Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 November	15 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (

Huntley 02:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Jan Jananayagam

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

Non-notable political candidate. She stood for election in the 2009 European Parliament election, and did well for an independent candidate, but failed to win a seat. The only coverage of her in reliable sources I can find relates to that election[1]; she has not achieved lasting notability, so I don't think she meets our standards for inclusion. Robofish (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Huntley 05:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Huntley 05:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Huntley 05:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep, I think this ("Jan Jananayagam gained more votes [...] than all the other independents in the UK put together.") sums up the notability issue. Other press mentions in notable publications: Asian Tribune, The Independent, Financial Times, Interview with AlJazeera, Asian Age ("Another influential Tamil, Janani Jananayagam from London too tweeted her protest"), Lankasri News ("Ms. Jan Jananayagam, an independent candidate contesting the European Parliament elections in London, secured over 50,000 votes, an unprecedented result, and a record for an independent candidate in an EU election."). --Soman (talk) 09:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is definitely notable enough, and possible future political endeavors would only increase the subject's notability. I have seen multitudes of articles that do not follow WP: BLP as sufficiently as this one, but have never been contested. --Lord Bromblemore (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although Jan Jananayagam is best known for her European Parliament run, she is actually a leading activist amongst the Tamil diaspora. She is one of the main spokespersons for
Tamils Against Genocide and in this capacity has been mentioned in the media often, both prior to and after the European election: Island 1, Island 2, Island 3, Island 4, Independent 1, Independent 2, Daily News, Channel 4 News, BBC Turkish, Al Jazeera 1, Al Jazeera 2, Al Jazeera 3, Sunday Leader. She has also been mentioned numerous times on TamilNet, Tamil Guradian and Colombo Telegraph.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 12:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Brian Foster,

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

Contested prod. Obituary for an admired high school teacher. However, all sources are

our inclusion guidelines. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

If you think a man that dedicated a quarter of a century to helping underprivileged children is not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, then delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roywirral (talk • contribs) 00:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable. --Shorthate (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I'm sure Mr Foster was a fine man he sadly does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Rotten regard Softnow 01:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Huntley 05:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Huntley 05:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. While I do think that teachers of any country are often our most unsung heroes (my own uncle taught some of the most severely disabled children from various underprivileged backgrounds for years, so I know how hard they work), this person just isn't notable per Wikipedia's guidelines.
talk) 14:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Completely non-notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note:
talk) 22:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Not at all. User pages are given far more leeway because they are not in article space. Many users fill them with things than interest them, including biographical information, that are not notable enough for the encyclopedia. Users can, of course, request deletion, blank, or change any subpages they have made, but it is up to them when (and if) that happens. The Steve 05:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine to use userpages as a place to store drafts of articles before they're moved into mainspace. It is not ok to use userspace as a way to continue to keep pages on Wikipedia that look like Wikipedia articles, on topics that have been deemed non-notable. See
WP:UP#COPIES. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

You are mis-stating the policy you are linking to. It actually says "should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles..." It says absolutely nothing about before or after such subjects have been deemed notable. You should also be aware that Afd (Articles for Deletion) is the wrong place to decide to delete a user page. Wikipedia etiquette is to ask the user politely to change it if a user page violates some policy or another (which this does not). Generally, we don't go around deleting random user sub-pages. The Steve 12:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good.

talk) 02:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

So if this article is deleted, should the user page that has some of the deleted content should be deleted as well?

talk) 02:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I suppose so. Probably we should get a consensus to do so here, to avoid the extra bureaucracy of a separate MfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The policy states:

Userspace is
WP:UP#COPIES

If I interpreted the guideline correctly, if this article is deleted, then its deleted content may not be held in any userspace.

talk) 14:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You are again glossing over the word indefinitely, which I tried to emphasize. ie, you can hold it for some time, but not forever. Is there some problem you have with asking the user first, or politeness? If the user wishes to keep it in user-space for a while, normally this isn't a problem, even if it is, strictly speaking, against some rule. You must understand, this is not about policy, or guidelines at all, but rather about how we treat user-space, and, by extension, users. Assume Good Faith and Civility, if you don't mind. The Steve 23:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I notified the creator of the problem with his userpage as well as a small elaboration as to why his article may be deleted. Hopefully this solves at least some of our problems. v/r,

talk) 22:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you, that was all I wanted. The user has blanked his user page, as expected if you ask nicely, so all is settled. The Steve 08:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 03:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Without reliable secondary sources that cover the subject in depth, the article does not pass
WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- the article indicates nothing except that he was a teacher; as far as I can see a NN one. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he sounds like a real-life
quite common, and we can't host an article on every one of them. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete As failing the proper notability guidelines. —
21™ 23:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cleaning up and building of SJI Park

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

Contested prod. Subjective article. Delete per

WP:SOAP. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as a personal essay, with no indication that the subject is notable. Although this explanation [2] suggests that my initial suggestion for speedying as self-promotional may be appropriate.... 99.0.80.70 (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — JJJ (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 as entirely promotional (even aside from the notability issues). Per the criterion, this "does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person". I think this is the clearest example of that clause I've seen in a long time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Huntley 06:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

* Do not Delete this is not entirely promotional unless you are talking about promoting the Open Space through its development and history, It can not be helped that through is development the outcome resulted in a timeline through picture and song over a five year period of this and other open space parks in Linwood. that does not even touch the "Naive Music issue". Is it not notable that a citizen in a community take a football field size unusable overgrown trashed and toxic industrial sight and builds it into a Natural Park over a extended time period and the art, song , culture and history created because of it. The pictures dont lie , the music and the videos don't lie, they speak for themselves, you have to look deeper than the surface to see this history in its entirety. i cannot separate myself from that history, there has to be a starting point. The city of Linwood hauled away all the debris over the past five years, but no group did the actual work if you take me out of the picture you loss the history the Art and culture, you should alow this to develope so third parties that have some knolage of the subject "SJI Open Space" can add to it~~Kevin Lajiness (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Lajiness, since February several editors have taken pains to explain Wikipedia to you; a subject is not notable because you insist it is, it's notable only if supported by reliable sources, per
WP:RELIABLE. Not choosing to understand this, and instead using the site to write about your personal experiences, forecasts a limited involvement here. 99.0.80.70 (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Possibly the park and its creation are notable and the article could be rewritten with reliable sources, but as is the article is an autobiography (see author's comments here) it should be deleted for lacking notability. The sources for the author's notability are nonexistent, and the sources for the park are self-published. Meters (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asking to give me time to develop a consensus because the editors fail to recognize logic, the pictures don't Lie, I've been sighted for not having reliable sources on a Samuel Powell/Powel but you failed to recognize the genealogy and the fact that I was a relative, in this case all one has to do is Look on a map and see that this is listed as a property, but the city on it own web site and the residence have come to the conclusion that it is a Park now. I don't know how you can say this is not notable, this is a five year history of the park, some events have been published by the Local media , i have included at lest one link so far, there are other maps and historical documents that can support my claims but i cant fabricate the pictures, I have kept very good records because I have a timeline on my blogs but you dismiss them out of hand Like you did with my William Powell blog, that has the most complete genealogical relationship record to show the possible parentage of Samuel Powell Mayer of Philadelphia during the revolution,regardless of the Building of the park and the interactions with the wildlife that are documented, you think nothing of dismissing the tens of Natural Video that show a pictorial history of the open spaces for five year, but there is so much you are willing to take out because your criticism blinds you to something valuable, that is not trash, that you cannot see beyond your nosesKevin Lajiness (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC) ITake back the emotionalismKevin Lajiness (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's futile to continue explaining encyclopedic guidelines if a user has no intention of reading, let alone following, them. The link to the local media that I'm guessing you referred to [3] doesn't establish the park's notability, but it does raise the possibility that Mr. Lajiness is himself notable. It's clear, however, that he ought not be the one to write that article. 99.0.80.70 (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No what part of give me time to build a consensus don't you understand,that is why I included that link , I was not writen by me, but that is not one of the links i was talking about this is just one http://www.linwoodcity.org/mainpages/recreation.asp from the cities own web sightKevin Lajiness (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listen if someone could right the Article without my input it would not be factual, because I am the only one that knows all the facts and you can separate me from them but if someone could do that, go for it, i am not a writer obviously — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Lajiness (talk • contribs) 22:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First we have to reach a consensus not to delete the article, and that does not look likely so far. Is the article about you, or is it about the park? There's no point discussing the notability of the park if this article is a biography. Meters (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt the park, but the Park resulted in the creation of works that reflect The Naturalist that did the work, how do you separate the two unless you just refer to him as "The NaturalistKevin Lajiness (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article a biography, as you said here? Meters (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This probably fine material for somebody's personal blog, but it isn't an encyclopedia article. There is no coverage in reliable sources of this cleanup. "...because I am the only one that knows all the facts..." Pretty much indicates that we are going to fail
verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

https://picasaweb.google.com/113887095518751868135/KevinLajinessHistoryGenealogyAndART#5122466887618841970 http://jackies6.wix.com/portfolio#!resume this is the staff writer that did the article, it states that the city took "the bags" of trash away but one only has to Look at the pictures of the mountain of vines and triaxle dump sized loads that were hauled away to know it took heavy equipment to take some of the material awayKevin Lajiness (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it, did i take all the referances to me out, and no i am not the only one that knows facts abot this , i am the only one that knows all the facts about it and that is just me bloviatingKevin Lajiness (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite time given to deal with other editors' objections, it's still an unencyclopedic mess suitable for a blog, but not for Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and your reference is, let me see, opinionKevin Lajiness (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

its a shame,If it comes down to my references (Pictures) Its a shame cause a pictures worth a thousand words, the artical stands on its own with the referances i put in. so I blog it, regardless if you take the pictures out and the one video you loose the color and for me that wont do.so shoot away.Kevin Lajiness (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to establishing notability, pictures are not references. I could take a picture of my foot and claim that since there's a picture of my foot in existence my foot is notable and worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Of course, my foot is a foot like any other. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

your ridiculous argument see's only black and white, My pictures obviously speak for themselves, that attach reality to the what ever story, Look i said hack away its already in a blog http://openspacedocumentary.blogspot.com/, I'm used to it only certain people have credibility, people would rather play games than look atfacts , i guess i made up this picture to https://picasaweb.google.com/113887095518751868135/KevinLajinessHistoryGenealogyAndART#5122466887618841970 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Lajiness (talk • contribs) 03:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken all referance to facebook out, all the other links are easily verifiable, My pictures of article are just that and unless the authors step forward or I can find them in archives, the rest of the pictures leave little to scrutinize, they are what they are. And I've done what I could do to rewrite it so unless others step forward there is little i can do, but dig.Kevin Lajiness (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for all the reasons listed above and then some.

"Time to build a consensus" is now, during the articles' deletion discussion, and results from a consensus of all involved or interested editors, not whatever time frame is convenient for the original author to cast about and find people who will support them. As of now, 7 other editors (including the original nominator) beside myself find this article unsuitable for inclusion 7 days after nomination, with no votes to support: consensus is rarely much clearer than that.

I find no evidence of notability (though, in fairness, unlike some on this wiki, I do not believe all places are notable just because they are places). There may be other subjects touched on in the original article that may be noteworthy enough for their own articles, and thus their works or relation to the subject of this AfD discussion may be referred to there, however there are simply too many things wrong with this article for it to stand, not the least of which is the apparent COI of the original author and his apparent feelings of ownership towards it.

Additionally, while someone with firsthand and specific knowledge of a topic might be a good candidate for creating and/or curating an article, they should do so only by using their knowledge to sort fact from fiction in terms of collating and compiling said facts from reliable secondary sources into a cohesive and comprehensive article, not by using information only they possess and references to their own writings to submit original research, in clear violation of policy.

If for no other reason, I find insufficient coverage in reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, per

WP:GNG, to mark this as notable enough for this encyclopedia. besieged^talk 18:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

"Time to build a consensus is now"? I guess the facts are hidden or wont wait?:There is enough evidence to support the article, even if circumstantial because all the peaces fit, I cant make the city or green acre contribute, I've ask but as seen in one of the press stories the counsel president admits to hauling away debris,my guess is they are embarrassed that I saved them Thousands of dollar's. If it comes down to the writing it can be rewrote, but i think there may be politics involved. when you start to say things "too many thing wrong" catchy sound bite and "No evidence of notability", your dismissing all my evidence, and are saying there is none , are you kidding me, I may not be a notable person but the artical surely has some notability, like "many other reasons" and just make up the ressons You will not find a Article/Story like this. you claim It's about me but My name doesn't even appear in the articular, if it did I would include My naive art and music in depth along with the fact that I was a neck and throat cancer survivor and all the songs were written after radiation and during and after the building of the park because i was influenced by the wildlife there and its protection, I doubt if you will find many Toxic sights that were rehabbed by a Cancer serviver or many with hundreds of song on the internet but I am not notable Kevin Lajiness (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with attempting to write an article, and your story is admirable, but a number of experienced editors have explained the problems very plainly. You've removed your name from the article, but this is still all about you. A rhetorical question: when you did the good work of refurbishing the park, did you do it because it was a worthy pursuit, or because you wanted recognition? Because that's the unavoidable impression here. 99.0.80.70 (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you knew what i know about how goverment works , you would want the story out to , and if you were thrown under the bus just for it to be "Turned" into something you would do what i am doing, I grew up on Lake erie my grandfathers bait shop was surrounded by open space and a power plant, without going it detail, its a dead zone now, but i know what a healthy environment is,No snakes, no amphibians, no muskrat, no crayfish, all gone, Linwood is less than 4 square miles i fought to keep this property from being developed, its unique onto itself because its a watershed for the freshwater wetland, Box turtles are now Threatened, i had to make it as attractive and usable as i could to open eyes , there's more but in time , but I did make enemies, you can still say its about me , but i didn't spend a solid year someday from dawn do dust raking stone into pot holes with people laughing at me because i wanted recognition ,I did it for what you see in the pictures, now I want a record a history, not to be thanked as some editors or some in the city might think, even though they went out of there way to hide meKevin Lajiness (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - a rough consensus not to delete, but a bold 'listification' or further discussion on the article's talk page is recommended. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Âge

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

A search turned up zero relative sources, notability of the article can not be established. No sources are present which contributes to notability not being establish.

talk) 23:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect to
aging with the {{R from alternative language}} template. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

The article is about a Japanese gaming company (more specifically a division of it).

talk) 07:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I know that. But there are situations where, while the article isn't suitable for Wikipedia, its title can be used as a redirect to a totally unrelated topic. This is one such case. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep. It's the manufacturer of a couple of moderately notable visual novels and games, most notably
Kimi ga Nozomu Eien.). --AlexChurchill (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

And I'd add that back in February, the main page for visual novel listed âge in the head (third paragraph) as one of the most popular VN makers outside Japan. --AlexChurchill (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN 0-7864-4427-4

Delete. I cannot find any secondary, reliable, in-depth sources on the topic (company) to satisfy
WP:NOTINHERITED). The book above has only a singular mention in a list of examples, with the "notable enterprises" claim left unquantified. Googling this term and this being from Japan, makes it hard as usual. But looking at its games, genre and involvement compared to similar cases, I believe notability cannot be established at this point. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are notable because of what they produce, just as an artists or writer is notable from what they create. Some of their products get sufficient news coverage, and even have their own articles. Dream Focus 18:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(
WP:PRODUCT: "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result." —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:CORP says "This guideline does not cover small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people)." Five creative people got together and started a company and started to produce some notable works, co-authoring things together. Dream Focus 20:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
To me, that's a really long stretch. But I suppose, that's one way of looking at it, so I'll leave it there. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listify according to
CSC#3- This article is basically already a list article and not an article on the company itself. As Hellknowz points out the RSes presented so far are mostly reliable information on the company's games, with only trivial mention of the company. Searching myself, I wasn't able to find anything more substantial than this Dengeki article. Whatever little info there is on the actual company at this point would fit into the lede paragraph of "List of Âge games". -Thibbs (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Listify per Thibbs. This is going to be rather painful, since I used to be a fan of csd new 03:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

comment I honestly can't tell, I have no understanding of Japanese. Normally, I would say merge and redirect to Acid Company (the parent publisher), but that doesn't exist, and is yet another ridiculously common search term. However, Hirohiko Yoshida (the founder) gets enough hits that I suspect Acid *should* be an article. The Steve 06:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Revert to DAB status. . MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rubber dam

