Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 July	22 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pearson (Canadian diplomat)

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

Government bureaucrat; does not meet the notability criteria of WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Search of Google and Google News did not find any significant coverage. Unreferenced since 2008. MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I didn't want to prod this article because it does appear to imply notability. Also, the article has been here a long time and has been edited by several different people. However, I do believe he fails the notability test. The only thing I found on a Google News search was this passing mention. --MelanieN (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although he is a member of an important political family as his grandfather won the Nobel Peace Prize and later became Prime Minister of Canada, notability is not inherited and this person is simply a competent but non-notable civil servant. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only "reference" being cited here is a dead link to an article written by, not about, him — thus, there is not sufficient sourcing here to pass either WP:BLP or WP:GNG. While it's certainly possible that he might be notable enough for a properly written article, as a living person he's not entitled to keep an unreferenced one, and there's no role that's so notable that the need to have articles about its holders overrides Wikipedia's rules about proper referencing. I'm certainly willing to reconsider this if the article actually sees improvement before closure, but in its current form it's an obvious delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't even find a mention of him at the website of the agency where he works, Fisheries and Oceans Canada - where I was hoping to find at least verification if not notability. The only verification I could find that he even works there is the article I cited above, where he is quoted as being "of" that agency. --MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This individual may be notable but we require WP:V. I did my best to locate _any_ source that mentioned this individual, but was unable to find anything. I tried both Google and the website of the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 18:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Suttungr (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silly Songs with Larry

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

This is a non-notable segment of VeggieTales. Unless there happen to be reliable and independent in-depth sources about this, this article should be deleted because this is mostly a excessive summary on what this segment is. Nor would I think the albums listed here are notable either. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 22:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge/Redirect - I'm getting a few hits on Bing News, but they're not particularly substantial, so maybe we could reduce this to a section on the VeggieTales page if anything? öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a highly popular segment. We do have some in-depth mention of it in this book and a number of news articles focusing on the segment. Given that the show began in the 90's, it is not surprising that online sources would be harder to come by, but they are there and do support having an independent article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For same reasons as I stated on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madame Blueberry‎ when the same editor flagged another VeggieTales page.
Keep Fictional element of which instances appear in multiple notable short films (Episodes, if you prefer), which individually have plenty of RSes. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of French football transfers winter 2013

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

PROD contested by DGG (talk · contribs). 'Winter 2013' refers to transfers made in December 2013/January 2014 i.e. the future. There is therefore no meaningful content to be had yet and so this fails WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 09:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. postdlf (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I seethe article presently lists one person, 8 May 2012 Claudio Beauvue/ Is this an error? It was the basis on which I declined the prod. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely - May 2012 is not winter 2013! Giant Snowman 10:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Violates WP:CRYSTAL. Page can be made after the summer window or all the transfer windows can be combined into 1 page for the whole 2013–14 season. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:40, 7 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The one name listed is wrong, too and should be in the summer 2013 part. SOXROX (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The 2013 winter transfer window in France was open between 1 January 2013 and 31 January 2013 (if in synch with the rest of Europe), that means that this is a list about something that has happened and means that WP:CRYSTAL can't be used as a rationale to delete the page. You should also check out List of French football transfers winter 2012. Yes, the list is incomplete and something should be done about it, but being a stub or a incomplete list is not a reason to delete, as this is a notable topic. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmmm, we appear to have a mystery- where are the winter 2013 transfers, then? They have to be somewhere on this site, don't they? SOXROX (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Obvious case of WP:TOOSOON. Once the list can be reasonably populated it should be included, but not yet. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Would make perfect sense if we were discussing the winter 2014 window, but last time I checked the 2013 January transfer window closed some months ago. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, I should really be paying more attention. Since we're talking about a past transfer window, then obviously this should be kept and properly populated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - regardless of whether we are talking about December 2012/January 2013 or December 2013/January 2014, I think we can all agree that May 2012 is not "winter 2013" - and as that is the only entry, the list serves zero purpose in its current state. Giant Snowman 18:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep and improve - The page List_of_French_football_transfers_winter_2012 details the list of transfers between end of dec 2011/end of jan 2012. List of French football transfers winter 2013 is clearly supposed to detail the list of transfers between end of dec 2012 and end of jan 2013. This article needs improvement and a look through the associated pages should enable the page to be updated (or someone with a better grasp of French could look at the French wikipedia season pages for the teams involved)=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Homie Quan

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

A not notable independent rapper that fails WP:BAND, nothing but trivial mentions and a google news search turns up nothing. STATic message me! 21:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The two references in the article when it was created, are both reliable sources, so he passes WP:GNG just fine. Dream Focus 23:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, two whole trivial mentions, one is just the posting of a new music video. Still does not pass WP:BAND in the slightest. STATic message me! 23:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An interview [1] is not a trivial mention. Dream Focus 00:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is clearly notable and has received a significant amount of coverage like [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Koala15 (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No doubt. 122.18.244.8 (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BASIC per [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient sources exist to meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Here are a couple more pieces of coverage: [13][14]. Gong show 13:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above, specifically Northamerica1000. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wanted to note as the article creator, that I decided to create this article based on its appearance very high in WP:TOPRED, which among other things, has helped to identify areas of bias in wikipedia coverage. In the area of popular young black rap artists, we have been falling short, certainly as compared to sketchy indie bands from Brooklyn with low record sales but coverage in sites like Pitchfork. Of course I also determined that the subject appeared to also be notable before creating the article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny-Lynn Hutcheson

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

Can't find any evidence of her meeting WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO or even WP:GNG. All of her roles were either minor, supporting ones or one-episode guest appearances, she did not win or was nominated for any awards even though the shows she appeared in were nor contributed to the entertainment industry in any way, and has no Facebook, Twitter, or official website showing any fan base. Furthermore, there was little-to-no coverage of her in news articles, interviews, blogs, etc. back while she was acting or even today to indicate that she has plans to act again in the future The Legendary Ranger (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I'm unable to find significant coverage (WP:GNG), and roles to date to not appear to satisfy WP:ENT. Gong show 14:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage; just mentions to credit a role like this. -- Whpq (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Suttungr (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Flickinger

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

tagged for notability in 2010. Probably does not meet our current guidelines DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable; page is also incorrect: she lost the 2010 election and is no longer a representative. Keri (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She was the mayor of Moreno Valley. See: [15]. – S. Rich (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, she was mayor in 2010, and of a fairly good sized city - but the mayor is not elected there, they are merely one of the city councilmembers elected to serve as mayor by the other councilmembers (who in those situations often rotate the office around among themselves so that they all get to be "mayor") - so her notability remains that of a city councilmember IMO. And for a city of that size, there is remarkably little to be found in sources about her. Fails WP:GNG and of course fails WP:POLITICIAN as well. --MelanieN (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is Moreno Valley, California a city of regional significance? It is the second largest city in Riverside County. It has a population larger than some of the cities where the result is 'keep.' My sense is the answer to my first question is no and therefore, based on WP:POLOUTCOMES the entry should be deleted. Enos733 (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Madame Blueberry

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

This article is about a Veggietales episode, released 15 years ago, that is pretty much non-notable like most of the other Veggietales shorts. All this article is is just an overly detailed plot summary, and a list of segments and songs in the episode. Thats it. There is nothing else in this article that shows this is a notable topic to be included on an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, and I wasn't able to find such thing. I'm also considering nominating the other episode articles for deletion, but I'll see after this review on what I will do with them. But as of now, this fails WP:NF. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 20:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep: Actually, the majority of them are notable. More Movie-Based Illustrations for Preaching and Teaching, Religion, Politics, Media in the Broadband Era, The New York Times Guide to the Best Children's Videos, Jesus Made in America, Quaker Life, and The Dove Foundation. SL93 (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Macon Telegraph, and Daily Herald. SL93 (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable topic per SL93's listed sources. It helps to search with Google Books to find these kinds of references. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A single VeggieTales episode isn't a notable topic. However, if there are indeed other articles with information about VeggieTales episodes, I recommend keeping those articles and adding a category, since there are about ten thousand articles out there about television show episodes, and only a handful have been deleted. I am Quibilia. (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - And I refuse to see Doctor Who confined to a single article. I am Quibilia. (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a notable topic if it passes WP:NF. Otherwise, it would just be your personal opinion. Technically, it isn't an episode. They were first released straight to video. SL93 (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Following EditorE's logic, a majority of all movie/television show pages would deleted. There is a page of just about every single video (which thus makes every page "notable") and although some (most?) are missing sufficient citations and tend to attract IP editors who are constantly adding in OR nonsense and trivial detail, this is hardly grounds for deletion and the page's failure to completely meet WP:NF appears to be simply his opinion - "sufficient" citations is only one part of Notability. Ckruschke (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
Comment: I have removed this AfD from the Television category. This is not a television episode. SL93 (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It did appear on television after initial distribution, so that part isn't completely inappropriate. It should also probably be listed on DELSORT christianity. Jclemens (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Part of my childhood was VeggieTales and I didn't know that. Interesting. SL93 (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I listed it at delsort Christianity earlier. SL93 (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple independent RS'es exist and are documented in this AfD sufficient to show that WP:GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kelly (DJ)

