Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 19

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 18 November 20 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wedding (2013)

The Wedding (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)

Seems to fail

WP:NFILM bobrayner (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]


I believe this article has a strong significance and should remain on wikipedia, I do not believe this article should be deleted. The film is a milestone in the progression of a university and will play big part in the guild celebration, Preston. The article will be frequently updated and added to as more infomation is available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwsriamu (talk • contribs) 00:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The film is clearly not notable at this point in time. The article claims to be the "third ever feature film to be produced by students in the UK", which I doubt is true. There are always people who claim to be one of the first people to do something, but considering that there have been film students in the UK for years and years, I would think that at least someone somewhere (student-wise) has completed a feature film at some point in time for their degree or as a hobby. It's just that the film never got attention. All claims of that nature aside, being first at something only counts here on Wikipedia if it has received coverage in independent and reliable sources. Which this film hasn't. I can be the first American to read a book while watching a movie and setting my house on fire as I play eight instruments at once, but that only becomes notable if it has received coverage and is shown to be more than one event. There are no RS for the film and considering that on top of this the film doesn't appear to have really started filming yet (the fb page says they're still casting), this movie does not pass the notability standards for future films. We can't keep films because they might become notable and FYI, nothing that is released by the crew or anyone representing them will ever show notability because it's a
    talk) 05:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 05:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • And again, I argue that the claim is dubious at best. I would wager that there have been other students that have made a feature film under the same situation. They just never gained any sort of coverage and didn't even get enough notice to say that they faded into obscurity. The article just claims that it was made by UK students. I'd say that it's highly likely that other UK students have made films. It's not like these guys are the first students in the UK to own a video camera, after all.
    talk) 21:06, 25 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Camilleri

Adrian Camilleri (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)

Simply not notable. Small-time fraud convict. The only reason he made the news is he dated model Miranda Kerr. So, either he's worth a footnote in her "personal life section" and perhaps a redirect, or better, nothing at all. Scott Mac 23:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 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

St._John's_University_(New_York)#Student_life. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 00:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Sequoya (St. John's University's Literary Magazine)

Sequoya (St. John's University's Literary Magazine) (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 student publication; article created by the students running the publication. No hits for "sequoya" "st. john's university" on Google News or News archives; Google Books hits don't give enough significant coverage. CtP (t • c) 22:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 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 00:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urban jazz

Urban jazz (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)

Undefined music genre; no sources (and tagged as such since March 2007). I can't really find a source that describes "urban jazz" as a particular musical style. One could deduce that it's an intersection of

Soundcloud uses "urban-jazz" as a tag, though its usage seems just as vague as the radio format. Gyrofrog (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gyrofrog (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, I do get what the article is trying to describe - maybe not the same thing as "smooth jazz," but probably overlapping with it - but dang if I can find a reliable source that corroborates this. It's certainly possible you're finding good sources that I'm not, but I'm curious as to what these are. The book search linked from above gives "urban jazz" in the most general sense, for example "an urban jazz cafe," in other words "not rural" (plus, there's the Tanzanian context that AllyD mentions, which is not (currently) the subject of this Wikipedia article). In a 1996 Billboard article, Ronny Jordan describes his music as "urban jazz" – I'm not sure that accounts for an entire genre, but perhaps it's something we can use. Highbeam has an article in which the music of one Rod McGaha is described as "urban jazz-alternative hip-hop" (which may or may not already be covered under jazz rap). Otherwise, the most relevant results I got from a Google search were the two links I already mentioned, and they're not all that useful (though I didn't dig far into subsequent pages of results) - mainly the results seem to consist of band or album names that include the string "urban jazz." Google News gave me a lot of non-English results. AllyD made earlier comments at Talk:Urban jazz that mentioned how AllMusic, which is normally enthusiastic about defining these kinds of stylistic intersections, curiously did not have an article about this genre. I might have suggested merging this to smooth jazz, but as the article's unsourced, there's technically nothing to merge. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:54, 20 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, Go Phightins! 01:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If secondary sources don't give them a definite meaning then the two words "urban" and "jazz" together are not notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The very phrase is suspect: only think of "suburban jazz" and try not to smirk. Everybody needs their own personal genre I suppose, but at any rate I find no source for the four definitive members of the genre which uses this term for them: more typically they are characterized as smooth jazz performers. Mangoe (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I know some great jazz musicians that live in the suburbs. They mostly play in cities however. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:26, 26 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. 'm withdrawing the AfD, and will improve the article to incorporate the sources Swister Twister found--the one she highlighted talks specifically about market share., which is just what is needed. I apologize for having done an inadequate search. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monde Nissin Corporation

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 relatively small biscuit company in the Philippines with unsourced claims of market leadership. I can find no third party sources, but I admit this might be because of their unavailability in the US DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 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.
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 20:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry of the kings of Britain

Ancestry of the kings of Britain (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)