Rubber dam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Duplicate content exists at inflatable rubber dam. Additionally, this article provides no citations or internal links, and is virtually unreadable. It should be removed or merged into inflatable rubber dam if it contains valuable content. —Entropy (T/C) 23:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete with merge of anything useful, per nom. This article looks to be more about promoting one maker than on an encyclopedic explanation of the principles. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to dab page as before 22 July 2012. Any new content about inflatable rubber dams belongs in that existing article, and should not have been placed overwriting the dab page. I'll add a hatnote for now. PamD 16:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to disambiguation per PamD (thanks for checking the history!). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Hewitt (politician)

Tara Hewitt (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable activist. The most significant content in a reliable source is that the person gets a passing mention as the 29th most influential person in England on LGBT issues as calculated by Pink magazine. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Difficult to spot notability here. At best a middling political activist. As such she's gathered a few mentions in minor political websites. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is cited in several national articles and blogs examples cited ^[1] and ^[2] and ^[3] former vice president of the University of Liverpool Guild of Students one of the First Transgender People to be a sabbatical officer at a Russel Group University http://lgos.org/content/239163/lgos_spring_elections_2010/ Tara Hewitt Awarded National Union of Students national LGBT campaigner of the year award 2009 by Unison ^[4] 188.28.170.47 (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Person is one of the view transgender people in the UK in mainstream politics at what ever level and the most high profile conservative party transgender member of the party too. Any research googling the person on line and looking at transgender peoples positions in UK politics can show this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.170.47 (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
while one would think that a high profile transgender member of the conservative party would attract attention, there is no
reliable third party coverge of such a fact. And the Pink article linked above it not about the subject, it is just an editorial by the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Pink NEWS is Europes largest LGBT dedicated news and media service and is held in high esteem for the work they produce. Tara Hewitt was labelled by them the 29th most influential person on LGBT life on twitter in 2011 by their research into the top 50 people influencing LGBT life on Twitter. This is not a passing mention but an example of the presence the subject has within the area she works and her political sphere. 94.196.187.101 (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no, "she is the 29th on our list" is textbook "passing mention" . If it were #1, then maybe.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have also cited Guido Fawkes leading right wing blog that is referenced by most major news papers. the blog documented Hewitts defection to Tories. If Redpenofdoom you are seriously committed to accuracy and content you almost imply Hewitt isnt Transgender or a Conservative or there is someone else more higher profile that is Transgender in the Conservative Party please can you cite evidence to that effect as no matter how small the evidence or discredited you want to put that has been cited by articles author previous editors and myself it is more than any reference to another Transgender political representative from leading political party running the UK government.... 188.31.13.40 (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not really being 29th out of the 1000s of LGBT people on twitter and only being behind majoy celebs in Pink News' list is more than passing mention and more than any other Conservative Party activist/member/poltiician Transgender person in the UK something you have yet to show evidence to dismiss 188.31.13.40 (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no offence but your jobs worth attitude and attacking people for simply not indenting too just shows you have no "in good faith" attitude to the point of editing the article your interested in the conflict not the article its self. 188.31.13.40 (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from notability guidelines "disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion" The person is referenced in a variety of sources they are not an MP or a government minister however in their area there are very few Transgender people who are active in mainstream politics and their are enough references to show this person is one of the most active in the UK compared to the distinct lack of evidence or commentary on many other Mainstream political party members who are Transgender especially in the Conservative party and active within their own party structures. 188.31.13.40 (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are selectively quoting only part and failing to read the whole guideline and my comments. I am not saying it should be deleted because I have not heard about it. I am saying it should be deleted because there is not signifcant coverage in reliable third party sources about the subject of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I have quoted several sources on here which are more than reliable if you want everything to be a national news paper to be sourced go read the sun or the telegraph there is by far enough evidence to show this person is an active political campaigner who has held office as a national officer in mainstream political party her defection to the conservatives was picked up by the UKs leading right wing blogger guido fawkes who is considered very influential within the UK. As a transgender person she is one of a few at all to be in mainstream politics playing anyrole and has shown their is no citeable evidence to demonstrate anyone of greater notability who is transgender and active within the UK conservative Party which is the current Party of Government. References have shown she was Vice President of one of the UKs leading University's Guild of Students (Russel Group University of Liverpool) was awarded national student LGBT campaigner of the year in 2009 by the National Union of Students, was invited as a guest at launch of Conservative Future women. Etc This person is not a MP a president or a Prime Minister but wikipedia is not just here for the major political figures this person has demonstrated they have a significant influence within their sphere of work whether you appreciate that or not the sources demonstrate this. 188.31.13.40 (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

would "this person" that you keep talking about in the third person happen to be you? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you make that assertion based on the fact your not aware of the individual and your obviously lack of understanding of transgender people in the UK. I am a supporter of the awareness of transgender people within public life who are often isolated and under reported why I feel so strongly about individuals who are transgender and trying to make a difference getting involved in public life such as the subject of this article. 188.31.13.40 (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete TRPoD has it exactly right. --Shorthate (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A
WP:TOOSOON perhaps. If she were to ever become an official Conservative MP or MEP candidate, then we may be onto something. Right now, though, I'm just not seeing the notability. Faustus37 (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Recommend keep due to the diverse nature of individual and documented achievements 188.29.121.138 (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

jumping to yet another IP when you have been blocked from two previous IPs for your disruptive editing is really poor form. And as a blatant
WP:SOCK your repeated !votes are not going to be given any weight in the discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 14:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 14:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- May be notable one day, but not yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chargebee

Chargebee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Previously a Prod with rationale "Insufficient
WP:NSOFT criteria. AllyD (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete As per nom and PROD endorser; company fails
WP:CORP in every way possible. §FreeRangeFrog 22:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom.
talk) 22:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 14:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This article was just created, so a lot of scope for further improvement. Also the company seems new with little or not much in news, this i think has lead to an
WP:NSOFT, but a search does show some notability BBB ACCREDITED BUSINESS, [4] and a search does produce result Yahoo Search. So i believe that the article may grow in future and hence be given some time to add more source when they emerge.Pearll's Sun^TALK 19:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Nobody is disputing the company exists, nor that they have placed themselves on social media and Wikipedia (which are the main returns from the Yahoo search), but Wikipedia depends on achieved notability rather than an expectation that they may one day achieve it. AllyD (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, i understand and also agreed that "Wikipedia depends on achieved notability". But i feel its too early for a deletion as the company has just begun and we may give the new user some time to save the article with more reliable references and if still no improvement with null notability then we can always bring it to Afd. Pearll's Sun^TALK 20:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We could always
talk) 22:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - per nom, this article is
WP:TOOSOON and SPA created so possibly promotional in nature. Dialectric (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete
21™ 23:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor Series (2012)

Survivor Series (2012) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This yet to happen event fails the
lasting significance of this event. It will be one of countless hundreds of televised and reported on sports events that take part on the last weekend of the year around the globe. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as WWE PPVs are notable. A major event, especially as this is one of WWE's "big four" PPVs which will have lasting significance. –
BB 09:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as this has been an annual event since 1988, will happen and is as notable as every single event that has already happened. MPJ -US 11:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the event will occur on 11/18/2012, an removing it now will be idiotic as it is mere days away. Bastista1 (talk)

Keep. Deleting and recreating in days is pointless. This is just as notable as the other Survivor Series. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Every single professional wrestling event that happened before should be deleted if we follow your logic, which would merely be senseless. Bright Darkness (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While there might be a question to the
Mtking^(edits) 21:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
t • c » 21:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Seeing as this event is set to take place in four days it seems kind of dumb to delete and recreate it in four days.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 23:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually since AFD's last at least 7 days unless the article meets one of the speedy deletion criteria or a case of
WP:SNOW the article won't be deleted until at least 3 days after the event. It seems to be pointless so I see little reason for this AFD to proceed. Also, even if this is not notable yet a the article could just as easily been redirected to the main Survivor Series article but at this stage that would not make sense either.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, obviously. A passive-aggressive nomination made just to exert power. This major pay-per-view is already significant and has been covered in myriad third party sources. أنا أحبك (talk) 06:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I pointed out in the comment above, the nomination is about
WP:NOT and not notability, a subject can meet the notability requirements and still not make a suitable encyclopaedic article if it is excluded by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The section that is relevant "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" and the statement that "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability
of persons and events", it goes on to say that "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". This is exactly what we have here, an analysis of the sources shows :

Tweet Survivor Series Theme Song (WWE Music Group @WWEMusic)

WWE Survivor Series

WWE Survivor Series presented by Kmart (Bankers Life Fieldhouse)

WWE

Team Co-Bro vs. 3M-B, (WWE)

Team Foley vs. Team Ziggler, (WWE)

World Heavyweight Champion Big Show vs. Sheamus, (WWE)

WWE Championship Triple Threat Match, (WWE)

Divas Champion Eve Torres vs. Kaitlyn, (WWE)

United States Champion Antonio Cesaro vs. R-Truth, (WWE)

All but 2 are from WWE, as well as not being independent of the subject, that are just announcements, one (no.1) is from Twitter (need I say more) and the other is from the venues website also not independent. A Google search turns up routine coverage consisting of reports on announcements about who is going to perform however they are mainly from non-reliable sources such as the
Mtking^(edits) 08:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
"Mainly from non-reliable sources"... but does reliable coverage exist? 1, 2, 3, not to mention that the Background section can easily be pumped full of reliable sources.. like this? Starship.paint (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But they are just
Mtking^(edits) 21:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm staying neutral on this, but I don't buy the "routine" argument. After all, any promotion for just about anything relating to media would be consider "routine". A review of a major book by the New York Times would be "routine", just like how promotion in Entertainment Weekly for a new TV series would be "routine". If you're going to apply a vague guideline so generally, then I hope you start targeting some of my cited examples. Coverage of the latest John Grisham novel in Publishers Weekly? If I applied your standard, it doesn't prove notability, it's just expected to happen. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 04:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 14:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Whole Heartedly Keep Vjmlhds 21:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mtking.
andley 22:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I'm not voting one way or another on this one, at least not now—but I'd like to let everyone know there's actually a somewhat legitimate sports news source that's weighed in on Survivor Series. See this story from Grantland.com, which is hosted by ESPN. The piece is written by Grantland's regular wrestling columnist. — Dale Arnett (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources can be improved but third party sources for wrestling PPVs tend be be easier to fins after the event happens. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment do note that sources for wrestling are often impossible to find 3rd party due to the fact that as wrestling storylines can constantly change, the only sources that are reliable (until the event happens) are from WWE.com itself.Gorgak25 (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Postpone until after 00:00 PST, 19 November 2012. As the event is scheduled to occur tomorrow, I believe that the deletion should be put off until November 19. It is highly likely that there will be reliable sources after tomorrow. Talk · Contributions 22:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Is there no pattern of recognizing that based on previous notability events will continue to be notable? Byuusetsu (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What the hell? A MMA fan against Pro-Wrestling events? So, why don't he request to delete
OnurT 02:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per above. Nominator appears just to be looking for something to nominate for deletion.
Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 03:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - per CRRaysHead90. All WWE PPVs have articles. United States Man (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your (three keep nominations above) reasoning is invalid.
Talk · Contributions 04:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. See
Talk · Contributions 04:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

There is not a policy or guideline that states facebook and twitter can't be used as reliable sources.
Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 04:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep WWE PPVs are notable. Final Flash (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you want to delete this page, then you have to delete all WWE event pages, which is not only pointless but a waste of time too.

Strong keep Especially considering the event has now taken place. Though I fervently disagree with the nominator's reasons for suggesting deletion in the first place, the point is now entirely moot. ekedolphin (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a joke. JonnyBonesJones and MtKing are engaged in some edit warring and don't come off as particularly level-headed editors to me. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 03:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So what if this PPV was not as significant? It still took place, didn't it? --
talk) 03:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as WWE PPVs are notable. DrachenFyre (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy and strong keep as it's a waste of time and redundant to have this AfD... Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!_{I didn't do it!} 00:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]}

Keep as the event has now occurred.

Speedily Keep. If you check the user's page, you can see clearly he's a MMA fan. He also nominated to delete the following articles:

Royal Rumble (2013)

WrestleMania XXIX

The fact that he's doing this to
trying to illustrate a point just to do so (WP:POINT). It also is one of WWE's biggest pay-per-views and is VERY noticable, so this whole process is completely pointless. For this, I say this should not be deleted. Quack! Quack! Looks like a duck to me Srsrox (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep All the other WWE PPV's have articles so why should this one be deleted? It's not like It's a one time PPV like
Fatal Four Way, Survivor Series has been going for over 25 years and is one of WWE's main PPVs. Muur (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Notable enough, although some improvement is needed, but that's Wikipedia's lifestyle. —
21™ 23:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (
Huntley 02:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Royal Rumble (2013)

Royal Rumble (2013) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This yet to happen event fails the
lasting significance of this event. It will be one of countless hundreds of televised and reported on sports events that take part on the last weekend of the year around the globe. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as WWE PPVs are notable. A major event, especially as this is one of WWE's "big four" PPVs which will have lasting significance. –
BB 09:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep has been an annual event since 1987, will happen and is as notable as every single event that has already happened. MPJ -US 11:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While there might be a question to the
Mtking^(edits) 21:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
t • c » 21:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 14:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep while the December or February PPVs might not happen it is guaranteed that barring any Mayan problems this event is happening and after Sunday the WWE will begin building up to this event. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Big Four WWE PPV must remain until further updates are announced up until the day before the event. (Hansen Sebastian 15:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC))

Keep, obviously. Another passive-aggressive nomination by someone who wants to feel important. History dictates that all WWE pay-per-views are notable, this one especially because a legitimate film star has been confirmed to perform since July. EDIT: Ah, JonnyBonesJones and Mtking are UFC enthusiasts, and almost all their edits are in that area. Clear agenda-driven nomination, given the well-established rivalry between WWE and UFC, and indeed the fans of those promotions. أنا أحبك (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rotten regard Softnow 23:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WrestleMania XXIX

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/WrestleMania XXIX

Articles for deletion/WrestleMania XXIX (2nd nomination)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

This yet to happen event fails the
lasting significance of this event. It will be one of countless hundreds of televised and reported on sports events that take part on the last weekend of the year around the globe. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Obvious keep. Wrestlemania events always have lasting significance. With only 29 entries to the series, it is not an example of "countless hundreds". One of WWE's "big four" events. The article will be recreated in January (at the absolute latest) anyway. –
BB 09:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep has been an annual event for 29 years, will happen and is as notable as every single event that has already happened. MPJ -US 11:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its as notable as the next Super Bowl which also has articles for the next couple years. Its also a Pay Per View not televised. Im questioning if you even nominated the right article. Theres always a long standing impact of Wrestlemania.
message me! 20:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
t • c » 21:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment While there might be a question to the
Mt king^(edits) 21:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Its source even if poorly which can be fixed with a little bit of work.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 23:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definitely notable. --Shorthate (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 14:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The event will happen, like the next three Superbowls, and is a significant event within the wrestling industry. Get better sources but a delete is unnecessary. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Obviously one of the many bad faith nominations by MMA fanatic
WP:NOT policy. I wonder why that is... not. Blocpark (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I think we should all assume good faith on this, that being said, you didnt give a valid reason on why this article should be kept. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I don't think there is much of a reason to assume good faith for an AfD as confusing as this one. Byuusetsu (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails the
lasting effect
. Now to an analysis the sources :

New York Post

WrestleMania press conference (WWE)

WrestleMania 29 to be held in New Jersey at MetLife Stadium (www.thewrestlingtimes.com)