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

Non-notable DJ and bar owner; googling for "chris kelly" is difficult as he shares his name with a rapper; '"chris kelly" londoner' (with the name of his bar attached) turns up absolutely nothing. "Christopher Hodgson" doesn't turn up anything either. The only remotely notable mention of him anywhere appears to be in the article given, which doesn't satisfy WP:N, in my opinion. TKK ^{bark !} 19:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A blatant case of self promotion, a non notable individual. Finnegas (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Clearly a NN bar owner. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support (mobile framework)

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

Prodded by Lesser Cartographies (talk · contribs), but the article has already gone through AFD. Last AFD was in 2006, and closed as "no consensus". Prod reason was "No indication of notability. All of the journal and conference publications list Chatzigiannakis as the first author. The article is effectively his CV." Support prodder's reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As Chatzigiannakis doesn't have an article and this is indeed just a posting of his CV materials. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Halldóra Eldjárn

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

Without any reference Spartacks Compatriot 07:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although marriage to a politician implies a potential notability, did a Google and Google Books search and found no English sources and no promising foreign language sources either. II | (t - c) 08:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I believe spouses of heads of state should be presumed notable, but I have only been able to find 2 essentially identical obituaries, information from which I've added to the article. The fact her obit was published in both places (a major Icelandic newspaper and an online Icelandic news service) speaks to notability, but I had hoped to find more coverage. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:21, 8 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First ladies of countries are notable, period. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst I would not go so far as to say that the spouse of a head of state is automatically notable, it would be unusual for them not to be. The wife of a three term president in a small country is bound to become well known there and there is sufficient even in the references currently provided to confirm that. Obituaries and tributes will indicate if the person took little part in public life, whilst she is described as being widely liked and respected, a clear indication of notability for this purpose. There are other hints of notability from a Google search, but the Icelandic newspapers during her husband's period in office look as though they are probably not available online, and if so Google is going to give a poor indication of notability. Her lack of coverage in English language sources is irrelevant. --AJHingston (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection Catholic Cemetery (Dubuque, Iowa)

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

No evidence of meeting Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Closeapple (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also related nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resurrection Catholic Church (Dubuque, Iowa). --Closeapple (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Don Ameche is buried in the cemetery, but that doesn't show notability and I couldn't find any significant coverage. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Resurrection Catholic Church (Dubuque, Iowa) per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability on searching, and Resurrection Catholic Church (Dubuque, Iowa) is not notable either. -- 202.124.88.4 (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bushnell

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling suggests they don't exist. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY or otherwise unsuitable. Msnicki (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As documented in the GNU Hurd page, the Hurd is historically significant project because its development delays spurred the adoption of Linux. The primary sources are being used to document the straightforward fact that Mr. Bushnell was its founder and project leader for 12 years, which should qualify him for non-temporary notability. — Efrenmanes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:21, 12 July 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be helpful if you could point us at the sources you rely on, rather just asserting WP:ITSNOTABLE. Msnicki (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Giménez

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judging per List of professional sports leagues, M.GARCÍA and J.GIMÉNEZ have played pro league football (in AUSTRIA and MACEDONIA respectively). Don't know about M.MASSANA though. I'd say Keep first two. --AL (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given its lack of sourcing and less restrictive inclusion criteria, the list of pro sports leagues is not used in determining notability. The WikiProject Football maintains a separate list of fully pro leagues for notability purposes, on which the Macedonian First League is confirmed not to be fully professional. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Pants

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

Not notable. Since an IP address keeps removing speedy deletion nominations due to how he or she thinks this person meets the notability criteria for musicians, I'm going to take it here and see what everyone else thinks. I personally don't think this person is notable, since I can't find any significant coverage on him. The references are simply fluff. Lugia2453 (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject of the article meets WP:BAND #1 and #5. 114.164.113.153 (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with Lugia2453. --TRL (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the original nominator for speedy deletion. Fails WP:BAND and could have been A7ed. STATic message me! 19:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is plenty of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources ([16][17][18][19][20][21][22]) and the guy has multiple releases on Stones Throw Records. Meets WP:MUSICBIO & WP:GNG quite easily, as a WP:BEFORE search would've revealed. — sparklism ^hey! 10:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sparklism - plenty of sources exist to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Metacritic lists several write-ups about the subject and his works. Gong show 14:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The IP address who keeps removing the speedy deletion template is actually banned user User:Cvlwr (see the sock case for ample evidence that these addresses are logged-out edits from him). That would normally make one suspicious, but almost as disruptive is the fact that this article has been nominated for speedy deletion five or six times by many different veteran editors who apparently aren't doing their homework. Pants has a full biography at Allmusic, several full-lengths on Stones Throw Records, and, as Sparklism has showed, plenty of media coverage for them. Chubbles (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked out notability, but must point out that the feeding frenzy displayed by several editors who kept reinstating the speedy deletion tag after it had been validly contested is shocking. If anyone who is not the original creator of an article removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith with an explanation then you discuss the issue rather than edit war. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Phil Bridger, Considering the IP was shortly blocked afterwards and was being used for block evasion by User:Cvlwr, its edits should have rightfully been reverted. STATic message me! 21:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. None of the edit warriors who kept reinstating the speedy deletion template against policy knew that this was a block evader, and the article very obviously did contain indications of importance/significance, such as three albums on a notable label. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bioregional decolonization

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

Unsourced article about a non notable idea which has no or little coverage in the media, fails WP:GNG Finnegas (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely unsourced, no rationale to keep. Jamesx12345 (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article seems like a good faith effort by a user interested in Cascadian bioregionalism. There are reliable sources discussing this topic, but the specific term "bioregional decolonization" seems to be a new term coming out of the Cascadia movement. An article titled "Decolonization and bioregionalism" might be more appropriate, although "bioregional decolonization" does not seem like an egregiously weird way to combine these words. This material could also live at a section within the Bioregionalism article. groupuscule (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bioregionalism as suggested by Groupuscule. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 8 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unresolvably unreferenced. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Only !vote after two relistings is to merge to Koi No Yokan which can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leathers (Deftones song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG, as it has failed to chart. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 19:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Koi No Yokan. Summarizing this there would be better than deletion. Songs/singles do not need to chart to be notable by the way. --Michig (talk) 06:16, 7 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FX Copy

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

Was deproded by article author, but still seems to suffer from same issues of the sources being press releases and not being able to turn up independent reliable source coverage to establish notability. The only notability claim is a questionable one of being the first social trading network to be offered by an Australian based financial services firm that was directly link to the MetaQuotes' MetaTrader 4 trading platform. Not clear that even if that was established in reliable sources (which it is not) that it is a notable fact. Overall this seems like a non-notable FOREX trading website that has no reliable source coverage available. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. A Google news search shows no reasonable coverage of reliable sources. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:02, 14 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh Napier Student Law Review

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

I previously put a WP:PROD on this article with the rationale "No reliable 3rd party sources demonstrating that this new student publication meets the WP:NJOURNAL criteria." The Prod was removed by the article creator without comment or remediation, along with the maintenance tags. The issues remain so I am bringing it to AfD on the same rationale. AllyD (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Relatively new journal, too young to have become notable yet. Article creation premature. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 12:07, 7 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALS. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In many ways, this is a model AFD, with the participants giving a thoughtful consideration of the merits of the topic and the article. In answer to 208.81.184.4, IPs get to participate and "vote" (except that we are not really supposed to be voting in AFDs at all), and thoughtful comments such as what you provided are always considered.