Inaccurate Original Research, misnamed, and a

WP:COATRACK for an editor who has now created three different pages (the other two already up for AfD or merger) in an effort to find a way to force this bogus genealogical ephemera into Wikipedia somewhere, anywhere. Agricolae (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
You shouldn't create pages for the sole purpose of being sources for other pages. Likewise, the fact that you are super-interested in something is insufficient to demonstrate that the material is super-notable. And no, we don't want the other pages you have named, which are equally inappropriate. Quit trying to turn Wikipedia into a repository for sketchy genealogy. Agricolae (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there have been detailed studies on, specifically, the Wessex pedigree, does not establish a precedent for creating whatever article one wants for the ancestry of other kingdoms that have not been studied to nearly the same level of detail. For that matter, maybe the Wessex article doesn't belong either -
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. None of this justifies the COATRACKing being done to make a third Wikipedia home (it is all already on the Wessex page along with the scholarly refutation of it, and some of it is also on the Anglo-Saxon genealogies page) for the ancestry of Woden or Icel or Ealdfreath, which will never be more than a string of made-up names without the slightest context because they are entirely unknown to history, with some legendary heroes thrown in that already have their own pages and aren't really ancestors of their supposed descendants. It is effectively an extended exercise in POV forking, trying to throw around the raw list of names so as to be uncluttered by the scholarly analysis that shows it all to be nonsense. Agricolae (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Decorating an introductory sentence with a non-reliable medieval pedigree compilation that has nothing to do with the genealogy presented on the rest of the page does nothing to improve the situation, even were it cited properly (specific information comes from specific pages, not an entire book or all of a book after a given page). These aren't original kings lists, but original pedigrees (it would be useful if you understood what the material was before you created a page trying to describe it), large parts of which have indeed been made up (albeit not by you) and we do no service in propagating such bogus genealogy long rejected by the scholarly community. Agricolae (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not doing any of this. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - you need to show notability of the comparision of the various manuscript versions - has anyone written a number of scholarly articles that compare and contrast the various legendary genealogies? And do so in this exact manner? I'm pretty sure that the 1885 source isn't useful as a indicator of notability ... and I've seen the Stenton piece (have it somewhere, in fact) and it's not set up like this article either... If you don't have scholarly articles which compare the various genealogies, you ARE engaging in OR to compare them in this manner. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only for that part of these genealogies that the various kingdoms have in common, the scholarly analysis of which is already discussed in detail (maybe too much detail) in an
WP:CIR. Agricolae (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll freely admit I've not paid that much attention to the early medieval manuscripts that describe the legendary ancestors of the various kings - it's a bit outside my field. On the other hand, this is extreme genealogical trivia - it's better covered somewhere other than Wikipedia, quite honestly. This is seriously the most extreme trivia of trivia as far as historians are concerned. No one would seriously argue any more that these ancestor lists or king lists are anything but stuff some scribe made up to fill in gaps of knowledge. Thus, they really don't need coverage in a serious encyclopedia, and certainly not as total reproductions of the lists! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I've gone back to Barbara Yorke's Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England where she discusses the ancestry of the Mercian kings. She says "No Mercian origin legend survives comparable to those from Kent or Wessex, though the Mercian kings apparantly claimed descent from legendary kings of Contintenal Angeln." D.P. Kirby in Earliest English Kings says "Early eighth-century dynastic and genealogical tradition remembered Oisc, reputed son of Hengest and father of Ochta, as the first of the Oiscingas kings to rule in Kent, Wuffa as the first of the Wuffingas kings to rule in East Anglia, and Iel as the first of the Icelingas who, according to the early eighth-century Life of Guthlac, came to dominate Mercia, but details for the period before c.550-75 (and sometimes much later) are too uncertain for these men to be placed in very precise genealogical or historical contexts." Seems clear to me that the historians who study the period don't place much credence in these legendary lists, so neither should we. Remember, we follow the secondary sources here - and if the historians who specialize in the area don't discuss the subject in this manner, then we shouldn't either. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of the recent changes have made any improvement in the article .. now we have a digression about how Thomas Jefferson wanted Hengst and Horsa on the Great Seal of the United States in the lede - this has no bearing on the purported subject of the article, which is quite impossible to figure out except it should relate to something about the title - I guess. My impression is the article is a coatrack for putting forth some weird ideas some writer proposed in some fringe self-published book. It's certainly not a scholarly treatment of the purported subject. Utterly unsalvagable. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I chopped from List of monarchs of Mercia was not from a king's list - please recognize the distinction between a king's list and a pedigree. A kings list explicitly is listing people who ruled a kingdom (usually with the number of years that they ruled) and often has been compiled to serve as a chronological framework around which the history of a kingdom can be viewed, while a pedigree is a list of the ancestors of a given individual, irrespective of whether they ruled or not, and usually was constructed to demonstrate political or cultural affiliations (ancient or current to the time of construction). What I removed were names from a pedigree that made no claims to the individuals in question being kings of anywhere - it just claims that each is father of one and son of another person in the descent. It is OR to decide they must have been kings of Mercia (at a time before Mercia even existed) without reliable secondary sources, not to remove this unfounded conclusion. Further, it is OR to use a primary record, be it a pedigree or a kings list, and draw any conclusions from it. And again, I would point out that one should not create pages simply in the hopes of finding someplace to force information that has been deemed inappropriate - that is the COATRACKing that has brought us here twice already, nor should one propose that material be merged into a page that has been deemed unuseful, for the sole purpose of rescuing it. The decision on this page has no relation to the worthiness of any other page - remember WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It is only a judgement on the value of this page. If you feel that the Wessex page should be deleted, go ahead and nominate it. Let me point three things, however. First, that every word of it and every chart in it derives directly from an explicit statement in an extensive published study of the topic in reliable secondary literature, 2) it was originally created as the result of an earlier AfD that explicitly called for such a page to be made, and 3) notability is not determined by logic - it is determined by the coverage given material in the secondary record. By virtue of having given rise to the crown of England, the kingdom of Wessex has received more attention from those evaluating the medieval genealogies. Further, the study of the Wessex pedigree has included much of the material you keep trying to force onto other pages, e.g. the mythical ancestry of Woden. Agricolae (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A critical difference is that, even though there is no historical basis for it, Geoffrey (or some other source) explicitly called those people kings, while the names you tried to add are never called (even wrongly) kings of Mercia - they are simply listed as ancestors in a pedigree. Agricolae (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A cover up??? A witch hunt??? Some grand conspiracy to protect Geoffrey of Monmouth???? Now we're moving into fringe topic territory ... Again - notability (which is what determines whether we have pages on subjects) is determined by coverage in reliable secondary sources. A manuscript is the PRIMARY source here - you need scholarly commentary on the subject in secondary sources (see
WP:SECONDARY) to show that this article should be kept. Bringing up things like cover ups and witch hunts rather than showing secondary source coverage is not helping to show this article's notability. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Sure, good advice, just give me 5 minutes to fend off the
Spanish inquisition. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't know what Paul meant by "fend off", but see
talk) 18:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't know that the Anglian collection is an appropriate target, as it deals specifically with one document (that exists in four copies) and not the topic in general - there is a page, Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies that deals with the more general topic that the page in question talks about (but is not named for), but it is already more scholarly than the material in the page under discussion here, and would only be damaged by a merge. Likewise, the use of 'British' in the page name, as you well know, represents the opponents of the Anglo-Saxons (in the 8th century sense of the words) and so I don't think the namespace should point there (namespace and content are two separate issues here because the name of the current page is misleading, using the modern meaning of Britain but talking about a period for which Britain has a distinct meaning to historians that is not at all what the page is about). There used to be a page on the Ancestry of Queen Elizabeth II - don't remember the exact name of it - maybe the redirect (but not the content) from this namespace should go there if it still exists. Agricolae (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That page is already covered in
Ancestry of the kings of Wessex article which I have suggested this is merged into. Full and complete sets of information have equal rights to exist and should be organised properly. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for your reconsideration Peter. I won't let you down. Working on the article right now and will be extensively after the
Britannica external link to overwhelm questions about place on Wikipedia. Also made a critical point producing Creoda as Cretta being the first generally regarded historically-"real" British king by modern source David Hughes to express the need for original sourcing and to correct other confused lists. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Err... you linked David Hughes to a disambiguation page - none of which are historians... who are you referring to? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the convenience of time, read the book. I'll make a page on him later, when I've improved this one. Have a nice Winston Churchill quote to reassure you. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He is referring to the author of some self-published fringe books in which he traces European dynasties to King David and Noah and, believe it or not, to an ancient King of America. He has actually stated publicly that he is absolutely opposed to scholarly evaluation of genealogies because it deprives people of good stories about their ancestors (by revealing them not to be their ancestors). In attempting to 'save' both versions of alternative accounts of the same relationship, he has turned people into their own great-grandfather, and he never met a connection to antiquity he didn't like, as long as it let him extend the pedigree. He is another ancestor-collector and his work is the antithesis of a reliable source. Agricolae (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
David Hughes (astronomer) seems to have an article already after all. I've used him before and not had any problems. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This book[7] is clearly not a reliable source (full of claims about Atlantis, visits to America, etc) and needs to be removed from several articles.
talk) 22:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay, I had to laugh at this part from that link, Doug - "Carausius [Carawn "Wledic" of ancient Welsh annals], called variously a Roman, British, or Dutch prince, who, the Roman Governor of Britain, married to Oriuna [sister of St. Helena], one of the three daughters of the British "wledic" [later king] Cole [II] [not to be confused with Old King Cole, an earlier king], revived the British Monarchy in Year 286 after a hundred-year interregnum, or rather founded a new British kingdom modeled on the Roman imperial system, and later united the British crown to the imperial crown of the Roman Empire at the time of his election to the consulate in Year 289/292 when the empire was decentralized into thirds with three co-emperors, of whom Carausius was one, whose successors reigned in Britain during the last half of the Roman Era, to Empress Marcia [GM’s Queen Marcia], the last of the British imperial line, whose position dissolved in the midst of civil wars in Britain following the [third] evacuation of the Roman Army in Year 418." - REALLY? 289/292 the Roman empire divided into thirds? (Must have been news to Diocletian..). Clearly not a reliable source for this information or any information on wikipedia. And he's an astronomer? Why should his word on early medieval history be taken as better than ... medievalists? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed every reference I could find in article-space a few months ago, and have just gone through and knocked off a half-dozen more that either I missed the first time or have crept back in - let me know if you are aware of any others I may have missed. I am not sure what the basis is for identifying the genealogical fantasist with the astronomer, but if they are the same person, it just goes to show how expertise is specific and not general. Agricolae (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I won't use it again. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are finding material in David Hughes' book and adding to articles but using other sources. For instance, this edit[8] - the 75 AD claim seems to come straight from Hughes.[9]. I've reverted the whole thing as badly sourced (eg "some scholars" actually means one scholar noted its use in fictional works).
talk) 11:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you Agricolae, since I couldn't make heads or tails of Paul's response at all. I was kinda curious as I'd not heard of a medievalist named David Hughes. I'm still not sure what a Churchill quote (and which Churchill - and which quote?) has to do with anything but... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He is referring to the Churchill quote that has been twice put on the page (and twice taken off - it is probably back on again in the time it takes me to respond here). It doesn't really have anything to do with anything, but if a page quote's Churchill, it must be about something notable, right? Agricolae (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:
    WP:BOLLOCKS. Also meets none of the notability guidelines. Non-notable original essay. "Bogus" is putting it kindly. Agree that Paul needs to receive a stern warning about creating articles on clearly non-notable topics such as this. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
<copy of article text deleted>.
Peter Paul, it is a waste of time to insert a copy of the article here. If you want to refer to a version use a link to the history. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, actually, who should perhaps read
WP:NPA. Agricolae (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
And I think we should read up on where Icel is mentioned in the historical record. Nice work, whoever did the makeover on the list by the way. Thanks all. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So delete Icel from the page too; I don't care as long as more non-kings don't get added. And if you mean fixing the table, that was me (you know, the one who needs to "hide his lack of knowledge in the field of genealogy that this article is trying to explain" but still could tell that the article had two separate pedigrees erroneously combined one on top of the other to make Woden his own great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, but I'm the one who doesn't know what they are talking about.) Agricolae (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- On reconsideration, I now NOT do think this article has any merit. The three sources are completely dis-parate, with the exception that they both include Woden and a man called Eomer/Eamer. Pagan genealogies commonly name a god as the father of the earliest known ancestor, so that the two alleged "sons" of Woden cannot be regarded as brothers. The two genealogies are thus completely unrelated and should not appear together. I continue to maintain that "British" or "Britain" are inappropriate in the genelaogy of Anglian kings. I suspect that there will be some academic discussions of these. If we are to have articles on things such as this, they should be cited.
    WP:RS. It might possibly be appropriate to have an article dealing sceptically and separately with each royal genealogy, with a summary of scholarly discussions of them. However this article just will not do. Possibly userify. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Inadvertent omission of NOT corrected.
Comment I have expanded the article since then, there are a lot more sources now. And note that
historical record, starting with Icel and his two successors to make Creoda the first mentioned king. Then we can get on talking about what happened to his family. Asterix needs an Obelix. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Creoda is not called a king in the ASC, it was
talk) 19:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for that, I've edited the page accordingly with that info. Might pinch some of that for Ancestry of the Vikings (which as a note to closing admin will be written with majority of text and Agricolae's table produced after these 3-source votes). As a sidenote Monty called me tonight, out of the blue. He's going to get working on finding a Serbian press source mentioning himself as the president of a University, having already provided an electronic copy of his presidency certificate (which is not permitted due to forgery concerns). So, you never know who or what might be able to make a comeback oneday... Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the mss of the Anglian collection (CCCC and Tiberius B v) include regnal lists for Mercia. Both of them begin with Penda. Creoda as king looks to be a very late innovation. The pages for Icel, Cnebba and Cynwald need to go away, as for the latter two one will never be able to say anything more than that the pedigrees make him son of X and father of Y, while Icel would merit just one more sentence, calling him the eponymous ancestor of the Iclingas, but to which page should they be redirected. Agricolae (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to get Cearl on the historical record via Bede. Working on Crida. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment I think all the kings before Penda (or possibly his father) might usefully be merged into one article on Iclingas - or early Iclingas, possibly a separate article from the list of kings of Mercia. I recall seeing a long article, possibly in Midland History arguing that Pybba was a historical king of Mercia. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest Move to Ancestry of the kings of England later tonight. I'm having problems invading Scotland. There are problems over the flag, and they're an unruly bunch up there. They're threatening to invade this article and make it unfeasibly big. Technically, there are also more kings of England than of Britain, so it may be more notable. This is a bit of a sideways movement, hopefully explainable because most of this article's material has been written about and now getting sensibly discussed after the votes. Anyone who has a problem can have another go trying to delete the Ancestry of the kings of England, but I really hope we are discovering this to be a fascinating and perfectly qualifiable topic when dealt with correctly. We can go and get the Ancestry of the Vikings/Aethelings later, then regroup and attack the Ancestry of the kings of Scotland seperately with cavalry. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 12:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Godulf Geoting
 (This part of the discussion has been indented in an attempt to avoid it appearing to be part of the AfD on that article.)
I put a [
ISBN 978-0-415-16639-3. Retrieved 22 November 2012. Barbara Yorke's list shows those five names listed by their last surnames and included (ing) after Geot in the name of the first one. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
They are not kings, they are just names in a pedigree. Likewise, those are not surnames, they are patronymics. To suggest that "Godulf son of Geat" does not include the name Geat rather misses the whole point of the pedigree. In the process you have screwed up the table again. That being said, this is not the place to talk about the fine details of the page - it is solely for discussions of whether or not the page should be deleted. You want Talk:Ancestry of the kings of Britain. Agricolae (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, on this subject, I have replied comprehensively to all your arguments and addressed all the points that I can see in work done on the article. A whole new lede has bee written tonight, I am suggesting a new title
Ancestry of the kings of Wessex page.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the page says nothing abut Northern Ireland, nothing about Scotland, nothing about Wales, nothing about ethnic groups or fictional elements (at least as those terms are used in sorting AfDs), only has the most peripheral relationship to social sciences, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Atheism. What gives? For those just joining us, this page is poorly focused, superficial and arbitrary in its coverage. It was created as a way to get a single pedigree onto Wikipedia after it was deemed inappropriate on two other pages. It has since had material added with no particular plan or obvious organizational scheme to try to keep it from being deleted. What information it contains that is reliable is already provided in a more scholarly, more organized and more comprehensive fashion on other existing pages that would be reduced in their quality by merging this material into them. Agricolae (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Northern Ireland and Scotland are part of Britain. It speaks of the
    athiest related. I just want all of your bogus pedigrees and poor naming conventions off Wikipedia and I'll get them one way or another. Agricolae it just hiding his fabricated genealogies. Time I perhaps left this article and took my technical issues directly with them. Paul Bedson ❉talk
    ❉
    By definition, if it involves a God (which seems to be the argument here) it is the antithesis of atheism. Agricolae (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page is trying to say
Sad. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Utter nonsense. We have a perfectly respectable article on the subject of family history and ancestry already. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the specific "family history" of monarchs is the very basis of general political history. This isn't about family history in general--we do have an article on that--it's about the history of several geographically and historically related royal houses in particular. I'm not sure how we should title this and the related articles, or whether we should merge them: i think a rewrite of the general group of articles is very much needed, & I see this as a general article, with the individual documentary sources separate. I do not see this as OR. Andy says the reader will not see what "the page is trying to say." -- if the page were trying to say something, it would indeed be OR: WP pages are not supposed to have a thesis to prove. Rather, the page is trying to present and organize historical material, and while I agree it is not doing it as clearly as it should, that's not a reason for deletion. "Why should readers care?" is not an argument for deletion. Some readers will care, and we do not judge by personal interest. I have just a little amateur knowledge of this period, and I found a few sources here I had not known about, and will follow up on them. Agricola seems to be arguing that the material is contradictory and semi-legendary, with some parts being entirely mythical. So it is, but that is no reason whywe should not cover it--it is in fact a good reason why we should, to explain and present it clearly. He further argues that Wessex is justified, but not the other parts of it,because Wessex is so much better documented. So it is, but that Wessex is very fully documented as the early middle ages go, does not mean the other parts are undocumented--Each of the kingdoms is important and covered by primary and extensive secondary sources. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A page shouldn't be 'trying to say something' in the sense you are using it, but it should be 'trying to say something' in the sense that Andy is - it should be about a coherent topic rather than just a magpie selection of bright shiny factoids that neither cover the general topic nor relate to each other. You also are not characterizing my arguments accurately. 1) It is the material in this page, not the primary material, that is (or at least when I said it, was) contradictory. The core pedigree material is semi-legendary and mythical, but that is not the problem - it is a fringe interpretation of this material that is being inserted for the third time (two previous ones having met with resistance), that is the problem. 2) Wessex is more notable because its pedigree has been subject to published scholarly evaluation at a level of detail that has not been done with the others; and 3) the evaluation of the Wessex pedigree included an evaluation of the early part shared by the other kingdoms, and this information is included on the Wessex page, and another page already exists addressing the other kingdoms. Both existing pages are more scholarly and more organized and just about anything that would be merged into them from this page would make them worse. This page from the start was a POV fork, intended to COATRACK fringe interpretations that would not find a home in the more scholarly articles. It has since been decorated with a lot of irrelevant material, but it remains a badly named unfocused attempt at replicating existing material with a different spin. Agricolae (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Obelix, I ain't alone now Agricolae, so I'm arguing back...
  • 1) The article makes perfect, coherent logical sense to me. Even after extensive sections have been removed for various reasons, it starts with a two-sentence lead to show high notability. It continues with a paragraph showing the importance of the ancestral monarchies to the everyday person. It then gives and overview of the subject and divides into the different "houses" of England, which is only part of Britain and therefore...
I will accept that it makes logical sense to you. Agricolae (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2) Not at all less notable than Wessex, which is a minor county of England, and was more precisely called West Saxony or WEST SAXORUM at the times concerned in this article and is most notable and accurate as, and known, at least by British scholars as West Saxony, bringing me on to
Notability is not determined by the size of a historical entity, but by the coverage given it by scholarly secondary literature. The same goes with the name used to describe a historical entity - it has nothing to do with accuracy and everything to do with what term scholars use. Agricolae (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3) Your article the
    Ancestry of the kings of Wessex
    is long-winded, hard to understand, factually innaccurate and needs a complete re-write as DGG suggests applies to this whole section.
It may be long-winded, and you may find it hard to understand, but it is not factually inaccurate. There is nothing in the page that is not verifiable, and every statement in it is directly cited to scholarly secondary literature. Agricolae (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, I've created a substantially altered version of this page (it contains only five names that have been copied) over at

