminals. I am not sure what counts as substantial depth of coverage, but the subject of the article, his alleged crime and his methods of defense are discussed by several secondary sources, only three of which are cited in the article (as I believed that would be enough). The "motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." The coverage of "the event in reliable secondary sources... persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." (WP:PERP) Surtsicna (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N/CA. Quote from policy: People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead. See also, creating a pseudo-biography. Poeticbent talk 19:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, would it not be easier to move the article to Trial of Thomas Hogg or something similar? According to that policy and Schwede66's views, the only problem with the article is its name. Surtsicna (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole article is written like a pseudo-biography (all the way through) and it fails even the most basic inclusion test. Write a new article, if you care. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 00:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, does the article focus on the individual or on the event? Schwede and you seem to be saying completely different things and it cannot be both. If the article already focuses on the event because too little is known about the individual (as Schwede claims), then the obvious solution is to shift the focus to the event. Moving the article would obviously include the removal of Template:Infobox person and possibly its replacement with another infobox, as well as amendments to the lead paragraph. Surtsicna (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum. I see, the article has been moved, and rewritten. However, the new name is not compliant with our policy/guidelines. Google search for "Thomas Hogg" yielded about 49,600 results, many of them living professionals (even CEOs and elected politicians across Europe and North America) who might have been taken to court at some point in their careers. The article title is not only fussy but also provocative. The year of the trial must be added in brackets per our wp:title. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 18:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You did not seem to have anything against the new title when I suggested it. If none of those living professionals is notable, I do not see anything wrong with the present title. Furthermore, if this is the only notable trial of a Thomas Hogg, then the title seems right. Either way, this is not the place to discuss the title of the article. Surtsicna (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep When a 350 year old court case is still turning up recent cites in law texts, then that's a notable case. The idea that the notability of an article on that incident depends on the phrasing of the article title (which is trivially changed, should anyone insist) is the worst sort of WP sophistry. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has been substantially re-worked and now describes a notable event. It still needs a little work, e.g. sourcing to prove the historical importance, but it's much improved. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move back to the original title, because it's a biography. Anyone from the 17th century who gets substantial recent coverage should be covered in a general encyclopedia. BLP1E and corresponding pages for longer-dead people are meant for people who get a flurry of coverage in the news or about whom virtually nothing is known. This guy is being covered by longer-term sources, and it's obvious that far more than a stub can be written. Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable enough, also I think current title is better than the original one.--Staberinde (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Janetzki

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

I can't find the requisite independent RS coverage of this person, such as would satisfy our notability requirements. One-sentence article. Tagged for notability since 2009. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fairfax_County_Public_Schools. merge to the #Debate_over_grading_policy section ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAIRGRADE

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

I'm as certain as I can be from the writing that this passes WP:DUCK as a copyright violation, but I can't find the source. It looks, tastes, and feels as if it is from some promotional brochure. It also appears not to assert notability, nor verify it. The references are from primary sources. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm finding some sources that shows that there might be notability enough to keep, but offhand I'll say that the entire article needs to be re-written. It's fairly promotional in favor of FAIRGRADE and is rife with citation needed sections. I've found some sources, including a nice one from Time Magazine, but I'm halfway debating re-writing it first with what I do have and then resuming looking for sources.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Fairfax_County_Public_Schools#Debate_over_grading_policy. I found sources, but ultimately this group really only gained notice over the grading scale issues. They haven't really achieved any notice since then. Considering that their notability directly stems from the Fairfax grading policies, I recommend merging any pertinent data to that section and redirecting there. From what I can see, this would generally involve a cleaning of the section over the debate and adding sources from this article.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Boldly speedy keeping this article per WP:KEEP (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 20:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matthäus Hetzenauer

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

Poorly sourced, kills are unconfirmed, and uncited. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 16:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I cannot see the issue. There are sources, and his 345 killings are confirmed:
  • Peter Brookesmith: Sniper-Training, Techniques and Weapons, London 2000, ISBN 3-613-02247-8. (Page 43)
  • Peter R. Senich: The German Sniper – 1914-1945. Boulder, London and Melbourne 1982, ISBN 0-87364-223-6 (Page 113)
  • Adrian Gilbert: Sniper – The World of Combat Sniping. London 1994, ISBN 0-283-06165-0. (Page 88)

--FoxyOrange (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep [edit conflict] I found those three sources as well in less than two minutes. Which would be more appropriate here, adding those citations or just deleting the work of other editors, which probably took at least 30 minutes in total to build this article? Deletion is appropriate for articles where reliable sources ARE NOT AVAILABLE not when they are available but the nominator for deletion can't be bothered to add them, or even just add "citation needed."--Brian Dell (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was already deleted as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion" by RHaworth (talk · contribs). jonkerz ♠talk 20:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mastering windows 8 using javascript

edit
Mastering windows 8 using javascript (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD by creator. Does not meet WP:NBOOK. —Theopolisme (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Student Groups in St Andrews