After considering the opinions here, the situation is that the subject may be notable, but that the article currently relies far too much on quotations from religious text, and with a lack of sources based on independent commentary. In general, we do not delete articles on notable subjects just because the article is in poor condition, as these types of problems may be fixed through routine editing. However, the issue of lack of independent sourcing that Descartes1979 brought up, and the concerns over original research that Good Ol'factory had are issues that an article can be deleted over. Peterkingiron and 208.81.184.4 think there is potential for an article, but have agreed that the article as it stands now has issues. DavidLeighEllis argued that the subject is notable, but did not address the issues with the article as it stands now.

In total, I believe that while there is no general agreement on whether the topic is suitable, we do have a rough consensus that the current article should not stay, and I am therefore calling this with a "delete" outcome. This should not be viewed as a prohibition on an new article on the topic that addresses the issues that were brought up here. If someone wants access to the deleted content, feel free to contact me or any other administrator. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perfection (Latter Day Saints)

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

This article is an incredibly obscure topic in Mormon doctrine, about the interplay between faith, works, and grace etc. There is no independent research/commentary on the topic of any substance, so the article is doomed to always be heavily POV. The result is this article has been for the last several years mostly ignored by non-Mormon editors, and has turned into something that resembles a sunday school lesson in the Mormon church. I propose we delete this page altogether, and add a couple of sentences (all that is needed) to Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints‎ to summarize the concepts. (This is actually already covered somewhat in that other article). Descartes1979 (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this article is problematic; I think it's composed of a lot of original research. Ultimately, I think conceptually it is probably mostly redundant to Exaltation (Mormonism), which is the name given to the status that one attains upon achieving perfection. I would merge any content to that article that is not already there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is a poorly presented article, sicne it consists mostly of quotes. I am not a LDS, and find the content difficult to judge. I doubt there are any non-LDS experts in LDS theology. It sounds to me like a topic on which we ought to have an article. Do we not have some LDS-WPans, which would be capable of turning this into a decent article? Peterkingiron (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a number of experts in LDS theology and history who are not LDS. Jan Shipps comes to mind—though she specialises in history, she also knows more about the details of theology than many members of the LDS faith. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:24, 8 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I know that IP's don't get a !vote on deletions, but "perfection" is a far more common topic in discourses by General Authorities of the LDS Church, as well as in core LDS literature in the last 100 years, than say Kolob (which we have a very extensive article for). In fact it is one of the principle elements of the "Three-Fold Mission of the Church" (essentially the church's modern mission statement), which is "to proclaim the gospel, to perfect the Saints [i.e. the members of the church], and to redeem the dead." That being said, this is a terrible article in it's current state. Also, given that there are distinct parallels to doctrines of some denominations in mainstream Christianity, this topic is not frequently fought over by apologetic & polemic sources (unlike Kolob), nor is it covered much academically in Mormon studies, so there isn't that much written about it other than directly by church leaders and members themselves. It is such a broad topic that we really can't do any better job here than at Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints‎, since "Perfection" (i.e. perfecting the Saints) covers pretty much everything LDS Church members believe & do (for religious reasons) that is not directly related to Missionary & Temple work. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: IP editors actually have no restrictions in AfD discussions (WP:AFDFORMAT), and can nominate for AfD but need a registered user to finish the last two steps (WP:AFDHOW).

czar · · 18:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability within cultural context is sufficient. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fikrejesus Amahazion

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. This remains valid as Mr. Amahazion has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been updated with note of playing for Calgary Mustangs of USL American professional league. (talk)

Delete - Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Plus there's stuff on that page that look to be a clear example of WP:PN. – Michael (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to The Avengers: Age of Ultron. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel's Avengers: Age of Ultron

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

also created at The Avengers: Age of Ultron, which was hastily created from Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Avengers: Age of Ultron, which is where all the editing should reside. we need a quick merge or delete so we dont have 2 articles, and a merge template might take too long. I am not sure which title is more correct. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article and the AfD were created prematurely. There is already an incubated article for this film and move was already under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Avengers: Age of Ultron.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy administrative close as redirect, no more problem with a split article/premature article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Derbyshire

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

Non-notable. No indication why he's notable – this could describe any journalist/writer who's been in journalism for a while. Now everyone even the most humble blogger has their own web site and biographies on sites they write for; this does not make them notable. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has an impressive-looking list of references. However, these "references " mainly excel in obfuscation: all that is given is the name of the source, not the title, not the author, nothing else. If one actually makes the effort to go look at them, you will see, for example, that the New Statesman never wrote anythnig about Derbyshire, but just posted a list of articles that he published. Publishing is what journalists do, it doesn't make them notable. Given the absence of reliable sources about this person, this misses WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- It may be well-sourced, but that does not prevent his being NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tyias Browning

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested when speedy deletion per G12 was declined. The delete rationale remains valid nonetheless. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd delete it. While the player has the potential to meet WP:GNG at some point in the near future he doesn't at the moment. In the event he actually plays for Everton in a professional game the page can be recreated. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- He remains NN until a regualr member of the first team. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not yet notable: fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTBALL. Clicriffhard (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeper cell (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page contains only two valid entries and one is the primary topic. Per WP:TWODABS I've added hatnotes to each of the articles and there is no longer any reason for there to be a disambiguation page. Nick Number (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 21. Snotbot t • c » 16:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sleeper agent is linked from clandestine cell system. This seems like it should be uncontroversial; G6 may have been more appropriate. —rybec 23:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Sleeper Cell" is the commonly used term, therefore it is really confusing for users to go through more than one link. I don't know if there's a solution, but Clandestine Cell System is a really confusing name, sleeper agent is often what users searching "Sleeper Cell" are looking for. CaffeinAddict (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it can also be a kind of cancer stem cell, see this NY Times article, or just research it online. See also WP:BITE and take off your blinders. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really a commonly-used term? The word "sleeper" doesn't appear anywhere in the stem cell or cancer stem cell articles, nor in the body of the NYT Magazine article you linked. It looks like the author chose to use wordplay in order to have a catchier title. It doesn't seem likely that people would go to the Wikipedia article for "sleeper cell" solely based on that.

Furthermore, in regard to your last sentence, what are you talking about? What newcomers are being bitten, and by whom? And who's wearing blinders? Nick Number (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with this, I was wondering who was being nasty. Turns out no one... who is User:Bearian? CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian is an admin who has been an editor for over 7 years. Bearian (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant to say is that (a) there are many possible sources online (see the links for Google news and scholar above) that describe more than one meaning for "sleeper cell", (b) some newbies have worked on this article, and it would be nice to them to keep their work unless it harms Wikipedia, and (c) think outside the box - the English language can have many meanings for a word or phrase - that is why we have "dab" (disambiguation) pages. However, it's just a dab page, so don't get stressed out or insulted about whether it's deleted or not. Bearian (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the utility of diambiguation pages, and I have a fair amount of experience in working with them. However, in the absence of any other meanings which could reasonably be a source of confusion, I don't believe that this one serves any useful purpose right now. Nick Number (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've made some improvements, and it's a clear keep. The cancer cell entry is currently dubious, as the phrase 'sleeper cell' isn't mentioned in that article, but I didn't remove it. Even without that entry, it still meets criteria. Boleyn (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After that improvement I definitely say Keep as well. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Boleyn's entries are notable and merit keeping the dab. Nick Number (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Light Years (Kylie Minogue album). postdlf (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Light Years (Kylie Minogue song)

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

Non notable song from the album of the same name. Did not chart anywhere and for some reason the infobox lists as a single, which it wasn't. Obviously created by a overly attached user who must like this song very much. WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Light Years (Kylie Minogue album). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Light Years (Kylie Minogue album). Next time I would suggest a bold redirect instead of coming straight to AfD. Adabow (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I shall take care next time. Thank you for notifying. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious redirect barring any evidence of particular notability - David Gerard (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Light Years (Kylie Minogue album). No charting, non-notable, not a single, etc. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C. H. Chapman

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

Long treatment of an illustrator without any references, so it is likely original research or a copyright violation. Either it should be checked for copyright violations/plagiarism/close paraphrasing or deleted. It's had a template for RS for 4 years. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the original editor was working off a "Hand written scrap of paper written by CH Chapman dated 12-8-1970", "Hand written material submitted to “the Kendrick Comet”, May 1897", "Musings of his travels by train as written by C H Chapman, June 1937", and an interview this looks like original research in part. Further, since one of the sources is "Various newspaper articles", this is plagiarism due to inadequate credit. If you think the topic is otherwise notable (you make no argument against notability), but the text is poor, you can stubify the article, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The description of his work makes it clear that in his day he was a significnat illustrator. The lack of adequatre sourcing is not a reason for deletion. The article should be tagged as requiring better sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been tagged as needing reliable sources since 2009. Somebody should confirm that the article is not another hoax (by finding a reliable source for it that establishes notability); then somebody could either remove everything but a two sentence description or go through the article and remove what cannot be attributed to a reliable source. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sydney Morning Herald death notice, Sydney Morning Herald attribution, "Billy Bunter" V&A artwork listing, book tribute to Chapman (aka Frank Richards), Bio (not amazing, but a lot of work for a hoax). Should be tagged with {{ref improve}} not {{afd}}. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Cawelti

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

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:PROF. SL93 (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to this proposed deletion. As someone who has created several pages and introduced many students to Wikipedia, I feel this page falls well within Wikipedia's guidelines for several reasons:

- Cawelti's work as a journalist and columnist is ongoing. He remains a contributing columnist to the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier. He is a public intellectual with an important regional presence.