Godulf Geoting to show the necessary expansion suggested. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I have initiated an AfD for this new page Godulf Geoting, who as nothing more than a name in a medieval pedigree with no known biographical information will never receive the substantial coverage by historians that is the requirement for notability. Agricolae (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your "paragraph showing the importance of the ancestral monarchies to the everyday person", to the the extent that it makes sense at all, is
synthesis. If you have a source that says that 'ancestral monarchies' are of importance to 'the everyday person', then cite it. If you don't, the paragraph doesn't belong in the article. This is basic Wikipedia stuff, and shouldn't be hard to understand... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Good point, that someone seems to have come along and addressed by editing better than me already and linked with the "inclination towards entitlement" bit.
Magic! Plus I think the fact that Thomas Jefferson saw the importance of the topic appropriate and makes notability apparent.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Thomas Jefferson is dead. He's been dead a long time. He cannot possibly be cited as a source for any statements regarding "the importance of the ancestral monarchies to the everyday person" - and you have not provided evidence that he made any such statements. Please read
WP:OR, and stop filling this discussion with nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Point taken. I've revised that paragraph so that it makes sense chonologically now. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 13:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator - this is a duplicate vote from this editor, who already voted 'Keep' and has not struck it out. Agricolae (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC) has now been struck Agricolae (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have stuck my keep vote out. I've given this much consideration along with the alternative Ancestry of the monarchs of Anglo-Saxon England, we have plenty of later monarchy information such as List of English monarchs, List of British monarchs. I was however unable to find any female monarchs in this time period, so go with "kings". I think that Faustus37 has come up with the best solution here and as TommyPinball notes, we are short of coverage in this area. I would also request that if the closing administrator does decide on a delete, that the talk page is noted as an addendum to the deletion discussion for future reference if possible. Thanks. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 16:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, how can we redirect to an article that doesn't exist? And before Paul Bedson asks, using the content of this confused essay to create it is no way to start one. If the sources cited in the article are the best that can be found on the subject, it appears that there is little that can be said with any confidence anyway regarding the actual genealogy of real kings, and we shouldn't confuse mythology with historical fact. If there is enough usable material regarding a particular Anglo-Saxon kingdom, we are better off covering it in individual articles, where myth and fact can be better distinguished, rather than duplicating it here - none of the kings were kings 'of England' anyway, and it appears likely that a good few probably weren't 'kings' at all... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a page, Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies, that talks about the pedigrees as a whole and has sections for evaluation of each individual kingdom. There is no reason to create or preserve a POV fork for this topic, and no reason to create a redirect from namespace that everyone agrees does not describe the topic being covered. Agricolae (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So we do. I'm cool with a Merge and cleanup. Faustus37 (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is both blatantly false and an extreme example of failure to
WP:AGF. Agricolae (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
This isn't a trial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Here's another one: If we merge it into Agricolae's
deities. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Well there is something we both agree on.
WP:BATTLEGROUND. Agricolae (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
That last statement about overwhelming the opposition so some of the truth gets through is particularly concerning. Two administrators (me being one) have warned Paul about using Wikipedia to promote new ideas and 'the truth' as he sees it. He was also given a formal notification of Pseudoscience Discretionary sanctions[11] for pushing a pov and misusing sources about a year and a have ago. One of the two administrators involved in the closing noted "A reading of Paul Bedson's comments above does not inspire any confidence in his understanding of Wikipedia policy or his willingness to edit neutrally. He views this AE request as "a direct attempt to damage mankind by hindering research into the central Levantine archaeological site of the neolithic revolution in Aaiha.""[12].
talk) 05:52, 27 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 Nomination withdrawn. Self