Pro Wrestling Torch

No.1. is the verbatim transcript of an interview with the COO of the promoter, this is as well as being a response to the announcement also not independent; No.2 is from the promoter; No.3 is a link to the home page of www.thewrestlingtimes.com and No.4 is a report on press release there is no analysis of how this event will have any
Mtking^(edits) 20:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Do your contributions to this site consist solely of enforcing
WP:NOT in the most counterproductive manner possible? Byuusetsu (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Wow, it is simply ridiculous how Wikipedia has become a place for self-promoters like
Mt king or JonnyBonesJones, who downplay everything they are not personally fond of and/or hold a grudge against. Saying that WrestleMania had no lasting effect is like denying a lasting effect of an NFL SuperBowl. Keep in mind: Wikipedia is the same encyclopedia that has an entry on Here Comes Honey Boo Boo. I don't see the aformentioned contributors try to have that deleted. WM is obviously a Strong Keep! Blocpark (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Instant keep. JonnyBonesJones and Mtking are UFC enthusiasts with a proven anti-WWE agenda. Spout WP:CIVIL nonsense if you want: fuck everything about these nominations and these vicarious little UFC people. أنا أحبك (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Every WrestleMania event is significant, this event will certainly happen, et cetera. Jeff Silvers (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Keep Possible this is pro wrestling's Super Bowl. To delete it would be as if deleting
Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 21:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Derelict (film)

Derelict (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nonnotable film — Bdb484 (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see much to support notability here. Screened at several, mostly minor, film festivals, but no awards. The Pitch is a contest to secure funding based on, well, a pre-production pitch. It doesn't appear notable in and of itself, either, and certainly doesn't carry the notability requirements for the film. Some hits are false positives, due to the existence of several other films by the same name: a 2012 release that attracted some attention for its crowdsourced funding, but whose ultimate notability is uncertain; a non-notable 2011 comedy short; a 1930 adventure film starring George Bancroft that could be an article with a little work. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've removed much of the article, as it was copyvio from the press release. [5]
talk) 14:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 14:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I've removed a lot from the article that was unsourced, copyvio, trivia, or non-neutrally written. While some notable persons have had their hands on this film at some point in time, that notability is not inherited and given the lack of coverage in reliable and independent sources, this film just isn't notable at this point in time. I've left a notice on the user's page about COI and I don't particularly have anything against it being userfied, but I do think that he'd need someone to help him with film notability guidelines, tone, and whatnot.
talk) 14:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails to meet
21™ 23:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 03:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Michael Kraig

Donald Michael Kraig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable writer who fails
WP:BK. The article has been triple-tagged for various problems for over three years, but notability has never been established. The article was written principally by notorious wikispammer Rosencomet [6], who edits primarily to enhance the financial interests of his Starwood Festival; thus, he writes promotional articles about all of the non-notable people who have appeared there. The discography section of this article is particularly bad. I was going to delete it as purely promotional, but I want everyone to see that the recordings are put out by ACE, which is Rosencomet's personal company. In fact, the URL for ACE is rosencomet.com. Doing that sort of thing is the epitome of bad-faith editing. Qworty (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Once again, Qworty doesn't know what he is talking about. I have no "financial interest" in ACE, because it makes no money. My involvement in its activities is totally voluntary, and actually costs me thousands of dollars a year. His constant reprinting of items from 5 or 6 years ago when I first began editing is rather pathetic. Please judge the subject's notability based on his own characteristics, rather than Qworty's obsession with my history.Rosencomet (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per
talk) 22:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 14:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 14:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The only thing Kraig published that approaches notability is the "Forward" to the
talk) 03:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep He has published six books with a non-vanity publisher. The following non-vanity books (among others) all mention him or his work as an influence: The Continuum Complete International Encyclopedia of Sexuality by Raymond J. Noonan, Italian Witchcraft: The Old Religion of Southern Europe by Raven Grimassi, The Practical Psychic Self Defense Handbook: A Survival Guide by Robert Bruce, 10-Minute Magic Spells: Conjure Love, Luck, and Money in an Instant by Skye Alexander. Also, innumerable self-published titles mention him. Yes, he writes about a fringe subject("magick"), but its a popular one, and he seems to be one of the best-known authors. The Steve 06:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked these four sources. The Italian is published by Llewellyn the same publisher Kraig uses thus not independent. Two are bibliography entries. The last "10-minute magic" has two 1-sentence quotes by Kraig but doesn't say anything about Kraig. None of the books are what you would call academic or neutral on the subject. I have no problem with "magick", they are basically authors who write fiction in-universe (merging fiction and reality). We should treat them like any other genre of this type like the science-fiction based
talk) 21:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
My bad on the biblios. The examples were meant to show his influence on the genre through his writing, and were only a small sample of the many books he's mentioned in. I'm surprised there aren't more reviews of his books, considering how often other authors refer to them. Llewellyn Worldwide specializes in occult publications, so it isn't surprising that authors he's influenced often have the same publisher he does. The Steve 11:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In my opinion he meets
WP:CREATIVE as a person who is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors and is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. Yes, OK, it's in a wierd subject, but his entry in Raven Grimassi's significant "Encyclopedia of Wicca and Witchcraft" [7] is an indication of his importance among his peers. Regarding Qworty's statement about the discography, it isn't actually against the rules for the owner of the record company to write the discography, as this is purely factual (he did cut those records on that label). Claiming that they were the best thing since The Beatles would be promotional. Also, referring to that RfAR from 2007, when Rosencomet (a) wasn't sanctioned and (b) was instead sent round at the time to remove any spam, seems a tad unnecessary. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

"Encyclopedia of Wicca and Witchcraft" is published by Llewellyn Worldwide, the same publisher Kraig uses for Modern Magick. --
talk) 21:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm aware of that, but secondary sourcing does not necessarily need to be completely independed of the subject. The whole Llewellyn publishing thing is faintly incestuous, but like it or not pretty much all the key authors are or were published by them at one point. What would really help is if anyone has access to older review sources that might exist only on paper that would nail it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
talk) 02:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Donald Michael Kraig's books Modern Magick and Modern Sex Magick are generally considered classics in the field. His many fields of expertise - Ceremonial Magick, Tantra, Kabbalah, the history of Magickal societies - make him a unique voice in the communities he serves as a teacher and author. This article could use some work, but the subject is notable IMO.Rosencomet (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sourcing is required for notability, not the primary sourcing of which you speak. Qworty (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in agreement with Elen of the Roads. --No unique names 16:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Elen's very sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See my response to Qworty's nomination of Brushwood Folklore Center for deletion. This is one of a collection of nominations for deletion that I feel should all be dismissed at once. Folklore1 (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep*. Kraigs books are considered to be classics, having been reissued on several occasions with updates. He is used as a reference in sociological classes at Marshal University. This author is certainly notable.Maegdlyn Morris 03:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maegdlyn (talk • contribs)

Keep It's hard for me to judge notability of authors in this field, because libraries rarely collect the books, and the customary book review sources I rely on rarely cover them. But I see for [ WorldCat Identities] that there are a fair number of holdings, especially for Modern magick , and I see there it has been translated into Russian & Spanish, and the author search gives also Polish, and for other books French and Czech. In the absence of other objective evidence I have come to rely on the presence of such translations as an indication those in the subject area think the work worth translation. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball keep. Royal broil 04:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Monaghan

Patricia Monaghan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable writer who fails
WP:SPA who edits nearly exclusively to promote his financial interests in the Starwood Festival, by writing bogus articles about people who were vaguely associated with it. Qworty (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
csp
|username}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 14:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 14:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This is a misleading screed about me, personally, that should not distract you from the actual facts about this subject. Patricia Monaghan was a prominent author, recently deceased, who's Encyclopedia of Goddesses and Heroines is considered a classic in the field. She has written many books, published by major presses, and lectured all over the world. Patricia has published essays and articles in national and regional publications including The New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor. Her work has been featured in Best American Spiritual Writing and many other anthologies. She has been honored with a Pushcart Prize, the Paul Gruchow Nature Writing award, and the Friends of Literature award for poetry. In 2012 she was named the second lifetime honorary member of Celtic Women International (the first being the esteemed Irish novelist Morgan Lewellyn). I invite you to do a Google search or any other research you prefer to evaluate her notability for yourself. (And just for the record, I DO edit and create articles about subjects unrelated to Starwood, and I derive not one penny from that event or the organization that runs it.)Rosencomet (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep She has published a lot. It is not clear if any of it is important or makes her
WP:FOUR) 18:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

P.S. Why was
WP:FOUR) 18:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

KEEP She does not fail the WP:AUTHOR. She is regarded an an important figure in the earth based spirituality movement, goddess movement, woman movement, and has been cited in books and literature by others see above by Rosencoment. She is know for significantly adding to the pathos of area in which she wrote. Many people today would not have the knowledge they do had her books not be published. With 15 books she has a collective body of work that has had multiple independent articles or reviews. I think only one of the 5 listed criteria are required to be considered notable. She was and still is highly regarded by her peers and those in the community. That someone who originally started the article did so for something that was deemed inappropriate, doesn't discount the work this woman created and shared with the community that is interested in the subject she wrote about. Again she had 15 publications. Still available in major book retailers. These publications are not self published, and therefore just a point of tooting someones own horn. She is a published author and as such deserves to have her page left on Wikipedia so those that come behind, read one of her books, can find a bit more information on this powerful woman who gave to us. Sampling that her peers do hold her in high regard:

* One of the leaders of the contemporary earth spirituality movement [9]

* We are sad to mark the passing of Goddess scholar, poet, author, and women’s spirituality elder [10]

* a pioneer in the contemporary women’s spirituality movement, and author [11]

* Goddess movement pioneer, author, teacher, poet [12]

WebWeaver64 (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep (new rationale below) Every source currently in the article is primary or unreliable. See
talk) 05:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Green Cardamon, I do not believe there is any connection between
Llewellyn Publications (AKA Llewellyn Worldwide), perhaps the most prominent publisher in the fields of Magic, the Occult, Parapsychology and Paganism. I can find no evidence they even know each other (although I found an Amazon.com review of one of Llywelyn's books by Monaghan). Also, I think you might find more reviews of The Book of Goddesses and Heroines, just one of her better-known books, considered an important reference book in the field. Also, before you decide there is no Paul Gruchow Award, you might want to do I bit of research. You can start with his Wikipedia article.Rosencomet (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok thank you for the clarification on Llywelyn vs Llywelyn. Your suggestion to search on Book of Goddesses led to an interesting reliable source in the Anchorage Daily News, added. I'll work on this more later, might change my vote if I can find more reliable sourcing. --
talk) 22:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Found and added additional sources that are enough to suggest notability. (BTW the article said she won a Pushcart Prize for her book of poems, but that's not right, Pushcart's are for single poems or essays; her CV is online [14] and confirms, but need reliable source.) --
talk) 08:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Just want to point out a trend I've noticed in Qworty's articles for deletion. I noticed in an article on Stregheria that he warranted a warning from another editor for the demonstrated lack of civility in his entry there, and an even more pronounced lack of knowledge on the subject in question. Likewise, in this post, we see a barely veiled disdain for the subject mentioned. In this case, given his past entries and a demonstrated track record of bias in his nominations and comments, I think his motives need to be taken into consideration as well, since this is a subject he has already made his feelings clear on before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stregheria). This is becoming a pattern that verges on an attempt at discrimination.The1TrueBen (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful of
talk) 19:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as per
WP:AUTHOR. -Racklever (talk) 10:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

KEEP. The article needs a bit of work, but the author and her works are highly notable. Folklore1 (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Patricia Monaghan is a relevant author to the three million wiccans and countless other pagans in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmberMoon612 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as stated above she meets
WP:GNG in any case. The sources (patheos and wildhunt) may be on an unusual subject, but they are reliable and significant sources in that subject area. Rosencommon is not 'a notorious wikispammer' and Qworty has been asked not to use this language againElen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Patricia Monaghan is an extremely well known author in the Pagan and Wiccan community. Removing her simply because she does not meet mainstream requirements of a "famous author" is just deplorable. Pagan Clergy (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to Green Cardamom's efforts which expanded her bibliography and added book reviews. Well Done GC! The Steve 08:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The request to delete this article appears to be part of a concerted attempt by Qworty to delete articles by specifically women who have been considered significant contributors to the larger Neo-Pagan/Witchcraft community. <http://www.witchschool.com/forum/topics/super-important-wikipedia-pagan-pages-are-under-attack-deletion-o> Regardless of Qworty's personal views, proclivities or inclinations, each community is free to choose for itself who is considered a significant spokesperson. That there is a large Neo-Pagan/Witchcraft community present in the United States, Europe and internationally simply cannot be doubted. Numerous scholarly works have been written about this community including the now famous Drawing Down the Moon (Adler, new edition 2006) and The Triumph of the Moon (Hutton, 2001). Neo-Pagans and witches are definitely more than a few 'women leaping about naked in the woods,' (to paraphrase a Qworty image that has been circulating). I wrote about this community myself in my book New Religions (2005). Patricia Monaghan's 15 published titles, several of which have won regional or subject based rewards and the constant presence of her texts in independent and specialty booksellers readily displays her importance to the larger Neo-Pagan community. If they claim her as significant, then she is, regardless of relative size or demographic importance of that said community. I write this as a non-Pagan who is interested in new religious movements, has a PhD in American Cultural Studies and who has studied Neo-Pagans, among others for over two decades. Qworty can contact me directly if he/she really wants to debate the matter, I may be contacted via the Wikpedia email function. In the meantime, while the article might benefit from some rewriting and reference sourcing, Monaghan's value to the Neo-Pagan/Witchcraft community cannot be doubted and the article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WHAM09 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the 2-vol The Encyclopedia of Celtic Myth and Folklore by Facts on File, a major reference publisher. That's sufficient to shown notability as an author/expert in the field. I find it difficult to judge the other questions raised. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (
Huntley 02:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Mick Davis

Mick Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails
WP:ANYBIO. besieged^talk 18:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 15:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. As the head of a multinational corporation with a market capitalization of around $50 billion dollars, among the top 20 largest firms on the London Stock Exchange, finding substantive sources should not be a problem (and the article reflects that). In my opinion this position is influential enough to make him notable. --Lockley (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Very powerful businesman, head of a multinational corporation, and significant philathropist.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Bjørnholm

Robin Bjørnholm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

PROD contested by IP, no rationale given - this player has not received significant coverage (failing
WP:NFOOTBALL). Giant Snowman 18:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails both
WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 15:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 15:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - classic case of not playing in a professional league and failing to meet the
WP:GNG. Cloudz 679 19:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a promising footballer who has been on the bench a couple of times, but has not yet made his debut in a
talk) 12:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 17:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
21™ 23:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred cockfight

Sacred cockfight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fundamentally, this entire article is a
1816 dictionary
entry that also defines alectryomancy as "cock-fighting" to syncretize religious uses of alectryomancy with cockfighting absent any sources that actually make those claims.
Relying on Google hits is of course bad form, but it's probably worth note that there are zero relevant Google Books hits for "sacred cockfight" and zero reliable Google Scholar hits for "sacred cockfight". This topic simply does not have the recognition and coverage that the use of references here implies. A little more information about the motivation at play here can be seen at the AFD for Agonist (Christian). All of this is intended to support the fringe religious viewpoints of www.christian-agonist.com and agon.us. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 16:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nominator. I have not read it all, but did look into the claimed citation from Augustine, and disputed that on the talk page. The section on Judaism and Christianity is rambling, confusing, and seems to be piling together any possible citations touching on the subject, despite non-sequiturs and irrelevance, to give a superficial appearance of scholarly writing. The paragraphs that currently start "The Talmud" and "The Vatican Persian cock" read like drivel, and are an insult to Wikipedia, not to mention Judaism and Christianity. It might be possible to rescue this page e.g. as Roosters in religion, like some other members of Category:Animals in religion, but it would have to be very different from what it is now. – Fayenatic London 21:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite familiar with the passage of the Talmud cited there, and I cannot make any sense of the intended meaning in the article.
talk) 23:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I believe editor All Worlds has good intentions and he has cleaned up some vandalism in unrrelated articles. However, he seems to have difficulty writing legible prose. He also draws peculiar conclusions regarding cockfighting and religion in general, and from what I can tell has hijacked all articles regarding cockfighting to draw attention to his odd POV. I have cleaned up much of this material recently. Niado (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete May be good intentions, but it is just so much original research and synthesis. Let's wait for some academic reliable sources to write articles that are focused on this very specific subject first, before it's synthesized here. First Light (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (
Huntley 02:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