- Brother's Blood is the definitive work to date on a significant murder case, an "infamous murder case" according to Chicago Tribune (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-04-11/news/0504110183_1_crime-scene-bullets-evidence), subject of a recent television documentary/docudrama (http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/docudrama-recounts-mark-murders/article_e5c300cb-2052-564d-844d-1cf2ccd222ad.html), and developments in the case have been followed by newspapers including the LA Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/10/news/adna-iowa10).

- Brother's Blood currently ranks #434,923 among Amazon.com sellers, which may not sound like much until you consider how many books are on Amazon.com. For example, Andrew Lih's The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World's Greatest Encyclopedia is ranked #548,102. It goes without saying that Andrew Lih has a Wikipedia page devoted to him.

I ask for this nomination for deletion to be defeated. jim.oloughlin —Preceding undated comment added 21:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could care less about those things. None of that makes him pass WP:BIO. However, the murder case appears to be notable, but not himself. SL93 (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral to Weak Delete -- the evidence is mixed. Brother's Blood does not come close to the standard of notability; held in only 43 libraries, nearly all of which are public libraries in Iowa. The significance of the murder does not convey notability on the book. (And ranking 400,000 on Amazon is still far along the long tail; it says that it has sold some copies, but not many; generally under a few hundred, if my own experience editing a NN book that reached 180,000 on Amazon is an indication). On the other hand, The Complete Poetry of James Hearst is certainly a notable book, held in nearly 200 libraries, including all of the most important research libraries. The question is, is that enough to convey notability not on the poet (which it definitely does) but on the editor? For a translator the answer would definitely be yes. For an editor of a selected works edition, possibly. But for a recently deceased university professor, I'm not sure that editing (while a lot of work and requiring creativity) conveys that level of notability; the editor would have to be specifically singled out for praise in a review, but an (admittedly quick) search does not turn up that. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject apparently fails both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. The murder case may be notable, but that notability is conferred neither to the book nor to its author. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to WorldCat, the novel is only in 42 libraries, and that seems to be the primary basis of notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Ketcham (The Amityville Horror)

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

I nominate this page for deletion as (1) none of the references lead to a working website, (2) the reference is not WP:NPOV or WP:RS, (3) this page is all conjectures about a historical person who didn't have anything to do with a hoax but whose last name was used in a film about the hoax. K a r n a (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Amityville Horror. If there was an article that listed all of the characters in the Amityville series, I'd recommend redirecting to List of The Amityville Horror characters, but no such article exists. If anyone wants to create it, I'm all for it. The Amityville narrative has a pretty wide cast of players, both supposedly real (as in the case with Ketcham) or outright false (as in the case of the umpteen film sequels), so it'd be a reasonable article to create. Whether this person actually existed or was created over a few bottles of wine is sort of a moot point. So is whether or not this is a hoax. (I say that mostly because putting emphasis on "hoax" makes this feel a little WP:POINT-y.) What we need is coverage and I just can't find enough to suggest that Ketcham is suitably notable enough outside of the Amityville case to really need his own article at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. After further review, enough of the article is copyvio to require nuking the whole thing, G12. My first review of the wall of source text picked up only fragments, but reading the whole thing made it clear that there wouldn't be anything left after to lifted text was removed. Acroterion (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renewable energy in Panama

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

Promotional essay, original unreferenced research, at least as far as the core of the subject is presented. Re-created article after PROD. There could be an article on this subject, but this one isn't it. Acroterion (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I seem to remember tagging this as a blatant promotional article (promoting his scientific opinion, which is also original research), but it looks like the editor in question has removed the speedy tag. I definitely endorse deleting this and considering that the editor in question (Ocharpen) is only here to promote his scientific viewpoint, I recommend salting and blocking the editor for being a promotion-only account. I don't think he's made any edits that weren't an attempt to promote his original research or accusing other Wikipedias and Wikipedians of censoring him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, copyvio. Whole paragraphs lifted from http://challenge.ecomagination.com/home/oceanogenic-power (see also the duplicator report). I don't understand why nominator denied speedy, the copyvio is quite obvious (and even includes grammar errors). --Randykitty (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G12 and per RandyKitty. I also don't understand why a speedy was declined when there is a clear copyvio; I reinstated the CSD tag. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the usernames involved, it's possible that this isn't a copyvio anyway, merely one author posting to two sites. WP:OR could still be an issue though. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The site says "c 2012 General Electric Company". So even if it was the same person who posted there and here, they relinquished copyright over there and the article here still is a copyvio. --Randykitty (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Galbatron

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

I had previously deleted this as a speedy due to copyright violations of their website. At the time I also noticed that the page had serious, SERIOUS issues with tone. They make claims, but didn't back them up with reliable sources (WP:RS), instead telling the user to "google the band". I did a google search, but didn't find anything that actually backed up any of the claims. I recently got a post on my page saying that this article predated the current website (unknown if this text appeared on the original, older website), but the user claimed that the band took this content from the article here. (But also claimed that Wikipedia has full permissions to use the content, which sort of conflicts with the idea that this was all posted on Wikipedia first.) I honestly don't see where this passes notability guidelines, but assuming good faith I've restored this so it can be discussed at AfD. The only two claims on the article that look like they would be of any true notability is the review (which I can't locate anywhere) and the claim that their music is housed in the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. If it is housed there as a main exhibit, then that would help give notability. However I cannot find any mention of the band in the museum's website and again, a search brings up absolutely nothing that I could use towards notability. The claims of selling well on MP3.com don't really mean for much, as that's not the type of charting that would count towards notability on Wikipedia. Selling well doesn't guarantee notability, it just means that coverage might be easier to find. While it's always possible that there is coverage that predates the internet, I kind of doubt that enough would exist that could show notability enough to pass WP:BAND. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable band which fails Wikipedia:Notability (music) generally and Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Others specifically (ie 'For composers and performers outside mass media traditions'). Keri (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not fulfil Notability criteria. 188.222.98.201 (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Component Career Counselor of the Year

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

This is a non-notable award for an encyclopedia (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets notability guidelines. Is well referenced. Most sources are from within the military but are coming from both primary ones (like the recruiting journal) and more general Army news sources outside of the recruiting areas (Ft. Drum's post newspaper) as well as a civilian sources (Sierra Vista Herald, Jet Magazine). RadioFan (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obscure internal award for minor division of one country's military; coverage is not substantial, and tends to be coverage of the award winners for a given year, not the award itself. One of many articles by a professional U.S. Army recruiter seeking to increase the presence of army recruiting in Wikipedia by writing a series of articles on his section of the Army. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Orangemike Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while there is coverage, it's largely first party. The secondary coverage isn't substantial enough to convince me of notability. Hairhorn (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obscure and non-notable prize. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Andrenacci

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL (no professional appearances). Luxic (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Luxic (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Luxic (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't appeared in a fully-pro league and no evidence that the article passes the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vanilla (forum)

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

No reliable source, advertising, not notable enough IMO –ebraminio^talk 09:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vanilla is used by over 500,000 users, how is it not notable? I have made modifications, that fix some bias comments, and I think make this deletion request no longer valid. Joey OneTime (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We mean in the strict Wikipedia sense of Wikipedia:Notability. Was it ever noticed by someone besides its developers or users? All the sources given seem to be from its own fora, which are clearly not independent. It does seem more long-lasting that the usual two-kids-and-an-app, so might be hope if someone can find some that are independent. W Nowicki (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added links from Gigaom, Techcrunch, Read Write Web, Rackspace and other sources that show its notable. Hope this will satisfy the criteria of notability,.. Joey OneTime (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added citations, provided more information about the platform --Tama ^talk 19:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is now a much more solid article. I added more media references. Hopefully this is enough to Keep--at least that's my vote.Joey OneTime (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

>Was it ever noticed by someone besides its developers or users?