NAC. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Buytigers

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

Declined {{

General Notability Guidelines in my eyes. kelapstick(bainuu) 20:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawing nomination, sources (that I couldn't find) were posted on the talk page. Clearly has received enough coverage for the GNG. Closing it myself as there have been no other participants. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:43, 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. Clear delete per lack of sources: notability not established. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Forte

Frank Forte (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 routine sportscaster. Being fired from a job is not notability. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 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. I'm withdrawing the AfD. I was unduly infuenced by the earlier state of the article, which Tokyogirl has now fixed. Even though his books never really became best sellers, I now realize that an successful authorship career extending over so many titles is sufficient to make for notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don Bendell

Don Bendell (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)

somewhat promotional article for non notable author. Write Westerns, none of which have more that 240 copies in libraries. [13]. The other material, and the claimed awards, is utterly trivial. I previously deleted a much more extensive dramatically promotional version. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I've deleted much of the article and added a bibliography. I'm still not convinced, but he's gotten some coverage in some local papers and has been mentioned extensively as a tracker in various articles. Of course the tracker mentions are all brief, so they're probably trivial sources at best. There does seem to be evidence of reviews out there, so I'll see what I can find.
    talk) 07:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 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. Level of detail not supported by reliable sources; that some sources can be found for some episodes is probably not surprising but does not help support this article. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Deal or No Deal (U.S. game show) episodes

List of Deal or No Deal (U.S. game show) episodes (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)

Overly-detailed list of episodes for a game show. No sources present. Episode descriptions read like fancruft. This is not a television series with fictional plot synopses that should be chronicled in an article, and the specific details of results from a television game show episode do not meet