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

The subject is not notable enough to deserve its own article, and the subject is too obscure for a reasonable amount of citations to be found. Xyphoid (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Morrison

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

Fighter fails WP:NMMA, and hasn't competed since June of 2010. LlamaAl (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ronys Torres

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

Fails WP:NMMA with two fights for the UFC. LlamaAl (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Brammer

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

Subject does not meet WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 My Lai Massacre. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Meadlo

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

Contested prod. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. biography of a person known for a single event. RadioFan (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, was involved in a high-profile single event and in the subsequent frenzied investigation -- see "And babies". DS (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Lewin

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

I'm not sure if he is notable enough for a page Telfordbuck (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Agree, also other football clubs such as Liverpool FC don't have a Wikipedia page about their first team physiotherapist probably because they're not significant enough. Adding request for speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh1024 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Professional players who have actually played, top club managers - they have built-in notability. Physios don't, per se. Only if they are otherwise notable do they get an article. Peridon (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decodrip

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

Unsourced OR article about an new art technique that someone is trying to astroturf across the web (see [6]). - MrX 14:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mahajayjaykar

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

Infrequently used Hindi term, used to praise Indian religious guru Asaram Bapu. Word has not been covered in any reliable Hindi source. — Bill william comptonTalk 06:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Adolf Hitler in popular culture. MBisanz talk 00:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler (retail store)

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

This article reads like a news story. Generally, I don't believe this company is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. MZMcBride (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Needs a rewrite, but seems to have gained enough attention to warrant an article. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've got no particular dog in this fight, I just happened to trip across this article on my phone the other day. But I can say that all of the sources you're pointing to are from the same week when the Wikipedia article was written. The Wikipedia article was written on August 29, 2012 and the sources (all of them) date between August 28 and September 4 (August 30, August 30, August 31, September 4, August 29, September 3, August 31, August 29, September 4, August 28, August 29). Has there been any coverage since this story went viral? The nature of wire stories (from Agence France-Presse or from the Associated Press) is that they'll be covered in multiple outlets over a short period of time. I think that's what we're seeing here. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What MZMcBride says. Barely a blimp on the radar, and we're not the news--we should not be enshrining every little bit picked up by media that need at least one juicy silly story per day to keep the advertisers happy. Drmies (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.. (I wrote it.) It may have been a blimp on the radar, but I believe it will remain an anecdote which will reappear in published works on Adolf Hitler, antisemitism (in India), etc. And when people stumble upon these references they are going to turn to us to get the full story. With respect to the nomination, I agree that the company doesn't warrant an article, however, the incident does. Would it be any better to change the title to "Hitler" clothing store naming controversy or something similar? And should we bother? __meco (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Behold a Pale Horse (2013 film)

edit
Behold a Pale Horse (2013 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreleased apparently amateur film with no sign of meeting WP:NFILM. Nat Gertler (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Space Alien (TV series)

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

I can find no evidence that this television series exists. Contested prod.

I am also nominating the companion article:

List of Space Alien episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ... discospinster talk 04:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ascendancy (album). Clear consensus that this song lacks sufficient coverage to warrant an individual page. (non-admin closure)  Gong show 08:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like Light to the Flies

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

Fails WP:NSONGS; there appears to be so significant coverage of the song to warrant a stand-alone article.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:30, 27 January 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Menudo_(band)#The_New_Menudo. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Moy

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

This page was nominated for deletion as a redirect by an IP editor for the following reason "says post songs on YouTube that he covers, is this person really note worthy enough?" I am converting to an AFD in good faith and making no comment on the whether it should be deleted or not. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Menudo_(band)#The_New_Menudo - It seems he has only worked with two boy bands, Menudo (which he has received the most attention) and One Call (which did not appear to be long term or significant). A Google News search for "Chris Moy singer" provided several results (continues at second page) relevant to Menudo but searches for the second boy band, One Call, did not provide anything but a different search provided this festival which talks a little about him. It seems I also found his YouTube page here. As mentioned, he has received the most attention for Menudo so redirecting may be a good option and it would leave the doors open for a future and notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:34, 27 January 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain View Cur

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

Article was previously AfD but nomination was withdrawn - however the only source I can find besides the Sarah's Dogs page is a passing mention in this book and numerous personal kennel pages. Seems to me that this is yet one more example of "putting my WP:MADEUP dog breed on wikipedia makes it legitimate." TKK bark ! 14:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doing a standard WP:SET it reveals mostly user submitted content (blogs, tripods websites, youtube) and in books and news it seems that their local newspaper wrote a story on their dog and that's it. Does not meet WP:GNG with multiple independent and reliable sources. No credible claim of notability. Mkdwtalk 06:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:32, 27 January 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unsourced, can't seem to find anything reliable that would indicate notability. 03:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventurousSquirrel (talk • contribs) 03:50, 3 February 2013‎
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wilcox Group. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mat Wilcox