As a consequence of this article people including myself , people became users and developers .

>All the sources given seem to be from its own fora, which are clearly not independent.

They are clearly and independently using the software and are not affiliated with the corporation nor do they receive any compensation. I build websites for companies and they request Vanilla forums, when asked where they learned about it, they refer to this article. I believe this article should stay it is of benefit to everyone.

There is simply not a good reason to delete this article and would be detrimental for Wikipedia to remove such a Notable Article since it benefits thousands of people who want to know about this software . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.199.213.174 (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but edit:

Notability: Google search "powered by vanilla" (with quotes) for partial link count from forums managed by Vanilla worldwide. Search "top open-source forums" or extensive independent recognition as a significant player. Did everyone do these searches before voting to delete?
Writing: Poor, some self-promotional. Edit. Add the independent citations. "Delete and make them rewrite from scratch" is lazy policy, easy for us but destructive to Wikipedia. Prune instead of forcing people to grow a whole new tree.
Content value: This article (history, mostly) answered longstanding questions I had about Vanilla.
Compare to: Simple machines forum. Would we delete that one too? No way. Keep.

Kcren (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree, article needs work, but that is not a good reason to delete it. A new bad article will probably re-appear. I view independence, reliability, and depth of sources as a spectrum, not binary, and it looks like there are enough different sources that put all together, tip the scale. W Nowicki (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I think recent edits have made the article much better. It would be horrible to see an innovator in the forum market deleted when it's obvious the community has come together to make this article better Adrianmtl (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The recent edits are quite enough to satisfy notability guidelines WP:GNG for multiple in-depth reliable sources. Toffanin (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Kudpung under criterion A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Naderi Yeganeh

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

There are no independent sources for the subject, and no indication of notability under WP:BLPN. In particular, the subject clearly fails WP:ACADEMIC. Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject's archive.org collection also has an article, which is also up for deletion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. -- 203.171.197.23 (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable either as a scientist or as an entrepreneur. -- Taku (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Spectral sequence (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Equation (book)

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

Not notable under Wikipedia requirements for notability of books. TOW talk 07:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (banter) @ 09:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I use Google to search for reliable sources including the name of the author James Tarantin, I can find nothing, except that Google helpfully tries to feed me coverage of Quentin Tarantino, who has nothing at all to do with this topic, except that every once in a while, the word "equation" pops up in an article that also mentions him. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's unfortunate that this person's name is a letter off from Quentin Tarantino who very obviously dominates Google PageRank, haha. Perhaps the article needs more sourcing, I found book reviews for the Equation on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Equation-Yes-after-Yesterday-ebook/dp/B00ABNEO58/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374598983&sr=1-1&keywords=tarantin ... and an interview with the author on AZ-TV: http://shelf3d.com/ESkhE3rZ64c. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.99.242.108 (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC) -- sorry, this comment was from me User: Neurosciency... I made some edits to the pages to add sources and information. There are 40some reviews of the book online, and a link regarding a book tour, which I added. Maybe since both the author page and the book page are marked for deletion, the author and book pages could be consolidated? so that James Tarantin can redirect to the page for The Equation ... or vice versa?[reply]

User reviews on Amazon are user generated content and not reliable sources, and a listing at Amazon does not establish notability as Amazon is not exclusionary. The other sources are just press releases and promotional fluff. None of the criteria of WP:BKCRIT are met. Book is self published, which indicates, but does not establish, non-notability. No libraries in the WorldCat database include this book in their collection. An interview on the local news (AZ-TV) is not significant coverage in a reliable secondary soruce. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BOOK etc. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. 6 votes to KEEP, 1 votes to DELETE (nomination), and 1 possible DELETE. WP:NAD was advanced as argument for delete, but votes for KEEP have clearly demonstrated WP:WORDISSUBJECT with information that meets WP:V. Specifically, this word has been used as a subject in the United Nations by a Nobel Peace Prize recipient and in the cover story of a magazine. Consensus is KEEP. NON-ADMIN CLOSURE. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 20:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mottainai

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

Clear WP:NAD violation. Mottainai is just a word. The etymology given is kind of interesting, even if note 3 has next to nothing to do with the subject. But I could write an article an any Japanese word and discuss the etymology in the same way. That would be an even worse violation of WP:NAD, though. I almost think this article is meant to be about the possibly-notable "Mottainai Campaign" whose homepage the article links to, but if so the article needs to be moved and completely rewritten, in which case we can just delete this dictionary entry for now anyway. Sarumaru the Poet (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This seems to me to be just another blatant attempt to dignify yet another silly marketing campaign with a Wikipedia entry. For a complete workout of the gag reflex, check out the Japanese page: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/もったいない . It seems (caution:Godwin) that the whole thing could be derived from a Nazi thrift campaign... ah-oh... (see the "Kampf dem Verderb" section at the end.) Cypella (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (state the obvious) @ 09:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many references are available (WP:HASREFS), see for example Google Scholar and Google Book. And this is more than a definition (WP:NDEF), this has become an international concept [23]. --Edcolins (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of language-related deletion discussions. –Quiddity (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the above argument. HASREFS is a completely ridiculous argument here, since notability is not an argument being offered for deletion. If you want to create an article on the Mottainai Campaign, please move the page and rewrite the article to actually be about said campaign (mentioning it in the intro might be a start). 猿丸太夫 23:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may have misunderstood me. I referred to WP:HASREFS because in my opinion the article's topic is not mainly about a word but about a concept, and this concept meets the notability threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. I have expanded the article to highlight that the topic is a tradition, a cultural practice and a concept. More references are available to show this. I will try to expand the article further. I don't want to create an article about any specific campaign. Rather I think Wikipedia should have an article about the concept of Mottainai. --Edcolins (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Keep. The topic passes WP:GNG. 122.29.43.177 (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you people keep changing the subject? This has NOTHING TO DO with notability! 猿丸太夫 23:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we even consider the opinions of anonymous IPs? Especially one that a quick search shows originating from the same area in Tokyo's Marunouchi district as the Mainichi Shimbun's offices - that same newspaper co-promoting the campaign??? Cypella (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. In any event, the content of the article does not relate to a specific campaign but to a concept, a tradition, and a cultural practice. I share 122.29.43.177's opinion that the topic passes WP:GNG. --Edcolins (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith (sigh) Yes, I know. I am more of a "Доверяй, но проверяй" type. So, whil§e I verify, I offer provisional apologies - 申し訳ない. Cypella (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