AldezD (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As a point, non-fictional program like reality television can have episodic descriptions that can be sourced to reliable recaps, much less the show itself (this is common for Survivor and Amazing Race seasons). That said, Deal or no Deal is nowhere close to needing such descriptions. The main show page can note some of the special episodes that got notice in sources (like I believe the one where Pres. Obama was on via telecast) but not every single episode is needed. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Masem. I see no encyclopedic merit to this level of detail for a game show. postdlf (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked up one episode and found these: [14] [15] [16] [17]. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:20, 23 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bertrand Engoudou

Bertrand Engoudou (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) 20:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 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 Opposites (album). Yunshui 雲‍水 11:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sand at the Core of Our Bones

The Sand at the Core of Our Bones (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)

Biffy Clyro's next studio album is called Opposites. There already is an Article with that name. MiB1982 (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 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. No proof that he passes PROF, let alone the GNG. Being an editor of a journal is no reason for notability by our standards if the journal is not notable, and the suspicion of spam (a walled garden of related articles meant to support each other) is noted. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Srinubabu Gedela

Srinubabu Gedela (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)

Impressive-looking biography of an Indian scientist. His main claims to notability are his editorship of a scientific journal and as founder of the OMICS Publishing Group. However, the journal (Journal of Proteomics & Bioinformatics) is not a "major well-established academic journal" as required for

WP:GNG, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MacWise

MacWise (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)

Insufficient claim of notability. No third party sources provided to support notability. Heavy COI problem and

SPA accounts are the primary contributors. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 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. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Wagner (conspiracy theorist)

Klaus Wagner (conspiracy theorist) (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)

Orphan that probably doesn't meet biographical notability guidelines. Rawlangs (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've looked for sources. The article cites exactly one. The sum total of published information about this person that I can find are reports of his being arrested, but released without charge after a few hours, a couple of times back in the 1990s. There was supposedly a television documentary made about this person, but that was broadcast sixteen years ago, and (given Special:Contributions/77.137.41.191) I have reservations about its suitability as a source even were it available today. Cohen 2011 isn't a spectacular source, given that it is contradicted by contemporary newspaper reports still available via Google News, such as Dispatch 1996 — which, as you can see, at 79 words total is shallow stuff for the creation of a biography, and based upon a U.K. tabloid newspaper to boot. Ironically, Cohen 2011 shows that the world documents this as a subject of royal stalkers and stalking, and this person is but an anecdote, not a candidate for a full biography, whose life and works outwith one subject are simply not recorded by history.
  • Uncle G (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 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 merge to

Western State Colorado University#Athletics. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 00:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Western State Colorado University Mountaineers

Western State Colorado University Mountaineers (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

NCAA Division I programs have been determined to be inherently notable, but this school is not Division I, which makes scrutiny over it a little tougher. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 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 So Wrong, It's Right. MBisanz talk 00:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poppin' Champagne

AfDs for this article:
Poppin' Champagne (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)

Lack of notability. It's just a single found in an album.

talk) 14:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 20 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 00:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect To

WP:NSONGS. The album article is well-sourced and notable, and this is a plausible search term. It does not however merit its own standalone article. §FreeRangeFrog 01:44, 26 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 as per positive consensus and no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. The single call for article merger can be continued via the article's Talk Page. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bassett (clergyman)

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

Found in a random search, I'm not convinced that he is notable. Hesitating to nominate this as it is my first AfD and it was created by a very good editor, but I don't see how any of the roles he's listed as having had make him notable. Some of the text has also been lifted straight from a source as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that there doesn't seem to be much written here about the historical context in which this fellow's claim to notability might be established. The fact that I couldn't find any less general article than Methodism itself to refer to him indicates that a better direction to take is to write a separate article on the history of early Methodism that mentions him in passing. For a variety of reasons, I'm not at the moment anyway the person to write that article. But surely someone could do it, perhaps even you. Mangoe (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as I'm concerned (and others if precedent is to be believed), having an entry in a national dictionary of biography generally makes an individual notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, since their standards of notability are generally higher than ours (i.e. they generally exclude the many thousands of minor musicians, starlets and sportspeople that we include just because they have had a minor hit, featured in a cult TV series or played in a single professional game). His connections with the Methodist church make him unusual enough, which is presumably why the Dictionary of Welsh Biography has an article on him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Uncle G seems to have found sufficient evidence that he would have passed GNG in his lifetime and around the time of his death and later. Whether we would think he should have been notable is irrelevant for WP because once notable, always notable. In any case, the development of Welsh Methodism, and its relationship with the the evangelical wing of the Anglican church, is a significant historical topic in its own right. Whether many people are interested in it does not matter either because if you are, you might well want to read about it in WP. --AJHingston (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A relatively well-referenced article (references discussed above), showing his notability. This individual was notable in his time and is still notable for being "the last Anglican clergyman in Wales to be associated with the Methodists." -- Hazhk Talk to me 20:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - if someone improves this article with the sources found I'm more than willing to close this AfD early. I won't do so until someone does, however (I think that seems fair). Lukeno94 (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough for his time, and surely of enough interest for some readers. First Light (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- If Dictionary of Welsh Biography considers him worth having an article on (as it does), WP should regard him as notable. The content of this article and DWB are similar in scope. It would be necessary for some one to locate a copy of E. Morgan, Home Light, or, Brief memoirs and letters of the Rev. R. Bassett, Vicar of Colwinstone, and E. Bassett, Esq., Glamorganshire, 1860, which it cites in order to expand the article. The DWB article describes him as a Methodist clergyman. His death marks the last link between the Methodists and their Anglican roots; that is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 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. Apart from the lack of notability, the article qualified fro speedy deletion under criterion

talk) 12:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Apple Computer Education

Apple Computer Education (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 institution do not meet

WP:NOTABILITY. A minor educational institution. Amartyabag TALK2ME 10:30, 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. Lack of secondary sources discussing the subject indicates lack of notability per our guidelines. Will salt. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Errichetti

Michael Errichetti (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:BIO
, many sources but little actual substance, most sources either don't mention him or are press releases. Note: only source 1 to 11 are unique, 12 to 21 are the same sources used again.

  • [18] doesn't mention Errichetti
  • [19] doesn't mention Errichetti
  • [20] doesn't mention Errichetti
  • [21] doesn't mention Errichetti
  • [22] I can't access the full article, doesn't mention Errichetti in the part I can see
  • [23] I can't access the full article, doesn't mention Errichetti in the part I can see
  • [24] I can't access the full article, doesn't mention Errichetti in the part I can see
  • [25] doesn't mention Errichetti
  • [26] doesn't mention Errichetti
  • [27] is a typical reprinted press release
  • [28] is another story on the same event

So that's two stories from highly specialized websites on one event. The three sources I can't fully access may have more, but this search [29] doesn't give much confidence for this.