UFC on FX: Sotiropoulos vs. Pearson

UFC on FX: Sotiropoulos vs. Pearson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

This sports event fails
Mtking ^(edits) 19:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - UFC on FX 6 is a notable event because it will be the conclusion of
talk) 21:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - The event in question will be a
WP:EFFECT. Also, the creation of these articles was already discussed here: WP:MMA Talk/Archive 4. The finales are first and foremost their own MMA event, and are worthy of their own articles outside of the articles describing the rest of the series (this is actually a quote of a Drr-darkomen's comment from another AfD discussion). There are many fighters who aren't related to the show in the same event. Here's another comment from the same discussion made by jhanCRUSH: "(...) I was wondering myself why they didn't have their own articles, as the links on the MMA record boxes of the fighters who fought in the finale would lead to an article about an entire season of a show that they had nothing to do with. (...)". If you wish to know more about the subject, see The Ultimate Fighter and List of TUF champions. Poison Whiskey (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment to both Oskar Liljeblad and Poison Whiskey as with the final episode in all reality TV shows, they are coved in the article on the series as a whole. Your !votes do not address the lack of non-routine coverage of the event (as opposed to the reality TV show) and absent that policy is clear.
Mt king ^(edits) 21:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Corn cheese (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These articles fall well under the scope of wiki policy. These are objective articles written from a neutral point, which includes sources from USAtoday MMA website, MMAJunkie; Sherdog; ESPN; TSN; Sportsnet, amongst others. Taken from the UFC 155 page: To address all those that say delete, WP:NOT DOES allow sporting events to be written, as long as they're written objectively, "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." Crystal Ball also allows for future events to be written as long as they are not speculative or unverifiable. MtKing could also included the ENTIRE quote, and not just the part that says no articles to be written on sports, or celebrities: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." This articles are not being reported as "breaking news." Now, there is another quote that could be taken out of context which would also lead one to believe MMA/UFC/Sporting articles should deleted, "Even when an individual is notable, not all events he is involved in are. "For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overdetailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person." However, that sentence is refering to writing articles as diaries, which has also not happened. Writing objective, neutral POV articles on UFC events is not breaking news, and is not a diary; so it has every right to have it's own articles. But, even if they were strictly against Wikipedia rules, then why deleted the information without retaining any? Why just delete pages without including the information on the page where it is being redirected?Autokid15 (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Im kind of getting annoyed with the recent articles being chosen for deletion, this mark the finale of one of TUF programs, confused as to why Mtking would even do this. Sepulwiki 16:47, 10 November (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per all keep votes above. Farcical anti-MMA biased editor who should be ignored. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
andley 15:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - As per
WP:WITCHHUNT and is impartial) to join the discussion and come up with a solution that is fair to both sides. Courier00 (talk) 04:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I have to answer this, since it was well-written. The case is that UFC 27 is deleted, and some minor events as well. If you keep shooting from the hip many times, you ought to hit something once in a while. When that said, the admin Black Kite shouldn't be involved in the MMA community. He is biased and has said off-topic/off-discussion that he wouldn't see anymore of the noise that MMA makes. Doesn't sound neutral to me! Mazter00 (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Evenfiel (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very notable event for reasons already noted.I remember halloween (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event serves as "The Ultimate Fighter: The Smashes" finale. A title of "TUF winner" is being fought for here, and it's a competition of countries: UK vs. Austrailia, I find it funny MTKing would wanna delete this, since he is from Austrailia... JonnyBonesJones (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep TUF finales are the starting point for many people's UFC careers, and they are the culmination of a months-long TV show as well. I just wish we were getting as many reasonable people on all the other article for deletion discussions. Byuusetsu (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Comment I just want to add in addition to the well-reasoned arguments above that any given UFC event includes 9-13 fights (usually 11) across multiple weight divisions with individual ramifications for each match. It's not comparable to a single soccer match, or American football game. Also a number of the "MMA media" sites are owned by mainstream media outlets such as Sherdog being a subsidiary of CBS Sports, and their journalists are accredited as such. Mtking at this point it really does behoove you to answer why you've gone well out of your way to target MMA pages specifically. There is no one else I have encountered on Wikipedia with your level of enduring zealotry. You've never given a coherent answer to that as far as I know and it seems you have gone well against the spirit of
WP:WIN. Beansy (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Keep please! Stop this nonsense crusade against UFC on Wikipedia. The article is valid.TheAmazingChandler

Keep this is just another in a long line of MtKing attempts to have all things MMA removed from Wikipedia. The article is valid, and this argument has been had over and over again over the last year (see the huge number of AFD's on UFC pages). it's time to end this crusade/jihad against MMA articles. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an easy way to have an overarching final decision made on a consensus driven portal like wikipedia. Trok333 (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per
WP:NOTNEWSPAPER then we need to come up with a more clear standard. Kevlar (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. withdrawn -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 16:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emeel S. Betros

Emeel S. Betros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Minor politician, does not appear to meet
WP:POLITICIAN. Creator is his son. It's been trimmed back from the memorial that was created, but he doesn't appear to meet notability requirements. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 15:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 15:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 15:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

keep - he does appear to meet WP:POL - he was elected and served several terms to the NY State legislature. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Somehow I got tripped up by "Assembly" - and I don't know why. I'll close. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 16:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G10). If the author wishes to write in this area, I strongly suggest a userspace draft with good sourcing and adherence to NPOV. Also, repeated removal of maintenance/deletion tags without cause is greatly frowned upon Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 07:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Influence on US Presidential Election, 2012

Foreign Influence on US Presidential Election, 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Original research, no reliable sources. Could be an interesting article if supported by references, but is currently an op/ed piece. JNW (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 15:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 15:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I encourage you to let me finish this article before deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corinne.L.Clark (talk • contribs) 15:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have been inclined to give this the benefit of the doubt if the article had a single claim that was supported by a reliable source, or had an introduction which established the exertion of foreign influence; as it stands it appears to be a
WP:ESSAY. Generally an AfD discussion runs for a week, after which time an administrator makes a decision to keep or delete. That leaves ample time to add acceptable references and copy edit, and, of course, you can continue to work on it in userspace. JNW (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Not only is this article original research, it is highly POV. TFD (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing of substance here. Plus we Canadians don't want anybody to know about our insidious, iron-fisted control of the U.S. Bwahahahaha. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this
WP:SOAPBOX. Qworty (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Snowball delete as a work of original research. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I started to try to rescue this article by removing the original research, on;y to discover there'd be only a stub (and a POV-pushing one at that) once I finished. JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The contents of the article were copied to a sandbox at User:Corinne.L.Clark/sandbox. -- Dianna (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy d just removed copyright vio and BLP but have to go offline. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Paranoid PoV rant based entirely on conspiracy theory OR bullspit. This should be speedied immediately. oknazevad (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
WP:POV. He iro 04:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete per
WP:ATTACK. This article appears to be all about making negative associations between Obama and maligned foreign powers.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong delete for all of the reasons outlined above.
WP:COATRACK... pick your alphabet soup and it's probably being ladled out here. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete as POV-pushing bollocks... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, Speedy Delete This article is everything a Wikipedia article should not be.
talk) 05:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Unacceptable when I nominated it, and only got worse. Question: assuming eventual deletion, if this contains BLP and copyright violations, is it acceptable in the user's sandbox? JNW (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Citizens United part seems to be a copyvio w/r/t the mother jones article. AgnosticAphid talk 05:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost verbatim copyandpaste with a minor an attempt at paraphrase, removed. See the fourth paragraph of this compared with my removal. He iro 05:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cafeteria Christianity

Cafeteria Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

The existence of this page violates
wp:npov Niado (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 15:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete As per above + ?violation of "WP is not a dictionary"? Jpacobb (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 20 years' usage is not a neologism, and Google books has just over 200 results for the phrase. I have trimmed some more
WP:OR and will add/improve citations. – Fayenatic London 17:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
On closer inspection, some of those books are based on Wikipedia, but there seem to be about 150 that are not. – Fayenatic London 18:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I applaud your quick work!. You have drastically improved the article. I still have concerns regarding
wp:not a dictionary as the article is still little more than a definition. Niado (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks! I've since added further material with citations from reasonably weighty sources, which I think justify keeping the page. I hope somebody will find time to look at the external links & incorporate material from them if appropriate. – Fayenatic London 20:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fayenatic; not just a dictionary listing, notable subject, needs work not deletion.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is
WP:NPOV.Qworty (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Everything is a neologism if you go far enough back. This one has fairly broad currency and is well recorded. Although we're not there yet, a discussion of its history could be encyclopedic and is expandable to more than a dicdef.Andy Dingley (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cafeteria Catholicism. I had heard of this, but by and large is a dictionary term, free of any theological connotation. Should be in Wiktionary, but really what is there to say here? It just means that people selectively follow the teachings that suit them. That is just a definition. But if some people are hot on keeping it, there is no point in two articles dealing with the same simple idea. There is no depth here. History2007 (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to merge, it should be reverse merge as the term would appear to apply to more than just one denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Used often enough to need an explanation. Related to Cafeteria Catholicism certainly, but that has a precise context where the Church prescribes a set of doctrines which members are expected to adhere to. In Christianity as a whole the matter is much less clear cut, and as used in the Church of England for example, it can be used to describe the practice of picking a church within the denomination where the style of worship and preaching on aspects of doctrine best suit the individual rather than merely attending the nearest or parish church. Certainly used wholly perjoratively in some circles as a quick search on cafeteria (style) Christianity demonstrates, but it can be and is used in a more neutral way as describing the way in which many Christians find their own accommodation to the multiplicity of interpretations of the fundamentals of Christian belief and styles of worship, and approvingly as an encouragement to individual churches and congregations to adopt a distinctive style. More than a dicdef is required. --AJHingston (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and I will pick-and-choose which policies I think should be applied here !
AutomaticStrikeout 20:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Fayenatic London. Cafeteria Christianity is not just a word (for a dictionary), it is a concept (for an encyclopedia). Trying to think of a more generic word or phrase for the same concept is rather difficult. And this is the term people use. The concept is that one can embrace or reject orthodox teachings at will, with no real negative consequences. It implies the cafeteria Christian does not really believe that God will punish evil, or that grace given by God is cheap, or that God doesn't exist (all of which are against orthodox Christian beliefs).
talk) 02:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep -- I had not come across the term, but it seems a harmless article. It is more than just a definition. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Assuming the namin is correct, then the topic is notable. —
21™ 23:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Discussion for this is already open at
Huntley 15:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Embedded Parallel Operating System

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Embedded Parallel Operating System

Articles for deletion/Embedded Parallel Operating System (2nd nomination)

Embedded Parallel Operating System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication that the operating system is notable. No coverage in independent secondary sources. The only citations listed in the article are
User:Francophonie&Androphilie was contested. xanchester (t) 14:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Framewire

Framewire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of WP:notability. noq (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. A search for news articles doesn't bring up anything. The software isn't notable.--xanchester (t) 13:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. It is also worth recording and responding to the edit comment from when the earlier Prod was removed: "Added project site and github repository as references, allowing people to review the site and code to confirm the content is correct. If this isn't sufficient, please indicate what would be. This is a new open source project.". However the issue here is evidence of attained notability rather than confirmation of existence, and I've not been able to locate any
WP:NSOFT. AllyD (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Unreadable article. It's only short, but it still manages to bring in several neologisms and fails to explain them. An "un-framework framework"? Serious lack of independent sources too. With both of these issues, I see no way to keep this. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. —
21™ 23:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to Redemption Song (TV series). MBisanz ^talk 01:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mixi (musician)

Mixi (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Completing nomination for User:Vividdreams93, who left the below rationale on my talk page. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the AFD tag is because the subject does not meet the criteria for :Notability and the website reference doesn't even work! Thank you ::::::::::Vividdreams93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vividdreams93 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 16:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Delete~~, no sources for "Alecia Demner", and just a bunch of false positives for "Mixi" (mainly related to the Japanese social network with the same name). No evidence of notability per GNG or other guidelines. Cavarrone (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Merge per below. Cavarrone (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Redemption Song (TV series), the reality show she won in 2008. I could not find enough significant coverage for this person to warrant an independent article, but the sourced information could be added to the show's page. Gongshow ^Talk 20:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete this was speedyable as G7: sole author blanked the page Morwen (Talk) 13:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

African Asembler

African Asembler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

blank page AshLey ^Msg 12:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was
Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 00:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Pariah (video game)

Pariah (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find video game sources: "Pariah (video game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

The article supplies no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to prove the article's notability. Codename Lisa (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Metacritic shows that the game was reviewed by general notability guideline. The article does need a clean up.--xanchester (t) 12:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I've expanded the article with a Reception section that includes the Gamespot, IGN and Gamespy sources as citations.--xanchester (t) 12:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Theo polisme 12:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing
WP:GNG with multiple, reliable, independent, in-depth (reviews) sources shown above. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:BEFORE absolutely applies here. --Teancum (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi. Actually, with all due respects, I think
not bludgeoning the process, it does not mean that I personally agree that any of the found coverage is enough for notability. (I maintain a stricter standard of notability.) The fact that I nominated the article for deletion shows that; therefore, jumping on everyone who says Keep is unnecessary and uncivil. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I hope this does not come as personal, but the majority of editors at video game AfDs agree that multiple video game reviews (being critical analysis) from
WP:BEFORE" may come as harsh to someone unfamiliar with typical video game sites or who may not consider them sufficient. But, in all fairness, you did not list any of these sources that show up straight away even in non-specialized Google search with "Pariah video game reviews"[15]. Perhaps if you had explained your stance of stricter notability standards regarding the sources you did find. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi. For a while, I wanted to nominate this article for deletion but I couldn't decide whether it was a right choice or not. After all, I do care about the quality of the sources, not just their names. But apart from considerations for not destroying the efforts of a group of people just on of a mere whim, there is a rumor roaming around that articles about boxed games are never deleted in AfDs because there are several magazines whose jobs are to write reviews for all of them. But recently, I noticed that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 went through an AfD and is marked for termination after a portion of it is merged. It was a sign that some Wikipedians also care about contents. So, I finally decided that although I cannot be sure about the outcome of an AfD on this game, my personal judgment is on deletion and an AfD is worth taking place, although the final decision, as always, is depending on the community consensus. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. Before telling me, someone just emailed me and said that the tag on the Modern Warfare 3 article talk page does not indicate that a deletion is currently in progress and that it is just a record of the past! (Article is merged once and is now rebuilt.) Wow! I can't stop laughing. Wikipedia is such a muddle for those are not familiar with it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it passes
reliable sources added by Xanchester. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I took the same approach as Xanchester and saw that right away the Metacritic source already in the article leads to all sort of reliably sourced coverage. There's pretty clear consensus at
WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was : Deleted as copyright violation, without prejudice to re-creation. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ancentus Akuku

Ancentus Akuku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't see how this person passes
news story that I'd expect to see in an And finally... bulletin. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coverage, if one time, could be characterised as a run of the mill news story. However, this is not the case with this individual. His death was widely reported: AllAfrica, Daily Nation, Capital News, ABC News, and Radio Netherlands are just some examples of many. Prior to his death, he has received coverage over a period of time: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (1999), BBC News (2000), Drum magazine (2001), Sydney Morning Herald (2004), Der Speigel (2004). Note also how international the coverage is. -- Whpq (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that his death was widely reported, but is that just because of the unusual-ness of the man in question? Does he justify having an article about him on WP? At best a couple of lines of this article could be added to the polygamy article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And all that coverage prior to his death? -- Whpq (talk) 11:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 11:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Whpq. Loads of references before and after his death. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per
Je vous invite à me parler) 10:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was (
Huntley 17:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