possible Delete methinks... This may be an article with good intentions but misplaced aspirations. Unfortunately for Edcolins, no matter what you wanted to write about (I'm sorry, I haven't checked: your article?), the fact of the matter seems to be that the most notable aspect of what you wrote about is in fact that it's being adapted publicly as some sort of "campaign" to some extent, and most (all?) of the references seem to point to that more than anything. But this is set apart from a so-called cultural aspect as Kawaii culture in Japan, for example - an article which may be relevant here to give some context. I'm not praising the "Kawaii" article - thats an article full of fluff in need of sheering - but there's some precedence which may be useful here, though I'm not sure to which end. If it's that kind of cultural ideology you were aspiring to educate about, the references provided don't support the subject, or at least don't carry enough weight. It may be too much to call it a cultural "practice", giving undue weight to the subject; should there also be an article for "Gambatte!" or "Yasashii" or any other of the multitudinous polite auto-responses which Japanese people have for any given situation?? Regardless, even as a "campaign" I'm sorry but I also don't yet see notability; one person co-opting a common Japanese word does-not-a-campaign-make, and in that case the article may seem built to support/further the cause, which I'm sure violates any number of wiki guidelines. I haven't thoroughly gone over every last detail but this is my opinion based on initial review. Japanglish (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. First, this is not my article and no article is mine (WP:OWN). I only came here to improve the article, because I believe the topic is notable as a concept, not just as a word. Secondly, please look at the references provided in the article (see for example: (NPR, 2013), (Los Tiempos, 2009), (The Japan Times, 2013), (MacQuillan, 1998), (Sasaki, 2005), (Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 2005), (Look Japan, 2002), (Iwatsuki, 2008)). The topic is not only notable because Wangari Maathai used the concept in a "campaign", as you seem to suggest, but the fact that she used it certainly does not make the concept less notable. The concept has received significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore meets Wikipedia:Notability. Thirdly, you think that "It may be too much to call it a cultural "practice"". Well, that's your opinion. The Spanish-language reference (Los Tiempos, 2009) explicitly uses that term "práctica cultural" (English: cultural practice). Fourthly, you are sure that "the article (...) violates any number of wiki guidelines". Could you be more specific? --Edcolins (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Edcolins (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is more than just a simple definition. Passes all requirements to be a Wikipedia article. A lot of work has been done on the article since it was nominated. [24] Any problems you have can be solved through proper editing procedures. There is a lot of coverage of this word appearing in a Highbeam search[25]. International Herald Tribune says there is a "pervasive use of the expression mottainai". The expression is explained in many articles about various things. Dream Focus 16:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion."[26] Since the nominator did not do so, I have taken the liberty to do so myself. --Edcolins (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Keep It started out as just a phrase but Wangari Maathai refined it into a cultural concept. The campaign is a subset of the concept itself. Shii (tock) 16:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Keep. Anyone with knowledge of Japanese culture instantly realizes the necessity of keeping and expanding this article. This is the kind of overzealous AfD that turns knowledgeable editors away from Wikipedia. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 16:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep far more than just a simple definition. Cavarrone 16:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, already has more content than a simple dictionary definition, with ample cites. Don't know why deletion is even raised as an issue here. Don't we have better things to do? Reify-tech (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Rishtey

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. This is a list of shows which are re-runs on a channel. SL93 (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gossip) @ 09:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (cackle) @ 09:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The consensus is generally that such lists are deleted or redirected to the article on the TV channel:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by TV1

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Indosiar

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by GEM

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Fox8

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Eleven

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by GO!

There have been a couple of keeps but these tend to be older:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Spike

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by MyNetworkTV

It's valid to have a list of shows produced by a TV channel, but many programs are shown on lots of different channels after being first broadcast, and Wikipedia is not a TV guide and can't be expected to list every rebroadcast of a show. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eat or Die (mixtape)

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

Non notable mixtape fails WP:NALBUMS. Koala15 (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 3. Snotbot t • c » 00:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NALBUMS as a not notable mixtape. STATic message me! 02:19, 5 July 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, postdlf (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable per WP:GNG. Adabow (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, can be recreated if sources demonstrating notability have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Year Vamp

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

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor 71.167.9.50, who offered no rationale. On the merits, I see an article about a band that offers only its facebook pages and website as links, no references, and promotional language throughout. My searches show no obvious notability. Usual Caveats may apply, of course, as an article may be appropriate when the band hits the charts, but there is no evidence provided or available that shows this to have happened. So, I recommend Delete as per WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. They are not a bad band, but as far as I know, they strictly local to Upstate New York. True, they have opened for major bands at concerts in the Albany, New York area, but they aren't even as well-known as, say, Sirsy is, or Thomas Winslow or Blotto was. I'd have to do some research to see if they really have toured nationally; as far as I am aware now, no. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BAND. STATic message me! 04:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable band. Koala15 (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pamella D'Pella

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

The article lists imdb as a source, but I couldn't find any other sources to back up any of this content. I am not sure if this qualifies for a BLP-prod, so I brought it here for review. Diannaa (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the result of hours of hard work spent by me to produce a wiki page for Ms. D'Pella at her consent and behest. All sources referenced are easily verified by a quick look at her acting history at IMDB.com or any other actors resource. There is NO viable reason to delete this page after I've worked so long and hard on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reazon4Exodus (talk • contribs) 18:57, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

Delete- No good sources and per nom. Also to the guy who made it we don't care about how long it took you you should have done your research on what meets Wikipedia criteria before you made it. Thats your own fault. Newsjunky12 (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards Keep. Has had some starring roles in minor features and some minor roles in major features. I think it's probably enough to warrant inclusion and meet notability guidelines. I carefully reviewed her work in Caged Heat 2: Stripped of Freedom before reaching this conclusion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Candleabracadabra. She seems to pass WP:NACTOR as she has done roles in numerous films. Beerest355 Talk 00:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeePass

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

Nearly all sources are primary or not WP:RS. A single non-trivial RS (a PC World review) is not enough for WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Will add more references/citations to the article. I'm not a developer of Keepass or any associated software, but a loyal user for a long time. I hate to see such a good software missing in Wikipedia. Tsba 17:00, 14 July, 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- KeePass and LastPass are regularly recommended (equally) by articles published by Sophos (eg Naked Security postings), advocating improved password security by all of us. The LastPass article does not appear to be under threat. This article deserves the chance to be as well-supported by references and must be given the time for them to be found. (Sorry, this is a drive-by comment: I'm not a current user of either package, but a potential user seeking information. Removing the KeePass article would make such comparison harder.) -- EdJogg (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an article about a piece of software. Maybe in a perfect world an encyclopedia isn't the best place for a piece of software, or if a piece of software is so significant that it deserves any entry it should be a simple description without making any interesting claims about the software. But Wikipedia isn't really just an encyclopedia, because this isn't a perfect world and there isn't an equally popular Wiki that can get you the kind of information you want about products. If you see something that isn't true, delete it, but the idea that an article about a piece of software needs to be as well cited as an article appropriate for a normal encyclopedia. Qalnor (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a good article, just needs some work. Mlpearc (powwow) 05:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keepass is a significant piece of open software which is at the heart of many derivative software, that is it incorporating pieces of technology that other wikipedia articles will reference. I just linked to Keepass from another article on wikipedia called TAN which is a onetime password key generator that Keypass supports. By linking to to Keypass it makes the technologies accessible and practical to implement because it is free. The nominator for deletion fails to recognize the black and white logarithm that the nomination is working under. I can't understand how a keyword like keepass which has almost 600000 search results on googles is not significant. Hence my belief that it should be retained --Joewski (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keepass/x and derivatives are part of tools frequently recommended by security experts and used by security conscious people (it would be surprising if they didn't have a userbase numbering in the millions, if not tens of millions). You can find articles on the software on any tech site/journal. Here are some of them.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Georgia Satellites. Content remains in the page history if there is any worthwhile content to merge, or if additional useful sources are found to re-expand it in the future. ~ mazca ^talk 09:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Richards

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

Not independently notable. Article unreferenced since 2008, and I could not find any significant coverage in a search. I actually think the article should be redirected to his band, the Georgia Satellites, but I am seeking community input rather than just doing it. MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand (and reference) the article. He does have some claim to fame apart from the Georgia Satellites connection, performing on Izzy Stradlin and the Ju Ju Hounds (album) for example. Andrewa (talk) 21:21, 3 July 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, L Faraone 02:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Found three sources, added as external links. They need to be incorporated into inline citations. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 15:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like you added TWO sources, am I mistaken? The one from SPIN is about the Georgia Satellites and only incidentally about Richards. The one from Musician shows me only snippets, so I can't tell if it is about him or how significant it is. I still don't see significant coverage about HIM, except as part of the Georgia Satellites. I remain open to changing my mind if anyone can find significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, you're quite right on both counts. On consideration a merger might be more appropriate.