Fram (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete - this page has been deleted a few times already and recreated by the same user. His only contributions are to this page (or talk pages). He's already been told to clean up the article and it's still a broken mess. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Errichetti is considered one of the leading Real Estate investment bankers in the industry. He helped found the group at JP Morgan during a career there of 27 years. He was a leading advisor to notable Real Estate companies mentioned in the entry. He was a Board Member of NAREIT, the main industry organization for public real estate companies in the United States. It is a common practice in the United States business publications like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times (and in London, the Financial Times) to mention only the firm advising the company in large transactions, not the individuals. However, articles like the one deleted (unfortunately, you must be a WSJ subscriber to access the full archived article "Errichetti to KBW", not just the headline of it's weekly article on important development in the industry entitled "Plots & Ploys"regarding Mr. Errichetti's joining KBW) do mention the deal volume and some of those transactions. Mr Errichetti also helped create the unsecured debt market for Real Estate companies which led to billions of dollars of debt issuance, and he is widely recognized for that but it is not written about per se. On the question of previous deleted entries, please let me explain. I looked to other Wikipedia entries for colleagues of Mr. Errichetti at JP Morgan and some of them include the language, almost exactly, of the entries listed in Business Week biographies on the web. So, initially I took the same approach, focusing on a much shorter entry without all the detail on the individual transactions, which resulted in the Wikipedia's deletions re copywrite issues (although it was not an exact copy and the information was all factual). Following that, I then decided to write a much more detailed account of his career, highlighting the major, public transactions that he was responsible for and which is known by the companies (and their CEO's) mentioned and the industry overall. Some of the articles from major publications are no longer archived, but I have printed copies of them but obviously could not use them. The leading M&A industry source (The Daily Deal) that often includes names of individuals on transactions is not available on the web. But again, in the US, it is common to reference major transactions attached to leading Investment Bankers in major business publications because the reporters at the time either speak to the company or reference the SEC filings that sometimes list the names of the participants in the Background section of the document. I hope this answers some of the issues raised in your commentary.Independentboardmember (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The history of deletion should be attributable to my lack of understanding of Wikipedia as a first time contributor and even some technical issues, rather than the implication that an issue exists, which I believe the previous contributor implies. In looking at the definition of Notable offered by Wikipedia, it would appear that Mr. Errichetti meets those requirements. It is a 27 year career performing at the highest level for JP Morgan, a leader in Investment Banking worldwide. The transactions noted are in some cases record transactions in the industry at the time of their completion, including largest cross border transactions in the Real Estate Industry. He led pioneering efforts in developing debt capital market products for Real Estate companies including unsecured bank loans and bonds, including the first ever Rate reset note. So, his notability is not temporary and is based on facts, supported by tangible noteable transactions for which he was responsible. Again, in my view, Mr. Errichetti warrants inclusion even in an abbreviated form, based on his positions, tenure, pioneering work and tangible results that can be verified and have been publicly.Independentboardmember (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know that experts in Wikepedia know this, but please allow me to copy below Wikipedia's definition of notability for People: Any biography Shortcut: WP:ANYBIO The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.[7]

The second point, in my opinion, is without question. Mr. Errichetti advised on the transactions that helped transform the public real estate industry. He also helped develop the primary vehicles in the debt capital markets that are now primarily used by the public industry to finance itself, running into the billions and billions of dollars. On the first point, I don't know if it helps that two of the transactions (Rodamco purchase of Urban and Rodamco hostile defense and then sale to Simon, Rouse and Westfield) were awarded Institutional Investor's Deal of the Year awards, which is the most notable award in that industry. Both contain quotes from Mr. Errichetti, but again, unfortunately could not access these articles on the web but have read printed versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Independentboardmember (talk • contribs) 04:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That Errichetti "advised" and "helped" does not establish
notability. You need to identify multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject
that state that Errichetti transformed the public real estate industry. Published sources do not have to be available on-line. They do have to be verifiable from an archive or public or university library.
Concerning the "Institutional Investor's Deal of the Year Award", what organization presents that award? Was it awarded to Errichetti as an individual? Or to a company or group? If not presented to him as an individual, that Errichetti is involved, mentioned or quoted does not help establish his notability. The
Join WER 12:52, 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 00:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shkëlqim Devolli

Shkëlqim Devolli (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 (endorsed) PROD. Subject fails

WP:CORPDEPTH. §FreeRangeFrog 08:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 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 no consensus. Open for more than 1 month and still nothing is clear (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 00:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Deenar Uroos

Malik Deenar Uroos (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)

Appear to fail

SarahStierch (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 15 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:07, 19 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,  Sandstein  07:52, 27 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 00:16, 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, MBisanz talk 04:28, 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, —Theopolisme 02:13, 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. Uncontroversial keep. That an article is promotional is in itself no reason for deletion, voters have presented what they consider evidence of notability. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Byrne Dairy

Byrne Dairy (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 not established; reads like a promotional article Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 10:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 5 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, —
21™ 03:05, 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, —Theopolisme 02:19, 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 deleted per BLP-prod, unreferenced after ten days. JohnCD (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Marcot (actress)

Danielle Marcot (actress) (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 references, very little information to be considered notable. Freshh (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 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 speedy keep. Article easily passes

WP:GNG at this time as argumented by the editors. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

FTL: Faster Than Light

FTL: Faster Than Light (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 explain why it is notable. Perhaps it does not does belong in Wikipedia at all? Longbyte1 (talk) 03:40, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 00:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Storm Brutus

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

This page is not well sourced, the storm wasn't notable, and the name has the same problem as the former

Winter Storm Athena article. United States Man (talk
) 02:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Another thing, this was created by an editor with a history of unconstructive edits. United States Man (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Just my opinion, don't want to rehash this issue here. Also, the article has enough sourcing to meet RS, and in my opinion can be expanded upon. The storm is notable in that it dumped a 'ton' persay of snow over the northwest. Also, what support do you have for these "unconstructive" edits? Also, USM, I'd strongly reccommend you read the rollback policy as you have used it incorrectly a few times now. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I did not misuse rollback, this storm is not notable, the article cannot be expanded, and I noticed that you saw this page and then sourced everything on the page. You are not fooling anyone. United States Man (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, what's wrong with me improving the sourcing to keep it? There's no fooling involved. I could take that as a personal attack, which I almost do. You did misuse rollback, but this is not the place for that. The article can be expanded. I'll get around to that when I can stop arguing about deletion/rollback. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it also brought the first snow to Chicago since March 4! That's gotta be notable, right?  :) --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw on my watchlist where this page has already been deleted (it was at 00:18 on November 16) by User:DeltaQuad. So this (although I didn't see the first page) is probably a copy of the original. United States Man (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I should think there is enough precedent and consensus by now to speedily reverse any language that treats the TWC names as normative or legitimate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After the article has been deleted, it should be recreated as a redirect to The Weather Channel#2012 naming winter storms. In this way, when uninformed members of the public search on "Winter Storm Brutus" to find out what is going on, we'll have a place for them to go. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what's going on here? Things look like they're leaning in favor of deletion, bu no new posts have been made for a few days. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the
AFD has at least 2 more days. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:47, 24 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 00:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul C. Domke

Paul C. Domke (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)

Only claim to notability is being a member of the 1944 Dixie Mission to China. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Anton H. Remeneh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Reginald E. Foss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Charles E. Dole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Simon H. Hitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Louis M. Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Walter Gress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
George I. Nakamura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Melvin A. Casberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)*
John G. Colling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)*
Henry C. Whittlesey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)*

The latter three list other achievements, but not enough for notability IMO.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 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 02:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete- This Findagrave entry may be the correct individual, but LTC doesn't meet WP:Soldier, so no help; this appears to be CPT Whittlesey, again, no helpful information; this may be Nakamura, if he was an enlisted translator (sorry, missed the details in his article); unable to find possibly corresponding details on the others. Dru of Id (talk) 16:24, 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 00:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yukon Gold hash

Yukon Gold hash (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)

Hash can be made with a variety of vegetables, but it's not notable. hacky (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Maybe a nice page in a recipe book, but no indication of wp:notability, and the name is probably promotional. Possibly promotional. Hard to image a particular brand of potatoes being in the name. North8000 (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Something is weird here. This page doesn't match what is shown in the general AFD page. North8000 (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it. There was something broken in the AfD template for the article after this one. Voceditenore (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, novice editor here. --hacky (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a trimmed version of this article to Yukon Gold potato. The article was one of several with dubious notability and sourced to blogs created by a young editor who has since left Wikipedia. The hash is named after the variety of potato used in it, so I don't think it's promoting anything, but it's only distinguished from other types of hash by this feature and the other ingredients can vary enormously. I don't think is enough for a stand alone article. Voceditenore (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the most one could write would be "The Yukon Gold potato can be used just like any other potato.".--hacky (talk) 01:40, 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, MBisanz talk 04:16, 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 02:33, 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 00:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Koyakatsi