TandMProductionCo

TandMProductionCo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A "movie production company" which appears to be based on YouTube. No
R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete, no claim to notability. All there is here is a description of two videos.Hairhorn (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

-->

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Love

Rebecca Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails: WP:GNG WP:PORNBIO
Vanity page... WP:SPIP PeterWesco (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur: delete:
Je vous invite à me parler) 10:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. It grieves me to have to say this, but, very unfortunately, this hardworking girl does not yet meet the stringent, exacting, and often sublime standards of WP:PORNBIO. Qworty (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO with a single scene-related award nomination. A search for reliable sources yielded a single AVN article, not enough for GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:BLP
requirements. There is not one independent source listed in the article since both the references are based on the subject.
http://www.universal-ent.net/rebecca_love.htm refers to the the subject in the first person "me".

http://www.rebeccalove.com/about.html is her web site.

as this is an unsuitably sourced BLP it should be immediately deleted.

if these sources were to be considered authoritative however than the subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:PORNBIO BO | Talk 01:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milcho Angelov

Milcho Angelov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Footballer who fails
WP:GNG. Oleola (talk) 09:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage. As such, the article fails both
WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nomination. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, indeed, a
WP:TOOSOON case.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a
talk) 12:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 17:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
21™ 23:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. (
Non-admin closure)Go Phightins! 23:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Amampondo

Amampondo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails
WP:BAND. Their sole claim to fame is a short blurb they once received in the National Geographic. Otherwise, this article has gone unsourced for six years. Time to let it go. Qworty (talk) 08:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep due to complete failure to follow
WP:BEFORE. A quick Google search found this ("one of South Africa's leading ensembles"), this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this...Obviously notable. --Michig (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep. Here are a few more sources to go with the ones above [16][17][18][19]. Gongshow ^Talk 21:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Abelson

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Matthew Abelson

Articles for deletion/Matthew Abelson (2nd nomination)

Matthew Abelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable dulcimer player who fails
WP:CREATIVE, despite the fact that he is appearing in "coffee houses throughout the Mid-Atlantic region." The coverage is spotty and local, which is about what one would expect. Qworty (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Kudos to Matthew Abelson for his music work but he is not notable for Wikipedia yet. All of the relevant results Google News provided were event listings, nothing substantial. A search at clevescene.com provided two additional results here and here. I have absolutely no prejudice to a future article. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per user:Viriditas and user:Pigman in the 2007 Afd. The Steve 09:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The best arguments for keeping this article about one of the few notable hammered dulcimer musicians in America can be found in the original nomination, which resulted in a "keep" decision. Every vote was to Keep, and the original nomination was withdrawn. The only reason this has been brought up again is that it is part of a personal campaign by Qworty against me. Please don't be distracted; view the original nomination, and judge for yourself. [20]Rosencomet (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several musicians have played for the President and Vice President, but not all of them are probably notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What has changed since the previous decision to make this person non-notable? Folklore1 (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per
talk) 17:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Per previous AFD. —
21™ 23:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Martinie'

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Louis Martinie'

Louis Martinie' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

The article has been tagged for notability for over two years now and zero notability has been established. It's time to delete it. Fails
WP:RS, and any other policy you care to throw at it. Qworty (talk) 08:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I'm finding him as a very brief mention in some books, but it's very brief and not all of these are necessarily books that might count towards notability. I notice that in most of them it's one specific book that's used as a reference for the material. [21], [22], [23], [24]
talk) 08:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Hmm... I'm leaning towards saying that it might be better to create an entry for the specific book that he keeps getting sourced for and then potentially redirect there. ([25], [ Voices of the African Diaspora])
talk) 09:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
talk) 07:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Argh, just found the article
talk) 08:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Created a sub-section for the cards/book in Sallie's article and a sentence about the co-author. --
talk) 19:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - The Boston Herald called him "an internationally known voodoo drummer". I have added a cite to the article. The Steve 08:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His recording Festival & Ritual Drumming (with Mishlen Linden) was one of the first instructional guides of it's kind. His work with the New Orleans Voodoo Spiritual Temple as their primary ritual drummer and his founding of Black Moon Publishing among other accomplishments make him, IMO, notable.Rosencomet (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're citing primary sourcing, not the secondary sourcing that's required for notability, per
WP:42. Qworty (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
There are enough independent secondary sources in the article right now to meet the GNG. The Steve 07:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every source is a passing mention. Per GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". Per
talk) 08:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Page now moved to Louis Martinié, since we're not restricted to characters that appear on a US keyboard. Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The Steve. No credible refutation of indicators of notability, just handwaving. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Folklore1 (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep Louis Martinies book New Orleans Voodoo Tarot has sold over 25,000 copies and is the primary author, not Sallie Ann Glassman, who is the illustrator who created the deck of cards accompanying the book. Louis is not the co-author he is the only author, and he also holds the copyright. The publisher is Destiny Books of Rochester Vermont, which is an imprint of Inner Traditions Publishing.Maegdlyn Morris 04:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maegdlyn (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 03:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LaSara FireFox

LaSara FireFox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable writer who has published one non-notable book, failing
WP:BK. There's absolutely nothing more to say about her. And that's the problem. Qworty (talk) 07:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I've cleaned out the vast majority of stuff in the article that relied on primary sources or other sources that wouldn't show notability. Of the sources in the article, I'm not feeling too solid on them. Here's my rundown:

Modern Pagans: There's nothing to show that this particular book would be considered a reliable source enough to show notability.
RE/Search
itself has an article so that's a note in its favor. However a search for the credentials of the author or the editor gives little to show that they would be an authority on the subject. Establishing whether this could be used as a RS would probably have an effect on other articles that also list this as a RS.

[26] This is a news article in a German language paper. It's good and although it's one of those fluffy articles (no sex pun intended), it does count towards notability.

[27] This is a primary source and I left it because otherwise this would cause most of the article to be removed and pretty much be a 1-2 sentence article. I didn't use it as heavily as it was originally used, certainly.

[28] This is a free alternative paper and while that doesn't mean it can't be a RS, some papers of this type are less reliable than others. In this case the article isn't quite a mere listing of an event or a press release, but it's not an in-depth article either.

[29] This seems to be an actual article, which is good, but I'm not sure how in-depth it is. It looks like it'd be a RS towards notability, however.

The bigger issue here is that I can really only say that two of these sources are reliable enough to show notability. The others are a little suspect, so this isn't as easy as saying "yup, notable".
talk) 09:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete. If there was one more solid source I'd say it should be kept, but the other sources I'd found just aren't solid enough to where I think they show enough notability to warrant an entry. If anyone can prove that Modern Pagans is a reliable source, I'm willing to count that, but I don't really see anything that shows that it's a reliable source.
talk) 15:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highbeam yielded four results, including the Washington Post (Peter Carlson. "Hex Advice, Coven To Coven." The Washington Post. Washingtonpost Newsweek Interactive. 2003. HighBeam Research. 17 Nov. 2012 <http://www.highbeam.com>.) and the Chicago Sun-Times (Debra Pickett. "'I've never been able to be monogamous successfully'." Chicago Sun-Times. Sun-Times News Group. 2005. HighBeam Research. 17 Nov. 2012 <http://www.highbeam.com>.) These two sources should put her over the bar. The CST source, in particular, is an in-depth interview which includes a short review of Sexy Witch The Steve 08:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the CST interview. The Washpost article is about New Witch magazine, but does mention her column (copy, almost certainly a pirate, here)Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the additional material added by The Steve , especially the interview in Chicago Sun-Times.Rosencomet (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment I have added the newspaper sources to the article, which I was too lazy to do yesterday. On a side note, Highbeam has certainly proven its worth to me, since the sources were, as Tokyogirl said above, "not too solid". The Steve 08:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See my comment about Qworty's nomination for deletion of Brushwood Folklore Center. This is one of several inappropriate nominations for deletion that I feel should all be dismissed immediately. Folklore1 (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Her one book is in only 32 libraries--even considering the small likelihood of most libraries buying something of this nature, that's not very impressive, but neither is like the zero holdings of some of the subjects of these articles. I'm not impressed by the rest, beyond saying it shows a certain talent at getting publicity, but the sources are technically adequate. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Bill Williams (novel)

Wild Bill Williams (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I came across this novel and saw that it lacked reliable sources. A search did not bring up anything to show that this book passes
talk) 07:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons stated above:

Edge the Loner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jack Martin (entertainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 07:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 07:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Also, the author doesn't seem to be notable as an actor either.
talk) 07:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all three of these abysmal articles for abjectly failing
WP:AUTHOR. Qworty (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete trifecta. Unable to find multiple reliable sources for the author or his books per WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. There is one decent source (Pontypridd Observer) but other than that, some of the stuff in the article appears to be the work of imagination for example the award "Small Press Award for Excellence in Blogging" doesn't exist in a Google search, it's unlikely an award for blogging doesn't have presence online (maybe so but still no way to verify it without a source). IMDB shows someone named Gary Dobbs appeared in Moonmonkeys[30] but no IMDB evidence for the other claimed films (Dr. Who etc..) or that this is even the same Gary Dobbs (understood IMDB is not a reliable source). In any case, just being a "bit actor" or publishing books is not enough to meet notability on Wikipedia. --
talk) 22:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 15:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bhakta Kumbara

Bhakta Kumbara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails
Talk 06:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is one of important films in Kannada language acted by Dr. Rajkumar, who got State Award. The article needs more reliable sources and requires more information.May be kept, for further development.Rayabhari (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how it does not fail
Talk 15:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as the lead actor won Best Actor award by the Karnataka State Government for performance in this film. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The lead actor got state award for his acting in this film. So, the film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. And also, the film was popular, which makes it notable by common sense.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
Wreck-it Ralph per unanimous consensus including nominator and article creator. Content can be merged from article history if desired. (non-admin closure) —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Vanellope von Schweetz

Vanellope von Schweetz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Notability of the character not established. Character has appeared in a single film, with no immediate indication that Disney either intends to use the character again or to expand upon said character. Information appearing in this article can easily be added to the main
WP:SPLIT would apply ... but that isn't now. McDoob AU 93 06:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as nominator. --McDoob AU 93 06:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So sorry for the trouble folks. It was my first foray into character articles. I should have read the criteria first. A thousand pardons for wasting community resources. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to apologize for. You were speedy criteria, by my interpretation. --McDoob AU 93 06:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Wreck-It Ralph, merging any useful information in the process. wctaiwan (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wreck-It Ralph for now at least, per wctaiwan (while merging some of the info, if possible). The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 08:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wreck-It Ralph. Merge if there's anything to merge. Secondary character, but a plausible search term.--xanchester (t) 11:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow redirect Can we do that? Or can I as author just "author delete" and paste the simple paragraph to the main? Please, I really don't want to zap resources. I'm the sole contributor, apart from Riley who added a ref or two, and he's a friend, so would be cool with any outcome. Can't we just make this quick and easy? What's the path of least resource expenditure here? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A snow redirect should be possible; I had put a PROD on this but now realize it is a likely search term so support a redirect. As a point of how to merge info, consider the character section for Up (the pixar movie) where details on character concepts can be expanded there. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Realizing now it is a likely search term. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with redirect instead of delete. --McDoob AU 93 15:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom to Wreck-It Ralph as no need for a split at this point. Redirects are cheap and this is a likely search term (apparently). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge to
Huntley 16:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Chi Minh City Football Cup

Ho Chi Minh City Football Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

blatantly fails
WP:SPORTSEVENT. when you have U-17 teams competing you can guarantee no notability. LibStar (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 06:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 06:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I disagree that an U17 competition is immediately not notable; that said, I do agree that this is about as far from notable as you can get! I think you'll find it's *mostly* a U23 competition though. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think that if any article has good sources that verifies its content, it's always going to be worthy of inclusion. After all, that is the whole point of notability. If enough sources exist outside of Wikipedia and are independent of the subject itself to verify and warrant an article bigger than a stub, it is obviously notable. Currently, this article is in a state where there are no references and the content is in
talk) 22:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

delete Not a notable event. --Shorthate (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced and with no indication of notability.
talk) 12:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No evidence of notability. —
21™ 23:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Angel episodes . MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Dark (Angel)

In the Dark (Angel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Deprodded by a new editor with an
WP:ILIKEIT rationale. No notability asserted. No secondary sources. Fails all notability criteria for episodes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 05:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
and ley 05:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to talk) 06:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

delete & redirect to
Angel (season 1). Rotten regard Softnow 21:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep – With this edit, I have added several more references to the article. That brings the total number of references to 6, including the TV.com external reference, and counting the IMDb entry only once. It seems to me that the article now meets the
general notability guideline. Admittedly the article contains a lot of text that's not currently referenced, but that's another story. — Mudwater^(Talk) 22:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The extra refs added either aren't covering the subject with any real significance or they are unreliable. --Shorthate (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Angel episodes . MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Fall to Pieces (Angel)

I Fall to Pieces (Angel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Deprodded by a new editor with an
WP:ILIKEIT rationale. No notability asserted. No secondary sources. Fails all notability criteria for episodes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 05:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
and ley 05:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect per above. Like the other episode up for AfD, there's just nothing out there to show that this specific episode has notability outside of the show as a whole.
talk) 06:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete & redirect to
Angel (season 1). Rotten regard Softnow 21:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

delete not a notable episode. --Shorthate (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn per improvements. Ten Pound Hammer • ⁽What did I screw up now?) 19:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur Comics

Dinosaur Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Absolutely no secondary sources that are valid. "Webcomics Review" does not appear to be an active site, and a Wayback search shows it to be just a Wordpress blog. Being mentioned on Cracked is not sufficient for reliability. Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards have been determined in the past to be insufficient for notability. Being published in ‪Attitude: The New Subversive Cartoonists‬ is not sufficient, as most of the works in those books are redlinked as well. Being published in book form is not an assertation of notability for a webcomic.
In short, this is nothing but in-universe fancruft, sourced almost exclusively to the strip itself. A search on Google Books turned up only false positives, and Google News turned up only articles such as this, which merely reposted strips with quirky commentary on them. Hardly
WP:SIGCOV. I couldn't find any reliable third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 05:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep but maybe trim down the in-universe details. This is a famous and innovative webcomic. JIP | Talk 06:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it's notable doesn't make it so. How is it famous and innotative? Show, don't tell. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - it is notable, of that I have no doubt (it's fairly well known on the internet), the issue is finding sources to prove this.[31] is not the most reliable of sources, but is fairly in-depth. [32] is also quite in-depth, but is it a reliable source? [33], [34] are reviews on the book. [35] This is a first-look interview. I would definitely lean more to keep than to delete, but I'll leave these links for people to pick apart and decide if they save the article or not. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Detailed coverage in "Dinosaur Comics Collection" on general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 11:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

So add them. Ten Pound Hammer • ⁽What did I screw up now?) 20:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article with the Boing Boing, Comic Book Resources, Comic Vine, Wired and PC Magazine sources. The article meets
WP:GNG.--xanchester (t) 17:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Sources currently in this article (thanks to improvement after nomination) seem to meet
WP:NOTE. Rangoondispenser (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guo Qichen

Guo Qichen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability has not been established Peter Rehse (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete The article has no independent sources and I don't see anything that shows he meetings the notability standards for martial artists. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no supported claims of notability. There's nothing to show he meets
WP:MANOTE and the only source appears to be a dead link to an organization that, I suspect, the subject is involved in. Papaursa (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Michaels

Scott Michaels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No significant news coverage, fails
WP:Author, collaboration only on 1 book https://www.google.com/search?q=Scott+Michaels&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1, no signifient film coverage http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2464981/ . A website and a tour service nobility does not make. Theda 16:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is merely an
WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Possibly Fancruft also, the creator appears to be a member of the article subject's web forum [36]--Theda 17:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 04:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

delete not notable. --Shorthate (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hormonal Quotient (HQ)