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

The subject appears to potentially meet notability requirements, but the current article violates WP:NOT as an online resume or means of promotion. We could also reduce it to a sentence or two, but I don't feel the current is an improvement to Wikipedia. CorporateM (Talk) 23:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wilcox Group - For "Canada's Most Powerful Women", I found this press release, this event and profile and her profile at The Globe and Mail which mentions a lot of the information in the article but this would be considered as a primary source and insufficient. I found this news article which mentions Wilcox Group closed in 2010 due to a "rapidly shifting..communications and public relations landscape". She has certainly achieved quite a bit but it seems she is best known for her company with a Google News search "Mat Wilcox Wilcox Group" providing several results (including a The Globe and Mail article here in which she talks quite a bit) which would suggest the company may be notable though a separate search with only "Wilcox Group Canada" provided little (mainly press releases). Through a different search, I found this which mentions her multiple times through the five pages as well as Wilcox Group and the second page provides her education and family's history in business. This article also mentions she worked with Hyatt for five years as a crisis team member but a separate search for this did not provide anything relevant. I also found another The Globe and Mail article here about her which talks about when she was diagnosed with cancer, but it also mentions her work with the fast food restaurants, Pizza Hut and XM Radio. It seems she did not receive any third-party attention for the PR News Crisis Communicator of the Year with an insufficient source here and her The Globe and Mail profile also supporting that. For her Wellington Financial LP and S’Cool Life Fund work, it was the same thing, the Globe and Mail profile and this interview (in which she talks about the PR industry and her skills and also mentions XM Radio). For Scott's Real Estate Investment, I only found this PR blog. I can continue searching for sources with her other clients but I think it wouldn't do much as it seems she has never gained much news attention herself and more for Wilcox Group. As a result of this, this article reads like a résumé and with many insufficient/third-party references. However, for Telus, the sources are the Globe and Mail profile, a press release and this (which also mentions her work with KFC and Taco Bell). The bottom line is I will admit she has achieved quite a bit of work and a little bit of attention, mostly in Canada, but I don't think it is enough for an article that wouldn't read like an advertisement. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:23, 27 January 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lance Armstrong doping allegations. MBisanz talk 00:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emma O'Reilly

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

Blatant case of WP:1E. We have no biographical info about her. Merge to Lance Armstrong doping allegations if anything substantial here is not already there. When the Armstrong story drops out of the headlines, this article will lose all interest. Kevin McE (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:47, 21 January 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:58, 27 January 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DB Systel

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

subsidiary of another company that predominately provides services to the owning company. No indication of notability. Independent references given are either standard announcements are not directly about this company. noq (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:25, 27 January 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Crusade (album). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entrance of the Conflagration

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

Fails WP:NSONGS; there appears to be so significant coverage of the song to warrant a stand-alone article.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:24, 27 January 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shogun (Trivium album). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Mouth of Hell We March

edit
Into the Mouth of Hell We March (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONGS; there appears to be so significant coverage of the song to warrant a stand-alone article.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:23, 27 January 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesto Piedras

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

Since I am an unregistered user, here are the detailed reasons why I think this article should be deleted: Notability is non temporary. Yet this guy hasn't had anything relevant for years. Doesn't seem to comply with either NPOV or NOR (particularly because the user that created the page was blocked for spam: creating the wikipedia page for the same consulting company he heads as well as this one -of its CEO-). In fact, seems to fall squarely into the self promotion and indiscriminate policy. In fact, it seems to squarely fall into the G11 category for Speedy deletion, as well as A7 for non importance (publication does not equal relevance). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.71.255 (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion page created as requested by 92.225.71.255 (talk) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a Delete for me - doesn't seem to meet the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC - I would like to note that I think the analysis of the nominator isn't quite right, notability is non temporary means to me that once someone has become notable, then they are notable forever, not that you have to keep demonstrating notability throughout your life, but I stand to be corrected obviously. ---- nonsense ferret 15:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So I'm seeing some very basic coverage related to the telecomm industry in Mexico (such as it is), but nothing that would get him past WP:GNG. While he has worked for a Mexican state-owned company and two federal cabinet-level secretarias, that does not in and of itself confer notability. I could not source the claim that he worked with the executive branch in any capacity. Beyond that, being a professor at the ITAM is not notable (couldn't really find enough material to meet WP:PROF), and his company in general isn't really very notable either. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:50, 25 January 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, KTC (talk) 00:18, 27 January 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't have enough evidence for WP:PROF. And although I found a number of news stories quoting him as an expert, I found none with the sort of nontrivial coverage of the subject himself that would be needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search for his name using Google Scholar returned few articles, and the most cited was a self-published, poorly edited book. Seems like he does not meet notability criteria such as: Piedras' research has not made significant impact in his scholarly discipline; He has not received a highly prestigious academic award or honor; Ernesto has not been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association ; etc. --Forich (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qiang Duan