Koyakatsi (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:NF: films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines. Slashme (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, I would like to keep the page "Koyakatsi" -- I have included both in the page and below a number of publications that demonstrate the film is indeed notable and has sparked a great deal of interest from the audience both in the film, music and scientific community.
I have included prestigious news and trade publications such as Huffington Post, iTunes, Amazon, IMDB, Space Collective, and Behance Network. I find that the fact that the following publications find the film notable demonstrate a genuine interest both from the audience and the industry alike.
Please find the links below.
Thank you so much for your time and guidance, they're greatly appreciated.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-silva/koyakatsi-film_b_1965107.html
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2225720/
http://pro.imdb.com/title/tt2225720/
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm971288064/tt2225720
http://roboticsnews.co.uk/permalink/5338.html
http://spacecollective.org/AyoubQanir/7993/Koyakatsi-Enter-The-Civilization-of-Light
http://smashingpicture.com/koyakatsi-concept-art-previews-mind-bending-action-film/
http://www.amazon.com/Koyakatsi-Main-Theme-Motion-Picture/dp/B009P10S5M
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/artist/kodi-najm/id569503458
https://www.facebook.com/Koyakatsimovie/timeline
http://www.amazon.it/Koyakatsi-Main-Theme-Motion-Picture/dp/B009P3BL3I
http://www.amazon.fr/Koyakatsi-Main-Theme-Motion-Picture/dp/B009P3D7Y4
http://www.emusic.com/listen/#/album/kodi-najm/koyakatsi-main-theme-from-the-motion-picture/13646974/
http://soundcloud.com/koyakatsi/logical-means-of-destruction-1
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.340109532730186.76683.154699474604527&type=3
http://www.behance.net/gallery/KOYAKATSI/4523717
http://www.dreampushers.com/koyakatsi-concept-art.html
http://www.debutart.com/illustration/kilian-eng/koyakatsi-movie-scene-a-2#/illustration-portfolio
http://blog.smartpress.com/daily-inspiration-549-koyakatsi-concept-art
http://twitter.com/Hypernova/statuses/223831378163273728
http://pinterest.com/pin/75857574944531934/
http://smashingpicture.com/koyakatsi-concept-art-previews-mind-bending-action-film/koyakatsi-concept-art03/
http://www.newsawy.com/goto.php?id=1954030016
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlelilia (talk • contribs) 23:11, 5 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, MBisanz talk 04:25, 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 02:32, 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. MBisanz talk 00:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zhezkazgan Air

Zhezkazgan Air (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 article that fails

notability; the creator theirself tagged the page as non-notable. Jetstreamer Talk 19:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 5 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, —
21™ 03:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Found two, added to the article, now keep--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 19 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, —Theopolisme 02:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only because it is notable enough for ICAO to give it a code and callsign allocation. Only one Yak-40 but it is an airliner rather than just a commuter or light aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, it's worth noting that such nominations may be a little BITEy, in turning away good-faith editors: yes, a potential
WP:NPOV
.
-- Trevj (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The matter here is that the author created the article including no sources at all. It's not being discussed here if anyone can come later and find sources.
The creation carries with the responsibility of starting a properly sourced page. This was not the case.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:05, 26 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 00:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Roantree

Mark Roantree (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 included, among many others, in the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gillian_McMahon. As the discussion closed, the author included it in a list they said was "a bit obscure and could be removed immediately." This was back in 2006. Since 2007, The subject's h-index is 11 has dropped from 11 to 8, as seen on his Google Scholar profile. Seems to lack enough notability to warrant an article. Has carried a notability tag since 2008. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 5 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, MBisanz talk 04:17, 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, —Theopolisme 02:31, 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 no consensus. Closing as NC, and suggesting re-nom in 2-3 months (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 00:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Killjoy Goes to Hell

Killjoy Goes to Hell (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)

It pains me to nominate anything by Full Moon Pictures for deletion, but this is another film I stumbled across tonight that lacks reliable sources. I searched to try to find some, but ultimately found no coverage for this movie at all. There's just no notability for this movie. It doesn't help that the article is written with promotional buzzwords and contains a copyvio for the movie's description.

talk) 09:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 09:17, 21 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) 22:18, 28 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) 01:07, 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, MBisanz talk 04:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't find the HN.N one when I'd initially searched, so that one is definitely usable. However, the rest of them seem to be of the non-notable review site/blog review variety, which cannot show notability- especially the LetterBoxHD site, which seems to be the type of site where anyone can sign up and give a review. It even describes it's as "a social network for sharing your taste in film", so it's definitely not considered a reliable source. It takes a lot for a review site to be considered reliable and so far out of the sites you've given, only HorrorNews.net would be usable as a reliable source to show notability.
    talk) 10:19, 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, —Theopolisme 02:30, 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 00:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Horizon Labs

Horizon Labs (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)

Fictional Marvel Universe that fails notability guidelines. Tinton5 (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Max Modell into the Horizon Labs article and give editors time to expand the article after the merge is complete. The Horizon Labs article has been around for less than a day; it was already up for deletion before I even knew it existed. Give editors time to expand it before it is deleted. Anyone who has read an issue of The Amazing Spider-Man in the past two years will tell you how important Horizon Labs has been to the storylines. Renominate for deletion in one month if the article has not sufficiently improved. Spidey104 01:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In-universe importance is irrelevant. Do we have third-party sources commenting on its role in the stories? Considering how stubby Spider-Man: Big Time is (it contains literally nothing apart from plot summary, bibliographic information and a table of ratings from various sources), it seems odd to split things out from it. Morwen (Talk) 12:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Big Time was only the first appearance of Horizon Labs, but it isn't really split off from that article. The technology Spider-Man has created while working at Horizon Labs has been talked about in reviews of the comic books and has already been turned into toys. Adaptation into other media is real world notability. I could find more sources, but I won't waste my time if it's going to be deleted anyways. Give me the month I asked for and I will spend time finding more sources. A wait and see approach is a common result of deletion discussions, and I have already given a small source on little effort. Imagine what I could do with real effort in a month. :-) Spidey104 03:31, 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,
andley 18:08, 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, —Theopolisme 02:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Marvel Wiki is exactly the best source. It has less contributors than the Comics WikiProject. Spidey104 01:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete there's a real lack of context here from outside the universe, which can only really come from independent sources. Something that could
    WP:verify notability that isn't just some editor's opinion or a reference to the show or its creators. I would also support a merge as a compromise, but there's already plenty of work to be done on the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:42, 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 merge to User:Happy5214/Sandbox/List of minor state highways in Honolulu County, Hawaii. MBisanz talk 00:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii Route 7241

Hawaii Route 7241 (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:USRD/NT. -happy5214 13:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 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,
andley 18:25, 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, —Theopolisme 02:25, 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. The recent !votes trend keep and since there are additional references added to the talk page that confer notability of the discussion, I believe that satisfies the concerns of the nominators and of those originally !voting delete. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 01:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Thêta Pi

Sigma Thêta Pi (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)

Just a student fraternity. No attempt made to provide evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 5 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, MBisanz talk 03:43, 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 02:23, 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. SpinningSpark 15:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Zeidan

Jean Zeidan (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've declined two IP requests for speedy deletion (the reason given in them that the subject requested deletion). Looking at the article, I'm none too sure that there is sufficient notability there. Bringing it to AfD for a consensus. Peridon (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The subject's former position as mayor of a town would arguable provide notability, but as it stands, the article sources are very poor in terms of verifying the article text; nor am I finding anything better. So combining that BLP issue with the apparent desire for erasure, I'm inclined towards delete. AllyD (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 5 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, —
21™ 00:28, 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, KTC (talk) 00:16, 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, —Theopolisme 02:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As an engineer, it seems he co-authored a book but aside from this, Google News and Books provided nothing else. Unfortunately, like most Middle Eastern topics, any relevant sources are probably not Internet-based or English. With no visible sources, there shouldn't be an English article at this time, unless of course, non-English sources are found to which I have no objection. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 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 00:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Bullet Raja