Hormonal Quotient (HQ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: Self-promotion for 'DervalResearch'; author is SPA dedicated to topic Eeekster (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete as spam. There are no sources other than Derval or people interviewing Derval about this (well, and some other sources that the author here is citing in order to develop their argument). A check of Google Scholar and Google Books shows that the idea has not been taken up by anyone else. Perhaps Derval or her company warrant an article, though. Morwen (Talk) 19:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As original PRODer, the two articles created by that person seem to be attempts to shoe-in this Derval person into Wikipedia. "A term coined by X" where X is a person who does not rate a BLP is rarely going to be encyclopedic. §FreeRangeFrog 03:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 03:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. As indicated by Morwen above, the only sources which appear to mention this concept are either Derval's works or people interviewing Derval. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Kolev

Stan Kolev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable DJ Orange Mike | Talk 22:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Kostijn's "contribution" to this discussion was a copyright violation, a simple straight copy and paste of promotional blurb right off the subject's own WWW site. Naturally enough, it made no sense in this deletion discussion. I've blanked the copyright violation. Uncle G (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostijn (talk • contribs) 08:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC) (User:Kostijn has made few or no other edits outside this topic.)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 03:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - can't find any evidence this DJ is notable. The nonsense above me does not prove anything (no references whatsoever), nor did Kostijn attempt to make any sort of point. Beatport is not a national chart and everything Kostijn posted was copied straight from the biography there - I can't find any proof that he did indeed chart as the biography claims. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dever

Richard Dever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to meet
WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete this non-notable professor who fails
WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep It helps to look at the books. Teaching persons with mental retardation : a model for curriculum development and teaching published by a standard educational publisher, is in 243 libraries, and was translated into French. Translations indicate, though not prove notability as an author. I'll add the book reviews later today, which prove it. . He was pre-internet, os it takes careful checking. (I note he was a professor at Indiana, a first-rate research university--true, it was in special education, and some people might think that field insufficiently rigorous for even the most distinguished universities to matter, but I think that's prejudice, which has sometimes prevented our recognition of notability under WP:PROF. will also show notability as WP:PROF) I note the nom. had tagged this as a speedy, despite the listing of the publications--surely publishing a book from a regular publisher is some indication of significance. DGG ( talk ) 15:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two books are
ISBN 978-0675084376 which still doesn't pass any threshold for notability. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you by any chance try the professional indexes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

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) 15:43, 30 October 2012 (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) 14:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This shouldn't be deleted until someone else with expertise on the notability of academics weighs in. In general, I'm inclined to want to keep material on retired full professors, as a general principle, but of course this is a personal opinion rather than a policy-based argument. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As his first publication at gscholar is 1965, he is basically a pre-intertubes guy. From articles like this it seems he was a pioneer in educating for "not a very glamorous area of teaching" - and thus writing early articles in a field without high citation rates. With the textbooks, important enough to be translated, adds up to a keep.John Z (talk) 09:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 03:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete. This search fails to convince me that he stands out as an expert on community living for the retarded, even in his pre-internet times — other publications from the same time period or a little earlier have significantly higher citations. And even if he passes
WP:PROF, we can't write an article without sources that say nontrivial things about the subject or his works, and I haven't been able to find any. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus was clear even prior to the relisting. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cubus

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Cubus

Articles for deletion/Cubus (2nd nomination)

Cubus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet
WP:GNG - could not find significant coverage in reliable non-primary sources. Some coverage exists, but not beyond brief current events articles, and not beyond 2009, the year this brand was introduced. GregorB (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. Of the 4 references, one is their own web site, one is an article on a store opening, one goes to a page them doesn't even mention them, and one is a dead link. North8000 (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as in 2009, only more so.^{see also} pablo 14:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's not sufficiently notable. The article is basically the same blob of advertizing as the previously speedily deleted version, so there's obviously no apparent potential. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 02:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Non-notable topic, fails
and ley 02:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy .

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maiden flight dates

Maiden flight dates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Duplicates information already in Year in aviation articles and if every maiden flight is included it could easily get to over 10,000 entries. The year in aviation articles have included this information by consensus for a long time and putting all the entries into one really huge list doesnt add any value to the encyclopedia, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, contested prod MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article assembles information in a convenient format. If the article becomes too large, then it can be split (
WP:SPLIT), by century or by country or by another criterion.—Wavelength (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Which is exactly what the year in aviation articles already do. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For convenient reference, here is a link to Category:Aviation timelines.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not every item in "2000 in aviation" is a reference to a first occurrence, and presumably the other articles in Category:Aviation timelines are similar in that respect. Therefore, they are disqualified from being categorized in Category:Superlatives. In these respects, the article "Maiden flight dates" is distinct and merits retention.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Foo in aviation are not complete is not a reason to start a new article instead, not sure what superlatives has to do with the first flight of aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the year in aviation series (which constitutes a timeline) serves a different purpose than this article. Wikipedia does not require that information be displayed uniquely; although we try to avoid content forks, when there are different systematic means of conveying information, we will generally allow multiples to coexist (that's the principle behind
WP:CLN). There's a partial list of these also present in maiden flight. I'd like to see the contents of that list merged here, and the resultant article renamed to list of maiden flights. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be both comprehensive and manageable, it is a case of "When" not "if" it gets too big. Probably needs a name change to "list of aircraft maiden flights" GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a very indiscriminate list and dupicates existing information in the "year in aviation" series, plus the individual aircraft types articles. If this were completed it would probably contain about 25,000 aircraft type first flight dates and would require splitting into dozens of sub-articles, making it even less useful than it currently is. - Ahunt (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MilborneOne and Ahunt. Either the list will be comprehensive (and I note that it already contains first flight dates for different models of the same aircraft type), or it will be selective. If it is comprehensive, then it will obviously be massive, such that the only sensible division will be by year - doing it by country makes no sense, doing it by century doesn't solve the problem, and doing it by decade will still result in massive lists. As has been already pointed out, we already have a home for this info by year. If it is selective, what are the exclusion or inclusion crieria; and what would the purpose be of having only a selective list? No-one has come up with an actual raison d'etre for having the list; what is the purpose of listing all aircraft types by their first flight date? If I want to know when was the first flight of the Boeing 247, I'd go to the article. YSSYguy (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indiscriminate list, does not really define its inclusion criteria, large parts of the list are missing information. No context describing why this list should be encyclopedic or notable. JIP | Talk 06:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant list, subject is already covered in the "X year in aviation" articles (like 1995 in aviation or 1996 in aviation). Too indiscriminate for a stand-alone list.--xanchester (t) 12:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seriously incomplete, and it would be very large if it was. It would not be useful even if it was complete. JMcC (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pollack

Michael Pollack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

BLP that seems to be promotion of non-notable business person. Author is self-described "internet marketer" SPA. Sources do not back up claims in article. Taking to AfD directly for consensus. §FreeRangeFrog 00:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 04:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 02:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for now - I feel as if he is not notable for Wikipedia at this time. Google News provided one result here for a Goodwill of Central Arizona award, 2012 Business Partner of the Year, noting that he has supported other charities and another result here where he is mentioned twice for a project. Google News provided one result here for a charity dinner and auction he hosted. I also found an article here that mentions some of his 1980s projects, two apartments called Colonial House and Orchard Apartments. It appears he received additional coverage in September/October 2011 for his son's death here, here and here. Through pollackinvestments.com, I found a news article here and others listed here. Unfortunately, I haven't found the most recent news articles through the publisher's website and we can't solely rely with what pollackinvestments.com lists. My own search provided another news article here, noting that he operates a movie theater, plays in a band and was interviewed by The Arizona Republic in 2004 (I haven't located the 2004 article). However, while searching "Michael Pollack" at the newspaper's website, I found other relevant results. Most of them are for his son's death but some of them including this one note that he offered a space for the Salvation Army. I found another article here. Honestly, it seems as if he is a local developer and not a national one including another Arizona-based project here. SwisterTwister talk 20:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without rehashing SwisterTwister's comments above, I see sources and some run-of-the-mill local importance, but nothing to indicate encyclopedic notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Michael Pollack was well known in Houston for promoting apartment developments in Gulfton, Houston back in the 1980s. I'll check the Chronicle archives and see if I can get in depth material about him WhisperToMe (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If there are sufficient in-depth sources one can claim
WP:GNG
. I think I found some:
Kaplan, David. "WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO ... / Ex-Houston pitchman Michael Pollack has made it in Arizona / Fame, fortune followed him West." Houston Chronicle. Tuesday April 15, 2008. Business 1.

Sheridan, Mike. "Michael Pollack plans to return to Houston." Houston Chronicle. Thursday February 5, 1987. Business 1.

"0" "Michael A. Pollack." Houston Chronicle. Wednesday August 14, 1985. Travel 4SO.

Barlow, Jim. "Another decade, another wrap-up." Houston Chronicle. Sunday December 17, 1989. Business 1.
This one ranks him as "Worst Houston Apartment Operator"

Lomax, John Nova. "Back in the High Life: Michael Pollack and the VCR Bikini Hottie." Houston Press. Friday December 7, 2007.

I have used GNG to make notable articles based on "local" stuff related to major metropolitan areas. Greater Houston is one of two major metro areas in Texas. Again, if one is "locally" important in a major metro area it can be good enough for WP purposes. Also he seems to have been active in multiple areas (Arizona and Texas), so this should add to his notability.

File:LanternVillageApartmentsGulftonTX.JPG was the apartment complex Pollack developed in Houston (it was Colonial House Apartments but became Lantern Village) - If/when his article is rewritten I would love to see that picture go up in his article. Gulfton, Houston was an article I worked very hard on, and Pollack is a part of Gulfton history for building this complex.

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically trivial coverage in a local paper. Of the sources listed above, one is a blog and one begins "This is an advertisement!" All of them talk about him mainly because of a commercial for an apartment complex - nothing really about the man. Karanacs (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:
Firstly, the Houston Press "blog" is a production of the newspaper staff, so it counts as a newspaper article and not as a blog.

Secondly, one can get sufficient numbers of "local" newspaper articles from a major metropolitan area and prove notability using those articles.

Thirdly it's not "trivial coverage" since at least some of these articles talk about him in depth. The example at
Wikipedia:N#cite_ref-1
states, to illustrate what is trivial and what is not: "^ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.") is plainly trivial."

Fourthly, the "0" article from 1985 does start with "This is an advertisement!" but I'm not sure if it is an advertising supplement or if it a schtick that the article author used. I could go to the microfilm archives in Houston and see if there is a print copy of this article that clarifies it. Even if it is an ad not written by the newspaper staff, there's three other articles.

Fifthly, about the assessment "All of them talk about him mainly because of a commercial for an apartment complex - nothing really about the man" that assessment fails to take into account how the advertisements made the man, and how the articles discuss other aspects.
Kaplan's article says explicitly "Pollack mania grew out of his TV ads for Colonial House Apartments, a 1,800-unit complex near the corner of Gulfton and Chimney Rock." - The commercial for the apartment complex made him notable in the Houston area. Then the article continues "No longer the Pied Piper of swinging singles, Pollack, 53, is a successful community-minded real estate developer based in Mesa, Ariz. Pollack fans can take heart in knowing he hasn't lost his flair." so now it's talking about the person himself.

Sheridan's article "Michael Pollack plans to return to Houston" talks extensively about Pollack's plans in Houston: "Pollack, whose name became a household word following an extensive ad campaign touting the renovated Colonial House Apartments more than two years ago, said Wednesday that he and a group of investors plan to purchase upwards of 2,000 apartment units in the Houston area over the next few months." and "The 33-year-old California native said he is working with lenders and private investors, who asked him to visit Houston to scout potential properties." - Again significant coverage

Lomax's article states additional details about Lomax beyond the video: "He was positively encrusted with gold medallions, he wore a mean pair of snakeskin boots, and Lord have mercy, that hair. Nobody this side of Maurice Gibb has ever rocked a more flowing lion’s mane of winged disco hair." and "Many of us were unaware that Pollack, who is alive and well in the Phoenix area, has a musical side -- he is the drummer in a 12-piece soul / rock / R&B cover band called A Corporate Affair."

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have different definitions of extensive and trivial. To me, pretty much everything you mentioned is trivial - flowing hair? drummer in a local rock band? He owns apartments and had one tv commercial that people thought was funny. That's not enough, imo, to meet the GNG. Karanacs (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Ling Ping

Dai Ling Ping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced Non-notable Youtube character Anbu121 (talk me) 06:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No demonstration of notability, my Google searches didn't result in anything which convinces me that the subject is notable. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google search does reveal several hits, but none of them are from reliable sources.
csdnew 09:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 02:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Non-notable topic fails
and ley 02:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, snowball's chance in hell of survival. Google News provided nothing relevant to suggest this YouTube character is more significant and notable than the others. It appears the only relevant links are videos themselves. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:N. Not finding coverage in reliable sources (RS) about this fictional character. Zero Google News archives results other than this website: www.dailingping.com, and additional searches didn't yield RS. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saltoun road

Saltoun road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability, no sources, appears to be purely OR about a non-notable street Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Not even a mention in the Brixton article, where a mention should appear if there was anything notable about this road. A search also gives nothing. Æthelred (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a quick check of Google maps indicates it to be an insignificant backstreet. NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 02:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Extremely non-notable road, failing
and ley 03:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Time League

Prime Time League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article appears to be about a non-notable local amateur basketball league. It was created in 2007 by the same editor as Game Time League (see below) - however, it has at least been updated. Nothing to indicate that this league is in any way notable. Emeraude (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable summer league in which the article was created during Wikipedia's infancy. The article 'stuck to the wall' then but easily fails
WP:GNG now. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 02:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Non-notable topic that fails
and ley 03:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, no indication of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Doctor Who. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Child (Doctor Who audio)

The Child (Doctor Who audio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Article on a forth-coming Doctor Who audio drama. ~~Does not appear to have been broadcast.~~ Does not appear to be scheduled for broadcast. The only reference is to the creators of the work. I'm not finding any reliable sources on the anywhere in google. PROD removed. Creator appears to have created many articles by this production house. See also
Stuartyeates (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

May or may not be notable, but let's stay away from
talk) 02:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I've changed "Does not appear to have been broadcast." to "Does not appear to be scheduled for broadcast." If that's the bit you have problems with. Not sure what the connection to google hits is.
Stuartyeates (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
This doesn't justify keeping it right now, but these audios do generally receive reviews in independent sources: Doctor Who Magazine, Starburst and SFX. I spent some of last night perusing random back issues and adding ==Critical reception== sections to a few of them. But there seems to be a presumption from the stubmakers that every Big Finish audio is automatically worthy of an article, without any non-official citations, which is certainly difficult to justify. The earlier deletion you referred to didn't stick - there is now an
Animal (Doctor Who audio drama) again. I'll see what I can do about putting reviews for that! Morwen - Talk 07:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I've been thinking about this for a few days, and I'm going to have to - reluctantly - come down on the side of deleting it. There is no secondary sources about this, or any other forthcoming Big Finishes at all. The ones that have been released are marginal, as they get just barely enough reviews, but we really should be sourcing those better rather than creating all these speculative ones. Look at our very poor article on Jubilee (audio drama), for example. Morwen (Talk) 15:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merging these into one article per series is an option that might work, there's definitely enough for series-level articles.
Stuartyeates (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2012 (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) 14:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 02:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
and ley 03:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to snowmobile. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alpina snowmobile

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Wholly unreferenced article, fails WP:GNG FunkyCanute (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We generally presume that vehicles are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The
WP:CORPDEPTH, as there is apparently no coverage in reliable sources. I'm open to the possibility that there are Italian or offline sources, but unless those can be found, I think the correct course is delete. --Batard0 (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 31 October 2012 (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) 14:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 02:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Wikipedia's policies say that articles of this kind are generally notable, seems to be a notable thing as well by a Google search.
and ley 03:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - this is definitely not an article about a vehicle type, but about a vehicle manufacturer instead. At the very least, the article needs renaming to Alpina Snowmobiles if it is kept. I'm struggling to find sources that aren't primary sources or pure PR for this company. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the article snowmobile; there is a an article on snowmobiles in general in Wikipedia, so the article could be merged with that one. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because there are several inaccuracies and possible copyright violations in the article, I am the original author.HJRoberts —Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi Precision Screws Limited