Merge -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 15:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Georgia Satellites, doesn't appear to be significant content to merge. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait Raja

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

Apart from one magazine article I can't find much about mr. Raja and his Social Movement. Not counting his own website, that is. Yintan 22:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 4 July 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, L Faraone 01:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search of both Google India and several Kuwait index and search sites turn up no more information than what is found in the single references. scope_creep (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from the India Today article referenced in the article, I am finding no WP:RS in Latin alphabet searches. Adding that to User:scope_creep's searches above, I don't think that is enough to demonstrate biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Sentinel (Lewistown)

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

Original author reverted Prod without explanation or improvement of the article. The one source on the article fails to verify the information that it is suppose to source. I have searched and can not find any reliable sources that discuss this newspaper. GB fan 16:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, not a notable newspaper; only ONE reference found on that particular article. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 19:58, 9 July 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, L Faraone 02:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have noticed that several have argued for merging the article to English words without vowels. I am declining to do this for the objective reason that some others provided: namely that the words on the list contain the letter "Y" being used as a vowel, and therefore cannot belong on a list of words without vowels. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of words in English without A, E, I, O or U

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

As Cruxdestruct wrote in a proposal for deletion, the inclusion criteria for the list of words appear arbitrary. The article does explain that "y" and (especially in Welsh loanwords) "w" can represent vowel sounds, but that information is also in Vowel#Written_vowels and the list of words isn't necessary to illustrate the point. This strikes me as trivia rather than an encyclopedic topic. —rybec 03:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as arbitrary. Cwm on now, why oh why are words without y excluded?Clarityfiend (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to English words without vowels. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I believe this list was WP:Split out of English words without vowels for reasons of length? If the list is complete and exhaustive, then it provides important information for that article, and should be kept or re-merged, and improved, similar to the Featured List of English words containing Q not followed by U. If it is not anywhere near complete, and is merely a list of examples, then moving it to Wiktionary might be a better idea. I've left a neutral pointer at Talk:English words without vowels. –Quiddity (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (No doubt automated) original research galore. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glue back onto English words without vowels - There is no chance that the list of words will move anywhere past a stub without its parents. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the talk page there's a comment explaining this article's origin:
This page is part of a series and its objective is to stop IP users constantly and haplessly adding words to English words with uncommon properties being a computer generated list from wiktionary [...]

That other article was deleted after an AfD. —rybec 01:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and don't merge. This is far too trivial even for the parent article (which is already bad enough without it). This is essentially a "list of words whose only vowel letter is <y>, plus a list of random loanwords from Welsh", and hence a breach of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, no matter whether it's in a standalone article or in the parent article. Words spelled only with <y> are no more special and no more noteworthy than words spelled only with <e> or only with <u>; the whole premise of this page, that <y> is special in this role because it's "not really a vowel", is an absurd amateurish misunderstanding made by people who can't tell apart the logical levels of orthography and phonology. The whole perspective of both pages is simply wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I've merged 3 "non-y" words to the injections list at English words without vowels. I generally agree with Fut.Perf. - my only remaining concern is whether any of the prose in the current lede, might be worth preserving elsewhere? Otherwise, it's ready to be deleted/redirected. –Quiddity (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Future Perfect, who sums up my feelings on the article's problems. Them From Space 21:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection Catholic Church (Dubuque, Iowa)

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

No evidence of meeting Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Just some parish in Dubuque as far as I can tell. (Article was amended by a WP:COI editor.) Closeapple (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also related nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resurrection Catholic Cemetery (Dubuque, Iowa). --Closeapple (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 15 July 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Roman Catholic parishes are notable. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only hits I'm getting on Bing News are for obituaries and one article about how the pastor talked about preventing swine flu. Roman Catholic parishes are not automatically notable; both the parish I go to and the parishes my friends go to are not on Wikipedia and shouldn't be; there's even one parish in my city that has more notability than this one but isn't on Wikipedia and isn't likely to be. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability found on searching; seems just an ordinary church. -- 202.124.88.4 (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Dubuque Let's see, Iowa joined the union on December 28, 1846; and this church was allegedly founded in 1857. The article claims they have 2000 families, which assuming 3.5 members per family, that would be 7000 members. Sounds like the makings for a wp:notable church. But this article has zero references, so for starters it fails WP:V. Then there is WP:NOT. This article does not present the church as being an organization that has attracted the attention of the world at large, rather the article is a work of outreach, which Wikipedia calls WP:Promotion or spam. In this article we learn that the church will have (future tense) a Valentine's dance in February 2007, which runs afoul of both WP:IINFO and WP:CRYSTAL. Then there is unsourced information about a living person, which is a WP:BLP problem. I suggest adding a brief section to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Dubuque that focuses on history, and in doing so, only add information found in reliable sources, then use inline citations to reference those reliable sources. I see nothing worth saving in the current article. Unscintillating (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tulimalefoi Mauga

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

Not a notable person. Can't find a single reliable source for her other than that she is in the Air Force which doesn't mean she can have an article [27]. Also there is no such thing as a "princess of American Samoa" since Samoans never had a Western form of monarchy or titles like princess, only many traditional chiefs; it is even wrong to call the Malietoas "kings". KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Single reference is no longer valid and their seems to be zero valid sources. As for the article itself, it is likely that the author picked the salient information from the military web site, where the nomenclature would be less than accurate, written to reflect the meaning, if not specifically and factually correct. scope_creep (talk) 23:18, 13 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contains information which is not in strict conformity to the principle of Truth... DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion (A1). Non-admin closure. AllyD (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong unification movement with the United Kingdom

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

Unsourced, uncatgorized, article, merge with Hong Kong 1 July marches Murry1975 (talk) 09:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HK-UK unification is not the goal of the July 1 marches, unlike what the article implies. But the waving of colonial era HK flags in protests is very common and not just on July 1st, usually to protest against central government interference in Hong Kong or against the CCP or China in general (i.e. anti-China not pro-Britain). There are articles about this from many sources, e.g. http://asiancorrespondent.com/96293/disgruntled-hong-kong-embraces-union-jack-as-symbol-of-freedom/ , http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1074458/hong-kong-chief-executive-urges-people-not-wave-colonial-flag?page=all , so perhaps this issue deserves an article? 114.252.69.114 (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just a few people waving UK flags in a demo does not imply that there's a "movement". There are absolutely no RS on such "movement". STSC (talk) 02:42, 7 July 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, Sandstein 09:17, 13 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion - Unsourced original research, and lack of context as per CSD A1. STSC (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Datalink Bankcard Services Company

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

Being in the Inc 5000 is not necessarily notability, and I dont see anything else here DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 7 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lots of incidental mentions and company profiles but no "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:38, 17 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Selsky

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

Self-promotion by User:אלכס סלסקי (which is Hebrew for Alex Selsky). The person described lacks notability, as the person served as an ordinary media-advisor, while the recently established "World Forum of Russian Jewry" lacks clear notability itself (one of quite numerous number of such organizations), and the notability of its administrative staff is far from sufficient. The article has been deleted for the lack of notability in Hebrew Wikipedia, and moved for deletion in Russian Wikipedia. Prokurator11 (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Prokurator. it's extremely sad to see that an Israeli, apperantely born in FSU, is the one who argues to arase the page of a one, who devoted all his career to contribute to absorption of Jewish repatriants from former Soviet Union. The World Forum of Russian Speaking Jewry was established to help the russian speaking Jews worldwide and to accomarate the memory of the Holocoust, and you are the one to say that this is not important to be noted. As for self PR - all my life I worked to promote the Jewish State and the Russian speaking Israelis. Never paid or lied. So I don't see that I did something not ethical to write a small note about my activity. Shabat shalom, dear friend.

Good luck with your activities. As for your self-promotion, as soon as your organization (or yourself) becomes notable, someone else will certainly write about it. -- Prokurator11 (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing at all sad about an Israeli apparently born in the former Soviet Union, or anyone else, editing with a neutral point of view. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 7 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What we have is somebody quoted a lot in the press in his professional capacity as a PR rep/spokesperson. What we do not have is significant coverage in independent reliable sources about this person. -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 16 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:AUTO. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not WP:AUTO. The article being an autobiography is not a valid reason in itself for deletion, but this should be deleted for lack of evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources. I have tried to find sources in the Roman and Cyrillic alphabets, but don't read Hebrew so am accepting the verdict of Hebrew Wikipedia as regards sources in that language. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melodic (musician)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 6. Snotbot t • c » 04:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 7 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Keep. There are a lot of sources in the second ref, and the third source looks pretty independent to me, but I not going to say for sure to really keep this article to avoid a WP:LOTSOFSOURCES argument. I'm sure more to this article can be done, though. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 17:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Saying "maybe keep" isn't an excuse for not doing a review of the sources. The sourcing in the article is terrible. The first item claims to be AllHipHop.com but actually goes to a blog where I can only find some video from an L. Burner. The rest are not reliable sources except for possibly Delaware Black which has news but also appears to be a site for promoting black Delaware businesses. And the link is dead so we cannot evaluate it. My own search found this article which calls him an "upcoming indie artist". An article is not justified at this time. No prejudice to recreation when he changes from upcoming to arrived as supported with significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:46, 16 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BAND, only has done co-writing on two not notable songs and I see zero significance of this artist. STATic message me! 04:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Al Nuke