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

Appears to be fictional. No reference to him in the Zizhi Tongjian. No reference to him that I can find in the biographies of Liu Bei and Zhang Fei. Insufficient importance in the fictional Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Dug deeper. Found a reference in the biography of Cao Cao, so not fictional. However, in my opinion, still insufficiently notable (only reference there was to his killing Liu Bei's subordinate Wu Lan (吳蘭); no other reference to anything else he did). --Nlu (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:26, 20 January 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, KTC (talk) 00:09, 27 January 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator reversed tack. (non-admin closure) Gobōnobō c 18:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rowenna Davis

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

Insufficiently notable politician/journalist Pitcairne (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Satisfies the basic criteria, being the subject of coverage in a variety of respectable national media for a variety of activities and achievements. Andrew Davidson (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep She's also a charity activist, author and one of the UK's most beautiful talking heads for politics, frequently appearing on the BBC and Sky. She's highy notable as a scan of the article helps to demonstrate; it would be embarrassing not to have an entry for her. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have seen many articles up for deletion and can understand why they were considered for deletion. This time I do not have a clue why this article is up for deletion. I looked for Rowenna Davis on the internet. I found so much notable stuff. She has written a book that has gotten at least a few reviews. She has written much for The Guardian and The Observer, New Statesman, etc. In these publications her articles and commentaries are prominently displayed, sometimes with her photo at the top. She is a political commentator who holds a political office. Just Google 'Rowenna Davis' and I think you will see my point. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've read again and again some people see AfDs like a video game where they get a kick if they "score" and AfD. CarolMooreDC 17:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hello, I nominated this for deletion. From the contributions so far it seems I misjudged Rowenna Davis' prominence as a journalist, which I now realise is the primary justification for her notability, rather than being a minor local politician. I was a bit over-cynical. Apologies! Pitcairne (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bananarama discography. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 06:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now or Never (Bananarama EP)

edit
Now or Never (Bananarama EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An non-notable independent release which received little or no independent coverage. Per WP:NALBUMS as there is little information beyond a track listing an independent article is not required. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 01:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism hey! 11:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Php-virt-control

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

Does not meet notability guidelines (see WP:N) The Giant Purple Platypus (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 30 January 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, The Bushranger One ping only 01:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Mutapcic

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

Subject has not participated in any top-tier organization fights required to meet WP:NMMA. Mkdwtalk 00:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jacen Flynn

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

Subject has not participated in any top-tier organization fights required to meet WP:NMMA. Mkdwtalk 00:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Cobb

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

Subject has participated in 2 top-tier organization fights but remains 1 top-tier fight shy required to meet WP:NMMA. Mkdwtalk 00:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the Shooto fight was in the US, but under the main Shooto banner. Luchuslu (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a reliable source? --LlamaAl (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sherdog lists 'Shooto The Arrival This is Shooto as Shooto Americas. Mkdwtalk 02:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Lewis

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

Subject has not participated in any top-tier organization fights required to meet WP:NMMA. Mkdwtalk 00:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emyr Bussade

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

Does not have any top-tier organization fights required to meet WP:NMMA Mkdwtalk 00:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Bussade, Petkovic qualified for the actuall ADCC championships, not a secondary division. Papaursa (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Sanchez

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

Subject has 2 (Bellator MMA and Shooto) top-tier organization fights but remains 1 top-tier fight shy needed to meet WP:NMMA Mkdwtalk 00:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Harry Box "Set Lighting Technician" [[19]]
  2. ^ Kris Malkiewicz, Film Lighting: Talks with Hollywood's Cinematographers and Gaffers, Simon and Schuster, 2012.
  3. ^ "the best of the best"[[20]]
  4. ^ American Cinematographer 'Freedom Fighter' December 2012 page 66-76,
  5. ^ [21] Lighting Dimensions magazine "Going with the Grain"
  6. ^ [22] American Cinematographer magazine "Karma Chameleon"
  7. ^ [23] American Cinematographer magazine "Lighting Indy 4"
  8. ^ American Cinematographer - January 2012 - 'Animal Instincts' page 49
  9. ^ [24] American Cinematographer "The Last Great War",
  10. ^ [[25]]
  11. ^ [[26]]
  12. ^ [[27]]
  13. ^ [[28]]
  14. ^ 2012 Official Camerimage Announcement Detail [[29]]
  15. ^ [[30]]
  16. ^ [[31]]
  17. ^ [[32]]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_February_3&oldid=1142632347"