Lakshmi Precision Screws Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No shown notability. Basically a company advertisement. :- ) Don 02:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a couple of mentions on Bloomberg[37][38], some research reports you can buy[39][40][41], and brief profiles on business sites[42][43][44][45]. It's all very routine and not enough for notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per various links over here. Notable enough! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 11:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These again all appear to be press releases from the company or financial reports. -- :- ) Don 13:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator - Only press releases and passing mentions in industry and financial articles, nothing substantial. -- :- ) Don 13:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.
andley 03:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Garzik

Jeff Garzik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Little to no notability. Another John S (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything of particular note to clear
WP:GNG even, it's just not there. §FreeRangeFrog 03:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 02:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Not notable other than a couple of mentions in some news sources, which certainly isn't "significant coverage" per
and ley 03:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete no significant coverage in independent sources. -—Kvng 16:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. Peridon (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gas solution

Gas solution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsure what this article is suppose to be about. No references. The Determinator p t c 02:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this page could meet the
talk|contribs] 02:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

delete as essay. Mangoe (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per A7, I'd say. Maybe also A1 and/or G2 as well? Certainly looks like it could be a test page. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a clear G2.
WP:SNOW. §FreeRangeFrog 18:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Seems like the start of a chemistry-essay... The specific "gas solution" described has its own article and is generally not described in terms of solubility (but blends/mixture/composition etc). L.tak (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - tagged it with the Speedy Delete G2 tag. Author's user page also contains the same information as in the article. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wonthaggi. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wonthaggi Human Powered Grand Prix

Wonthaggi Human Powered Grand Prix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails
WP:GNG, a small community event, with no coverage outside its locality. nothing in gnews. and very limited coverage in trove. LibStar (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A search yielded no notable news coverage and it is a small community event. Vacation9 (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The event was covered in detail by notability guideline for sports events.--xanchester (t) 15:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Wonthaggi#Tourism. Plausible search term but probably not enough significant coverage to meet the GNG. The-Pope (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Wonthaggi per the Pope - dont delete -
Suro 09:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 02:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Barely "non-notable", despite the ABC News source which doesn't qualify as significant reliable coverage for
andley 03:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as non-notable. The Wonthaggi article has a mention and a picture of the event. St Anselm (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Marie-Louise Bruyère . MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bruyere Suit

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

This page was obviously created in good faith, but a Bruyère suit simply means ANY suit designed by Madame Marie-Louise Bruyère, unlike say, a Chanel suit, which has certain rules and details that denote it, for example. However, there is certainly scope for an article on Marie-Louise Bruyère herself. Mabalu (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It also looks like one of the unfortunate saps who rehash Wikipedia articles into overpriced "books" has fallen for this. Oops. But does the existence of a book titled this mean that the article should be made a redirect to a yet-to-be-written article on the designer herself? Mabalu (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to note that I have rustled up a quickie stub article on Marie-Louise Bruyère so that if a redirect is considered appropriate, there is a target for it. Mabalu (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I feel the editor who called me a "sap" and suggested that I rehash articles is being unfair. He should try doing research instead of making comments to denigrate what others have done. Also, I feel that an article on the Bruyere Suit is appropriate, as opposed to one on Mademoiselle Bruyere, because it links the two of them. It associates the suit as the most noteworthy, which it is. It is also more likely that readers will come across Bruyere Suit and want to know more. Robert (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Dear Robertg9, I was not calling you a "sap". Please re-read what I wrote and see that it is in reference to a person/persons who has taken Wikipedia articles off the Wikipedia site and published them in (ridiculously expensive) book format but has - by pure chance - used the title of this article as the name of the book. See this link, which was linked to above. Do not be so quick to jump to conclusions or throw around accusations. Mabalu (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, there is no such thing as a "Bruyere Suit" - there are "Bruyere suits" but a glance at Google News shows that they are all different types of suits: one link says "blue and white ottoman silk". Another says "welted wool". Another says "brownish wool and astrakhan". Yet another says "black knitted wool". The last link on says "gray wool with welted pockets and little tucks." The only thing that links these suits is that they are all designed by Bruyere. There is no need for an article on "the Bruyere suit" for the exact reason why we do not have an article on "the Dior dress" (which could refer to any one of thousands of individual Dior dress designs.) Mabalu (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2012 (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) 14:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 02:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable topic that fails
andley 03:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: The stub has two reliable sources cited, and there are plenty of precedents in fashion for a classic design being named after the designer. "
Chanel suit" actually does refer to a specific design (it's a pity there isn't a standalone article on the design): boxy cropped jacket with no collar, typically with square upright pockets, emphasized a flattened chest, with a matching miniskirt, the whole ensemble in tweed (see description of "the Chanel suit" here [47], and a Dior dress most likely refers to "[New Look]" that he launched, with a voluminous skirt (or naming a particular design after someone else -- as with the Birkin bag or when Marc Jacobs designed the Stam purse and named it after Jessica Stam). Bruyere designed many dresses and suits, sure, but if she originated a specific design, as described in this article, why is it implausible that it would have been named after the designer in her honour? You are making Madame Bruyere spin in her chi-chi designer grave. OttawaAC (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment There is simply no evidence for this. The sources in the article do not support the statement that there was a design that became known as the "Bruyere suit", as opposed to a Bruyere-designed suit. The Google news results give plenty of hits for Bruyere suits, but as I pointed out, every single suit is clearly different to each other even in the snippet views of pay-per-view articles. The "Chanel suit" was emulated by other designers who were not Chanel, the "New Look" was emulated by lots of other designers. Please note that I did cite the Chanel suit in my original nomination as an example of a suit where the designer name is associated with a specific style of suit beyond those by Chanel. "Dior dress" could also refer to the A-Line, the H-Line or the Y-Line, depending which year the sources are from or referring to. The point I am making is that the designer is notable as a person, but she did not create an enduring style named after her. There are no sources showing consistency of design of Bruyere suits - they are all different. (Incidentally, original Chanel suits don't have miniskirts, which she famously loathed - this is a 1980s onwards Lagerfeld variation on the theme) The only 21st century Google Books hits for "Bruyere suit" are Wikipedia article rehashes, the only 20th century hit that's relevant is from a fashion magazine describing a suit that Madame Bruyere designed, and it is called "La Maslowa", not "Bruyere suit". To be blunt, Marie-Louise Bruyere has not enjoyed lasting widespread renown or fame, but is one of hundreds of French couturiers from her period - like Marcelle Dormoy, Juliette Vermeuil, Jeanne Lafaurie, Mad Charpentier, Kostio de War, Ardanse, Suzanne Laroche, Goupy-Larose, etc. etc. etc., who are sadly largely known nowadays as background names to the Chanels, Patous, Lelongs and Schiaparellis. A shame, because they were talented too and there is enough material out there on most of them to create articles on them as designers and businesses. At the very least, the term is only valid as a redirect to the designer's article. Mabalu (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here are links to those "reliable sources" - the first one can be snippet-viewed here - and all it says is "The Bruyere suit illustrated on this page bears out the point." The other "reliable source" is snippet-viewable here and again, all it says is "Famed for clothes of quiet distinction, a requisite for the world's chic Mme. Bruyere Suit Simple to Sew, Elegant to Wear". They confirm, like almost all the news archive sources, that Bruyere was known for designing nice suits of many different styles (not a specific style like a Chanel suit) - but that is all. Mabalu (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Madame Bruyere article. And thank you Mabalu for the extensive digging for info. I tried looking into French sources, but kept getting buried under links to sources about La Bruyere, the writer. Anyhoo. It'd be nice to at least have start class articles on a lot of these couturiers from the late 19th C/early 20th C. Many of them are so collectable among vintage fans, and they originated scores of classic trends, even though the names are hardly known by most people nowadays. OttawaAC (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Madame Bruyere article. I am unable to find any references to "Bruyere suit" and a specific named style. - PKM (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
Jesse O. Sanderson High School . MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Jesse O. Sanderson

Jesse O. Sanderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

I don't think a school superintendent meets
Jesse O. Sanderson High School is sufficient, perhaps the page should simply be redirected there. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Vacation⁹ 17:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 01:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as suggested above; no
WP:RS so show encyclopedic notability. No prejudice to a redirect to the school article. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to the high school per nom. I don't see any evidence of individual notability, but redirects are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Vampire Diaries. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mystic Falls (The Vampire Diaries)

Mystic Falls (The Vampire Diaries) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Fails
WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 09:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to The Vampire Diaries. Yes, the article stinks currently, and is not Wikified appropriately, but it is a reasonable redirect target, and the main article should probably end up with about as much real content for the not-independently-notable fictional element as is currently here. Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 01:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete It's a terrible article not even mentioning the state (Virginia) this fictional town is located, and from what I've seen of the show the setting really doesn't matter beyond putting a name on where the characters are most of the time. The series overview in the main TVD article states the Mystic Falls 'history' better than this did. chatter) 03:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
and ley 03:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge per above. Corn cheese (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SI-LA-GI

SI-LA-GI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable artist with no
references. Also tagged with {{notability}} since december 2007. Bjelleklang - talk 09:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No
notability. AllyD (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 01:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete
and ley 03:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SID80s

SID80s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable cover band. Tagged with {{notability}} since december 2007. Bjelleklang -
Also see related afds:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Daglish

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reyn Ouwehand

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Knight (musician)

talk 09:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 01:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, found anything except some mentions in a few of forums/blogs. Cavarrone (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not finding any coverage whatsoever in reliable sources for this band. Fails
WP:BAND. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An Art Lawful Productions

An Art Lawful Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet
WP:WEB notability requirements at this time. The only references available are primary sources of the podcast show, plus one review. Breno ^talk 05:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 12:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 01:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

delete Not a notable Company. --Shorthate (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough reliable sources to meet
WP:RS-based sourced information. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to It Takes Two (Singaporean TV series). MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of It Takes Two episodes

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

WP:CRYSTAL... The info here doesn't even help the reader at all! Info in the lede can be found in the main article, while the episode list is just empty... What's the point? Even if useful content was actually added, this list would not be necessary as there aren't many episodes, and we should just merge this list into the main. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2012 (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) 14:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 01:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
and ley 03:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into WP:CRYSTAL when 6 episodes have aired? Even so, I do agree that this page isn't necessary for a single season. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Yup, only NOW does it pass CRYSTAL. At the time of the creation of this afd, it still had not aired. Nevertheless, it still should not stay, like you say. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My CRYSTAL point was more to TBrandley than to the original AfD. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If merged, the correct article to merge into is It Takes Two (Singaporean TV series). PK T(alk) 23:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, not sure how I messed that up as I'd actually checked the link beforehand... *doh* Lukeno94 (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Domus Tower

Domus Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable building. No claim of notability. One reference, to a database entry with no in depth coverage. Spanish language wiki page has no refs either. There are many things in google that match this name, but none of them are both clearly about this building (rather than different ones of a similar name) and reliable sources.
Stuartyeates (talk) 05:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2012 (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) 14:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 01:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Non-notable
and ley 03:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, no
WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Kinu ^t/_c 06:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B.O.B.B.I.

B.O.B.B.I. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

lacks coverage in independent
reliable sources. No indication of why it might be notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

The articles creator has added a wall of text to the talk page in attempt to save this article. Most of that text is unrelated to B.O.B.B.I. It is a promotion of its inventor but notability is not inherited from him. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am aware that there might be a language barrier here, but I was unable to find anything that actually mentioned B.O.B.B.I. that was both independent and reliable. As far as the inventor goes, notability is not inherited and if the original article creator wants to create an article for him that passes
talk) 12:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2012 (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) 16:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been unable to find much of anything that refers to B.O.B.B.I or any reason it should be considered notable in news books, scholar JSTOR or free images.--Theda 16:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 01:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete no evidence of notability found. Appears to be kin to C.A.D.R.E.. -—Kvng 21:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (
Huntley 02:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

KSBZ

KSBZ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No assertion of notability, no citations. ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per
chatter) 03:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Nate.
and ley 03:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep per Nate and per the previous AfDs which shows positive consensus that radio station articles are notable...like the one we had a couple days ago that was a SNOW Keep. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Updated with some history information. I have contacted User:Dravecky (our resident radio station wizard), he will probably update it further. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:BCAST and years of outcomes that hold government-licensed broadcast radio stations (and similar infrastructure articles) as generally notable. Also, I have expanded and improved this article with additional reliable sourcing. - Dravecky (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sébastien Fournier (chemist)

Sébastien Fournier (chemist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability. This page seems like a vanity page for a run of the mill pharma chemist. He has a few papers in the literature, but nothing earth-shattering - there are no secondary references, for example. Chris (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2012 (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) 15:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject's name actually seems to be Sébastien Fournier-Bidoz ( (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) ), and his citation record on GScholar seems reasonable (even good) for someone who has never had a permanent academic post - but may fall a bit short of
WP:PROF#1. However, there are immediate problems with general searches on the name, as it seems to be precisely the same as that of a French Olympic skier of about ten years ago - who, however, seems to be a different person. PWilkinson (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2012 (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) 16:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 01:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. He has enough citations in Google scholar to be respectable, but not really enough to convince me of a pass of
WP:GNG either. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Savad Rahman

Savad Rahman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject has won two awards as a journalist, viz., Development Journalist of Asia Award from
WP:BIO. Salih (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2012 (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) 15:36, 31 October 2012 (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) 16:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 01:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Per nom. The two awards won are non-notable and the article lacks
WP:GNG. I tried but cannot find reliable sources online. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 04:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Game Time League

Game Time League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article came up as a Random Article. I started tidying it up, then realised that it appears to be about a non-notable local amateur basketball league. The page's creator has not edited Wikipedia since 2007 (presumably giving up before the final result of the season was available!) and has not made other substantive contributions. The page has remained largely unchanged since then. Emeraude (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable summer league in which the article was created during Wikipedia's infancy. The article 'stuck to the wall' then but easily fails
WP:GNG now. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 01:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete about as far from passing
WP:GNG as you can get. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, no indication of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caymera

Caymera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable alcoholic drink. jonkerz ♠talk 18:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 93
WP:MADEUP. jonkerz ♠talk 18:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 01:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No
WP:RS to indicate notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ledo degtinė

Ledo degtinė (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Most likely non-notable product. Also tagged with {{notability}} since december 2007. Bjelleklang - talk 18:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 01:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I'm seeing the list of awards from the first-party source, but nothing about those awards or any other coverage in third-party sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 03:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Youth World Amateur Boxing Championships

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

The article fails
WP:SPORTSEVENT as there is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate any lasting significance. The lone source is from the event's governing body and there are no reliable third party sources. Holyfield1998 (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewipn (talk • contribs) 00:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC) — Drewipn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete for failing
WP:SPORTSEVENT. Qworty (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. One minute at Google News gives sources from places as diverse as Ireland, India and Ghana. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 01:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per sources found by Oldelpaso. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found another African news article here, an article here which supports Salman Alizada (or Alizadeh) won gold and another article here which lists more of the participants. I'm not an expert with boxing but there appear to be enough sources to satisfy the nominator's comment "there are no reliable third party sources". Google News found other results here. SwisterTwister talk 00:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Unfinished Symphony

The Unfinished Symphony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a short low-budget autobiographical film, with no assertion or evidence of release, distribution, entry into a film festival, or reviews. The only citation is IMDB. I have attempted to source this, but can find nothing (this is somewhat tricky because there is another film which includes this name as a fragment; aside from the film itself, on video sharing sites. The original author of the page has not replied to enquiries on their talk page.) Morwen (Talk) 19:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage about this film that I am able to find. Even unreliable sources are scarce. -- Whpq (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 01:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Although this film focuses with a noble and serious cause, it was probably low-budget and independent thus lowering the chances of attention. Although independent films will receive coverage at least through lesser known magazines and such, this must not have been the case. I also searched with Google News Canada and France but found nothing. If a page existed for Nicholas Arnold, I would have suggested redirecting. SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College Police Department