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

Musician does not meet WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 5. Snotbot t • c » 05:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO and was a horrible promotional nightmare before I removed it all, along with the unsourced material. STATic message me! 05:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:28, 13 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promat

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

Delete, I wasn't sure on this one was on the edge of speedy. I believe ultimately even though they hold patents for products loads of people/companies have patents and not all are notable. I think it fails WP:ORG. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Utterly lacking in independent sources, and none seem to be available via Google search either. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:30, 13 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence found of notability. AllyD (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This looks like an advert for a company in Romania, making engineering equipemnt for railways, and holdiong a series of patents. While it is a very poor article, I cannot determine whether the company is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulted to keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Human Rights Front

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

Lacks and reference with one external link to primary website Murry1975 (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no multiple secondary sources. STSC (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a promo piece with no notability established. --Cold Season (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others. Fails WP:GNG & WP:ORG.--JayJasper (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and covered in third party sources (tip: try Google), see http://www.scmp.com/topics/civil-human-rights-front , http://books.google.com/books?id=3rHQ6LPY22UC&pg=PA56 ("On 13 September 2002, more than 30 groups formed the Civil Human Rights Front (CHRF). (Some groups joined later to make the total number of 44 groups by..."), http://www.dw.de/hong-kong-protesters-hold-pro-democracy-rally/a-16917552 , http://books.google.com/books?id=neU79s5eexAC&pg=PA210 , http://books.google.com/books?id=tHwZ-J2jZq8C&pg=PA160 , http://books.google.com/books?id=hzCFjiByOvcC&pg=PA42 , http://books.google.com/books?id=e1fN0IvbBaIC&pg=PA97 ("The Front was behind the 50,000 stong 9 July protests... Such "people power" displays forced the chief executive, C. H. Tung, to shelve the bill and accept the resignation of two cabinet secretaries within two days."), http://www.demotix.com/news/1703282/hong-kong-starts-2013-rallies-and-marches , well in total 208 Google Books hits(!). Sourcing the material of this article shouldn't be that complex. --Soman (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as the article stands now. Even with all of the google hits rferenced above, there is only one source, and it is in Chinese. SOXROX (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Notability is not determined by the contents of an article at a given, but whether the notability of the article subject can be established (the exceptions are biographies of living people, for which lack of references mandates deletion). Do also note that non-English references are perfectly acceptable as sources. --Soman (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - The rationale given by the nominator is the lack of references entirely with only a link to the self-published website. The unsourced article is totally unacceptable. STSC (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As shown by Soman, significant coverage exists when searching through Google Books. This alone shows that significant coverage exists in reliable sources to establish notability and that the article can be developed, and uses only the English language name for searches for an oprganisation in a country where the primary language is Chinese. That the current state of the article contains no sources simply means it is one of many imperfect articles which requires work to improve it. The solution to an unsourced article on a notable topic is to have references added. We cannot collaboratively edit an article to improve it when it is deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added some of the sources identified above to the article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into "Hong Kong 1 July marches" - I have changed my stance to "merge". STSC (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment but the history of CHRF predates the July 1 marches. For example the July 9 protests were amongst the largest organized by the group. --Soman (talk) 23:57, 16 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG (thanks, Whpg). Miniapolis 13:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ovijatree Tin, Gantobyo Ek

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

Book of poetry by a Wikipedia editor. No claim of notability, only that this book of poetry exists. No article on author (interwiki link goes to userpage) Contested prod RadioFan (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Open and shut case SOXROX (talk) 14:02, 14 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly, no speedy category for creative works, but there is no evidence that this publication meets the notability criteria. The wording on the Goodreads article is identical, so if this article did survive it would need a WP:COPYVIO check. AllyD (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NBOOK and is a WP:COPYVIO. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a hoax, previous edits history-merged to Erick Ozuna López. See my note below. Wizardman 19:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Ozuna (baseball)

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

Not sufficient information to be notable at this point. Hoops gza (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chinwag) @ 09:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (shout) @ 09:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm very confused here. The edit creating this page shows him to be a footballer, not a baseball player. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Problem This was vandalism. The article was a vandal edit in April, and juventus moved it to make a new footy article, which is exactly what this article was! If it checks out I'll history-merge it to Erick Ozuna López and close this. Wizardman 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Nuaimi

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

Notability not established Wkharrisjr (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 03:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local politician and city manager; not notable per WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 15 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - did the nominator abide by WP:BEFORE, which is policy. While the article does not demonstrate notability, we judge the topic and not the article. As it is, apparently this guy was the mayor of a city that now has a population of 200k, and usually with cities that large, in the US, multiple runs for mayor during the internet age, means there is likely the sources out there to satisfy the GNG. All you have to do is look, and have to means mandatory. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In reply: I actually did look and found only trivial local coverage. Did you find anything to satisfy GNG? --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using the link above for Google News shows 10 pages of coverage, and only looking at the first page shows 5 articles in which his name is in the headline. I'm not sure why local matters, but the main paper in the search results is the The San Bernardino Sun, which is the main paper for the county of a the same name, which has 2 million people, and also is a major paper in Riverside County, another county with 2 million people. As in not some small-town paper. Most articles are behind paywalls, but based on the blurbs available on Gnews and the sheer volume, I'd say he passes the GNG. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:POLITICIAN refers to "international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office", so being a mayor of a city with 200k population is not, in itself, enough. It's up to whether he meets WP:GNG or not. Bondegezou (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject meets neither WP:POLITICIAN nor WP:GNG; references indicate WP:ROUTINE coverage only. Miniapolis 14:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dhenuga srinivasan

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

Unsourced biography. Milesandkilometrestogo (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Four references have been added now though only one of the links works. The discussion may be closed now as it is not unreferenced any more though a major part of the article still lacks references. Milesandkilometrestogo (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 03:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article still fails basic WP:ANYBIO guidelines. No significant coverage, and more importantly, no reliable sources. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 12 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BackupBluRay

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

I couldn't find any coverage. A commenter in the first AfD said that an expert could likely show notability. This is a piece of software to rip copy protected films so the "experts" would be movie pirates. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Another editor in the previous AfD said that this software caused a media stir. That claim belongs to BackupHDDVD. SL93 (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 03:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability lacking RS references. Search reveals no significant coverage in reliable sources, though there are a few incidental mentions from 2007.Dialectric (talk) 14:42, 19 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Churton

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

Prod removed by article creator. Does not meet GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Sources cited may establish existence, but they do not establish notability. Ghits bring up sources that do not meet WP:RS - user-driven book review sites, personal webpage, Amazon, YouTube, etc. MSJapan (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, MSJapan's prod "no real sources for years" removed by article creator (me) after adding more sources and discussion with MSJapan. And here is the expected AfD. What a waste of time. I really don't like this kind of strong-arming to add sources. If someone sees a weak-sourced stub, and then checks in Google Books or Scholar and sees more sources - which MSJapan says to me he did - why not just add the sources oneself, at least that is why I do when I see such stubs. I'm not actually greatly interested in this author, my opinion of his pulpy 4-part Channel 4 TV drama-documentary series Gnostics (TV series) and book is much the same as Roger Lewis in the Daily Express review of the Aleister Crowley biography. But in this area - esoterics - we expect pulpy esoteric "scholarship" it's what the punters want. In any case he meets WP:AUTHOR, even if for being a pulpy populist scholar. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - because to me, one-line citations in other publications are not significant coverage, and those citations you have added are still incomplete ("Journal of RTesearch into Freemasonry and..." what?). You're not looking at the content of the sources, but existence - you're actually just pulling them direct from Google's citations (hence the [CITATION] tags at the front of your newest additions, and the piece of the quote that mentions Churton's name). That is not an indication of significance at all; there could be thirty other names in that paragraph on the same topic, especially if it is the research review portion of the paper, and it is therefore not supportive of notability criteria. MSJapan (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MSJapan, yes well I'm qualified to do that since I know something about the subject. In any case this scholar evidently meets WP:AUTHOR. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (rap) @ 09:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (tell me stuff) @ 09:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is wide popular interest in fringe esoterica (Umberto Eco has deconstructed the field definitively). There are some significant cites in Google scholar for this LP and WP:AUTHOR is met. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -- per In ictu oculi and Xxanthippe (bonus points for Eco citation) -- the article and its notability can be verified even if the claims are bogus. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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