J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College Police Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Extremely non-notable police department of a local community college; totally dependent on self-sourcing. Orange Mike | Talk 19:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get the point about its significance, but the fact is this is still a government law enforcement agency. So I'm less concerned with reliance on primary sources here (is a police dept. in the U.S. going to misrepresent its manpower, for example?) and think it should be covered somewhere regardless of formal compliance with our guidelines. postdlf (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reply - actually, no; government entities are not exempt from
our standards of organizational notability; and this department fails them miserably. At most, it should have been a paragraphy at J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC) (has been on union bargaining teams side-by-side with campus police LEOs)[reply
]
Yeah, the answer to your citation of notability guidelines is already in my comment above. Maybe it should be merged into the community college article; maybe it should also be a list of all law enforcement agencies in Virginia. Neither would involve a deletion outcome, so why are we here at AFD on a topic that should be covered in the encyclopedia? postdlf (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Minimal notability, no real reason to be its own article but could be worth some mention in the main article for that college. Feather Jonah (talk) 05:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 01:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Not a notable police department, delete per Orange Mike's reply to Postdlf. Buggie111 (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of being a notable law enforcement entity. No opposition to a merge. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Cormalis

Bill Cormalis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. Unreferenced BLP
Sven Manguard 19:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and the article is borderline spam which appears to be created by somebody related to the subject as pretty much the same bio appears here. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 00:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

delete Not notable. --Shorthate (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Megabeat

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Megabeat

Articles for deletion/Megabeat (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Megabeat 1

Articles for deletion/Megabeat 2

Articles for deletion/Megabeat 3

Megabeat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of the article is a dance group, however, only vague claims of success are mentioned and there are no reliable sources. The article fails to demonstrates the group's notability and fails
WP:MUSBIO Holyfield1998 (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google US and Espana provided nothing useful for this article. I found a magazine article here that mentions some of their past work, a forum which also lists some of their past work (but would probably be unreliable). Considering they may have received better coverage for their most recent work in 2005, I searched but found nothing. Like I mentioned at one of the Megabeat album nominations, any substantial coverage may not be Internet-based or considering they were only active for two short periods and used multiple names. SwisterTwister talk 21:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 00:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Tried looking for Megabeat, Sonido de Valencia, Música Mákina, and all I can add to the two links above is this blog, which is very generous towards the subject but is far from being a reliable source. The best claim I can see for notability is that some of their songs may have been widely played in the early 90's, and they are commonly included in compilations of the genre. The Spanish article on
WP:FUTON bias, but it appears that the movement in general got shunned by the media, and only got coverage surrounding issues of drug use, accidents, etc. [48] — Frankie (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery Is Possible

Recovery Is Possible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable product. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preserve It is unclear why the specific fact that there a "text-only website on a hosting site" is germane. A key-source that should be consulted is LWN (Linux Weekly News). This distribution is listed at: http://lwn.net/Distributions/#special — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnandKumria (talk • contribs) 07:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next put your vote at the bottom not the top.

I was only using it as an example of the small scale and obscurity of the distribution. You've pointed to a site consisting of a very long list that in it's own words has "over 500 distributions". On this list RipLinuX is number 398 and has only a short descriptions of the distribution and two links. One of these links are to the distributions' main site and the other is to a fresh meat project with an even shorter description. I do not think this is a key source and it is not enough to pass
notability guidelines. EvilKeyboardCat (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Non-notable Linux distribution with very little information or sources. Main site is run off a text only website on a hosting site. EvilKeyboardCat (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches for ""Recovery Is Possible" linux" and "rip linux" (supposedly it's more well known name) bring up a few possible sources [49] [50] [51] [52] but I don't think these are sufficient to pass the
WP:GNG as they are all specialist publications and none provide significant coverage. (EvilKeyboardCat invited me here). SmartSE (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (
Huntley 02:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Wix.com

Wix.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject fails
WP:NOTABILITY Hu12 (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Wix is probably the #1 provider of scripted website templates, and is very well known. I was suprised to see this up for deleteion. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wix is quite well known, thanks to their massive advertising, like Sue Rangell I was too quite surprised to see this up for deletion. The article should be kept. Ahmer Jamil Khan (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand the fact that the article has no independent sources or citations, but in my opinion that means it needs to be Wikified, not deleted for notability. Ahmer Jamil Khan (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be cleaned up. Keep per above. –BuickCentury Driver 01:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cleaned up. A412 (Talk • C) 03:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above.
AutomaticStrikeout 04:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
t • c » 00:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Unibroue. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La Fin du Monde (beer)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

I don't believe this article meets notability guidelines. There is already an article for the brewery of the product, and the information is duplicative. Hmich176 (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe delete or redirect would be appropriate for this article. --Hmich176 (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 00:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

This is a tasty, well-known, and often-reviewed beer, and sourcing is possible, but I don't see a compelling need for a separate article at this point: I think the best editorial solution would be to merge this article (as well as
Don de Dieu (ale)) into Unibroue. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and redirect along with
Don de Dieu (ale) to Unibroue. The best use of the content and sourcing available for these particular beers is to expand the article on its brand. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spinning Spark 02:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Djs from Mars

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Unsourced BLP/music group. Reads as an advertisement. Would PROD or request speedy but looks like it has been requested once before. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found discussion of the group's work here (partial google books view from Elie, Paul (2012), Reinventing Bach, Macmillan) and coverage of a show (albeit local) here (SF Weekly). There are also numerous hits in Google News Archive search, but they all appear to be in Italian (as one could predict for an Italian duo), so I am unable to evaluate them. postdlf (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2012 (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) 15:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the notability comments on
the talk page may be of interest. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I've cited their entry in the french single charts as I'd like the article to stay. Dekarl (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 00:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie Gun Works

Prairie Gun Works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable company. Tagged with {{notability}} since December 2007. Bjelleklang - talk 21:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears the most news coverage they received was for the Canadian government contract, a reprint of the news release here. Google News found results here (forum thread but provides a (now dead) news link) and one minor mention here (interviewing the owner). Google Books provided mostly magazine directory listings but found mentions here (listing two of PGW's products, M-15 and M-18) and here (minor mention for one of their rifles). Google Books provided one result that wouldn't appear properly here (first result from the top). In 2009, the company also received small news coverage as a result of Manitoba shipping weapons to Saudi Arabia here and a reprint here (third result from the top). This link suggests they received coverage in a Guns magazine edition for 2010 but I haven't found any free evidence to support this. SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
SarahStierch (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete What SisterTwister said: not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the
general notability guideline. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 00:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The company isn't notable. Most of the coverage qualifies as trivial. Lacks the significant coverage that the
general notability guideline requires.--xanchester (t) 05:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Danner

Michelle Danner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject fails
WP:BIO. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I culled a lot of the overly promotional content out of the article, removing the stuff that was sourced by press releases and providing a link to the LA Times article, which ended up being a very trivial mention. I've added some sources, but I will say that I'm not sure that all of them are really usable as RS. She seems to be slightly more notable than I thought she would be, but I'm going to abstain from voting either way until I find out more about what I've discovered.
talk) 10:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. This article is pure self promotion. Though the subject is somewhat know, she is very good at self promotion, and this article was created by her public relations people. A negative review of one of her plays was summarily deleted from this article. You will find no negative or critical information of her because she makes sure it gets taken down. She has a terrible reputation with some in her field, and none of it is allowed in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheaterCritic654 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
SarahStierch (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 00:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

delete Not notable. --Shorthate (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Cantoni

Mark Cantoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article fails
WP:RLN as he has not played for a first grade side and has not played for the US at a World Cup. NB, the US national side is not at the level to infer notability just by playing for them per the guidelines. Mattlore (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG. A search on Newsbank for his name and rugby pulls up 147 sources. The following are the top ten of those. --LauraHale (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cantoni lays claim to Residents jersey Cairns Post, The (Australia) - July 6, 2009 Length: 421 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) QUEENSLAND Country hero Mark Cantoni has put his hand up for Residents selection after his three-try effort in Saturday's 32-28 rugby league victory over City in Ipswich. The veteran Northern Pride second-rower faces a nervous wait this morning ahead of today's announcement of the Queensland Residents side to take on their NSW counterparts in a curtain-raiser to the third State of Origin clash. Cantoni yesterday did not want to take anything for granted, but...
2.
We're good enough to win title: Pride coach Cairns Post, The (Australia) - November 22, 2011 Length: 388 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) THE loss of Mark Cantoni will hurt the Northern Pride, but not enough to write them off as Queensland Cup title contenders next season. Pre-season training gets under way today and after a fruitful recruitment process coach David Maiden was adamant they possessed a squad capable of replicating their 2010 premiership season, even without the France-bound backrower. The coach hinted he might alter his approach too, after feedback from the leadership group that he needed to be tougher...
3.
rugby league Ipswich clash vital for Easts TWEED HEADS...........26 (Selasi Berdie, Shannon Walker, David Myles, James Wood, Dan Evans tries; Brad Davis 3 goals) EASTS.........................16 (John Tamanika, Mark Cantoni, Justin McKay tries; Matt Lockyer 2 goals) South East Advertiser (Brisbane, Australia) - August 22, 2007 Length: 263 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) rugby league TWEED HEADS...........26 (Selasi Berdie, Shannon Walker, David Myles, James Wood, Dan Evans tries; Brad Davis 3 goals) EASTS.........................16 (John Tamanika, Mark Cantoni, Justin McKay tries; Matt Lockyer 2 goals) EASTS Tigers bombed a victory at the weekend. The infuriating habits that the Tigers have displayed this year almost certainly cost them the match, and possibly a better run in the...
4.
Cantoni takes it easy after French stint Cairns Post, The (Australia) - June 12, 2012 Length: 288 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) FORMER Northern Pride second-rower Mark Cantoni will take the rest of the year off from rugby league to decide his future after returning from a playing stint in France. Cantoni (pictured) left the Pride at the end of last season to take up a contract with French side Pia Donkeys, which plays in the country's Elite Championship. After returning to the Far North last week, Cantoni was on hand to watch his former teammates beat the Mackay Cutters 36-10 on Sunday. While he...
5.
Global show of Pride Cairns Weekend Post, The (Australia) - October 22, 2011 Length: 378 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) IT is a team made up mostly of gridiron and rugby union players, but the US are just one win away from qualifying for the holy grail of rugby league. And thanks to his California-born grandmother, departing Northern Pride favourite Mark Cantoni is going along for the ride. The second-rower was among the Tomahawks' best when they routed South Africa 40-4 in game one of the Atlantic Zone World Cup qualifiers last weekend, but he anticipated Jamaica would put up more of a...
6.
Dunemann delivered - Players praise mentor Cairns Post, The (Australia) - October 9, 2009 Length: 381 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) NORTHERN Pride teammates at opposite ends of the career spectrum have credited departing coach Andrew Dunemann with making them better rugby league players. Veteran back-rower Mark Cantoni and hooker Jason Roos both said Dunemann, who on Wednesday announced he was leaving the club to link with NRL outfit Newcastle as an assistant coach, was a positive influence on their careers. Cantoni, who has played in England and spent three seasons in the Queensland Cup before returning to the...
7.
Determination on show rugby union North West News (Brisbane, Australia) - August 16, 2006 Length: 1691 words (Estimated printed pages: 6) rugby union * lawn bowlsEnoggera Ladies Bowling Club Graded drawn fours T Parish def I Pearson T Henderson def H Simpson S Geyer drew M Bass Minor Pairs T Parish def M Dossotto Z O'Connor def W Bowman * golfAviation Social Golf Club Results Monday, August 7 single stableford played at Nudgee Golf Club A GRADE: G. Herman (7) 42, B. Stevenson (13) 35, R. Kean (17) 35 B GRADE: T. Bottomley (21)...
8.
play with pride Pride grows with six new signatures Cairns Post, The (Australia) - October 12, 2007 Length: 432 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) THE Northern Pride showed it was on track to comply with the Queensland Rugby League's demand to assemble an "acceptable and competitive" player list when it released the a second group of signings last night. Three players with 2007 state league experience were among six named yesterday, including Innisfail product Brett Anderson, who has turned out for NRL clubs Parramatta and the Cowboys. Anderson, who turned 21 last month, has had a wretched...
9.
Sound reason for Smith to return in 2006 South East Advertiser (Brisbane, Australia) - August 10, 2005 Length: 235 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

rugby league THE durable and popular Darren Smith has at least one good reason to want to turn out for the Easts Tigers rugby league team in 2006. Smith, 36, who will play his 100th game for the Brisbane Broncos this weekend, is close to notching the same milestone with the Tigers. He has played 97 times for Easts but as that side will not see him again this season, it leaves Smith with some unfinished business. The Tigers, meanwhile, polished off the Wynnum...

10.
Cantoni returns to ranks Townsville Bulletin (Australia) - February 24, 2003 Length: 254 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) A QUARTET of off-season recruits were overshadowed by the return of a favoured son as University hosted Charters Towers in a Townsville and District Rugby League pre-season trial on Saturday night. Charters Towers won 28-20 at James Cook University against a Saints line-up which included new faces in halfback Roy Baira, second-rower Jim Baira, lock Bill Mosby and fullback Alex Musu. The Baira brothers and Musu played with Palm Island last season, while Mosby has crossed from premiers...

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) 10:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 00:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, some of the papers above are just local rags, but the Cairns Post and Townsville Bulletin are big enough papers in my view to get this across the
WP:GNG line, although only barely. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC).[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Lintz

Madison Lintz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article, a biography of a living person, has no references. So
WP:PROD
was appropriate. Then an earlier PROD was replaced by a redirect to a TV show the person (a child actress) appeared in.
I reverted the redirect, following
WP:REDIRECT#DELETE
: "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. In such a case, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself."
I don't think it's correct to redirect a person's bio to a TV show (The Walking Dead) she appeared in, especially as she has appeared in other films and TV series. There is is no biographical information about her at that page. The article Madison Lintz should either be made a properly sourced biographical article or, failing that (as it does now), deleted. It should not be redirected to a TV show just because she appeared in a few episodes of it last year. Barsoomian (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: since the nomination some references have been added to the article. I don't know if they are sufficient to make it viable. Barsoomian (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Minor bit parts and random cites, nothing in-depth to satisfy
WP:BIO. Maybe recreate if the person becomes notable down the road. Toddst1 (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2012 (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) 14:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 00:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

delete not a notable actor. --Shorthate (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SA TrackWorks Productions

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/SA TrackWorks Productions

Articles for deletion/SA TrackWorks Productions (2nd nomination)

SA TrackWorks Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Obscure music industry figures; still orphaned and low on sources since August 2010, and not getting any more notable - lots of fluff and
WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS violations here. Orange Mike | Talk 16:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search finds nothing that could be deemed reliable about them. Most of the sources present in the article are unreliable blog sites, hosted by Blogspot and WordPress. Statυs (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 00:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

delete agree with user Status. --Shorthate (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination. Holyfield1998 (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ettienne De Beer

Ettienne De Beer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-
notable person. A single fundraising event has not resulted in significant independent coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some local coverage like this, but his exploits have gone largely un-noted. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 00:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

delete not notable --Shorthate (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, some weak news-like coverage, but nothing indicating notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ska Authentic, Vol. 2

Ska Authentic, Vol. 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Album exists, but is possibly non-notable. No refs listed and tagged with {{notability}} since december 2007. Bjelleklang - talk 17:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm finding a few results for a similarly-named 1967 studio album by
WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 18:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 00:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

delete not a notable album. --Shorthate (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RMPA

RMPA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable organisation, tagged with {{notability}} since december 2007. Bjelleklang - talk 18:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
Huntley 00:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

delete not notable. --Shorthate (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No claim of any notability, no evidence of any notability, no reliable sources. Holyfield1998 (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ "Guido Fawkes National Blog". Guido Fawkes.

^ "Pink News article". Pink News.

^ "Conservative Women Article". London Spin. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help)

^ "Unsion present NUS campaigner of the year award" (PDF). Unison. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help)

[1] ISBN 0-7864-4427-4

[2] "Guido Fawkes National Blog". Guido Fawkes.

[3] "Pink News article". Pink News.

[4] "Conservative Women Article". London Spin. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help)

[5] "Unsion present NUS campaigner of the year award" (PDF). Unison. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]