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

Film still in production with no release date so not notable per Wikipedia:Notability (films). Eeekster (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 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, —Theopolisme 02:21, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 00:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How We Live: At the Philharmonic

How We Live: At the Philharmonic (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:NALBUMS CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC) CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:53, 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 02:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Ian McNabb or a new Ian McNabb discography article. Deleting all these articles Ian McNabb articles isn't going to improve the encyclopedia. He's clearly a notable artist, and we should preserve encyclopedic content. A separate discography article with more detail than is currently in the McNabb article might be the way to go. --Michig (talk) 07:11, 5 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, —
21™ 03:12, 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, —Theopolisme 02:17, 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 Hopsin#Music_career . MBisanz talk 00:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funk Volume

Funk Volume (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)

With a little bit of luck one of the artists on this label is notable. There is no coverage in reliable sources, nothing exciting to write about. A redirect to the owner, Hopsin, is the best we should offer. Mindy Dirt (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 5 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,
bark dig 03:40, 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, —Theopolisme 02:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hopsin#Music_career - Google News found results here, here and here and Google News archives also found results here (brief mention), here (he notes in this intereview that he wants Funk Volume to be a "household name" and "number one spot"), here and here. Although there are several sources here, they really all mention the same content and it probably wouldn't improve the article from its current state. Despite noting that 2012 is going to be a good year for them, it seems they haven't received much coverage aside from the results above. Additionally, the record label only has a small group of people including its founder, Hopsin so this is probably also to blame. SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 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 no consensus. Relisted four times and per the work by Michael (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 00:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Helpers

The Helpers (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 stumbled along this page while I was looking through the category for 2012 films. I tried finding sources for this, but ultimately all I could find were a few articles that are heavily based on the same press release. The movie has released, apparently in September, but there's an almost complete lack of in-depth coverage for this movie to show that it passes

talk) 08:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 08:57, 21 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,
bark dig 16:42, 28 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) 16:59, 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, MBisanz talk 03:43, 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, —Theopolisme 02:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now and, as the stub definietly needs work, we can allow
    notable as highly touted big budget - big studio films, but we are allowed to decide that as a topic, it might just be notable enough to allow herein for improvements over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:41, 24 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 00:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elixio

AfDs for this article:
Elixio (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 social network. After a

WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion (no indication of importance), the deletion was discussed and examples of media coverage were provided at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 20. Most contributors supported listing the article at AfD, which is hereby done. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral.  Sandstein  09:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 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) 16:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of references does not infer notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:48, 14 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, MBisanz talk 04:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the link provided in the article, saying it's "about" this site is a pretty big stretch. Also,
welcome to Wikipedia. --Kinu t/c 22:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I see significant coverage in the following reliable sources: one, two. (The description of the Guardian's coverage as a "throwaway mention", above, is ludicrous. "Throwaway mention" is a low bar, and the Guardian's subheading-and-paragraph clears it with some ease.)

    I also take issue with Alan Liefting's bizarre statement that "the existence of references does not infer notability". In fact the only way to prove something is notable is to list the reliable sources that have noted it! Once you have listed the sources, then the notability challenge fails, irrespective of how many drive-by "delete" comments you get, because this isn't a vote. Stubbify and keep.—S Marshall T/C 22:26, 17 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, —Theopolisme 02:14, 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 Silent Hill 4: The Room#Audio. MBisanz talk 00:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Room of Angel (Silent Hill soundtrack)

Room of Angel (Silent Hill soundtrack) (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)

After a web search, no reliable sources on the song's composition and critical reception could be located by me.

talk) 12:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 20 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) 13:48, 27 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 00:17, 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, MBisanz talk 04:27, 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, —Theopolisme 02:13, 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 merge to Pir (Sufism). MBisanz talk 00:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Baba

Peer Baba (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)

Just a dictionary definition. See

WP:NOTDICDEF. PROD removed. Cindy(talk to me) 13:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 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, -- Cheers,
Huntley 02:13, 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 00:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Latitude

The Latitude (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. Both refs (now link dead) point to developer, so it looks like there have never been any independent links. Google reveals many hits, but they all seem to be database entries or real estate agents trying to sell units in the building; I'm not seeing any in depth coverage of the building itself. It's possible there are non-English

Stuartyeates (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 5 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 18:05, 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 02:08, 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 00:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banker's Academy

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

This article claims that the company has been 'featured' in a variety of publications, but when I looked them up, they all appear to be trivial mentions. I looked but did not find better sources. I think this article fails the

MrOllie (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 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,
andley 18:10, 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 02:07, 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 00:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogia Lindisfarorum

Genealogia Lindisfarorum (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 page is about a single genealogical pedigree found within a medieval chronicle, literally just a list of 11 successive names. (see [54]). No claim to independent notability. The page appears to have been created solely for the purpose of propagating the genealogical data on Wikipedia. Agricolae (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Chronicon ex chronicis redirects to John of Worcester, so if it goes this way, the correct target should be John_of_Worcester#Chronicon_ex_chronicis. Agricolae (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
It is not a list of kings as no claim is made that any of them held a title - the entire contents of the pedigree is as follows "Woden-Winta-Cretta-Queldgils-Cædbæd-Bubba-Beda-Biscop-Eanferth-Enna-Ealdfrith". Further, Genealogia Lindisfarorum isn't even a stand-alone pedigree, being nothing but a subheading in a larger multi-part pedigree entitled Incipit Regalis Prosapia Anglorum, descendens a Woden. On top of that, Worcester was just copying the names from another source (the Anglian collection) and modern scholars do not believe it reflects historical reality. There is nothing here that is worth merging, just an unoriginal list of mostly made-up names without context in a source written more than 4 centuries after the last named of them passed into oblivion. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Agricolae (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add that the article on the Kingdom of Lindsey already contains the genealogical information, although it is described inaccurately, so again there is no need to merge there. Agricolae (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. I'd probably suggest the merge now too. Genealogy Lindsey, the redirect needs to go to Vespasian B VI in my opinion however as this is a distinctly ancient genealogy in that manuscript which may need an article oneday, on a different subject and substantially different to Genealogia Lindisfarorum in Chonicon ex Chronicis. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:38, 26 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HDSS

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

Either this needs to be deleted or someone needs to put the work into expanding it with resources. ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like your improvements. I too, am no expert, but know that EETimes.com is a respected journal/website that is neutral in viewpoint and believe the 2001 articles would be good references.Mark viking (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 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,
andley 18:11, 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 02:06, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raef

Raef (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 musician. His full name is Raef Haggah. This is a case of

WP:TOOSOON. He is currently working on his debut album. He has been touring with the Poetic Vision Tour for several years. The tour contains a group of Islamic artists that goto small venues around the U.S., usually to college campuses. There is only one good source and it is in the article... It is about a record label that signed Raef and an upcoming concert. It is borderline for help with GNG, but unfortunately, it is only one source. Prod was contested with, "He has released 1 Rock album in 2008 with his band "Great Seneca" and a collection of live-recorded albums while on tour with the "Poetic Vision Tour". I'd say redirect to the "Poetic Vision Tour" page, but there isn't one. Bgwhite (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 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,
andley 18:13, 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 01:55, 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. --Kinu t/c 02:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KazAirJet

KazAirJet (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 is unsourced, thus failing

notability Jetstreamer Talk 19:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 5 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 18:17, 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 01:52, 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 00:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Bezuidenhout

Vincent Bezuidenhout (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 to establish sufficient notability for inclusion as per

WP:ARTIST. besiegedtalk 19:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 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 01:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
An additional comment, I've been looking for information regarding the Tierney Fellowship, and I can see that it might notable, but I'm not sure it is significant enough. Hopefully other editors can provide more insight on this point — Frankie (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(The following is addressed more to anyone following up behind
artist notability
, the latter of which has 4 other applicable criteria that I don't find evidence to support having been met by the subject of this article.
I know some will disagree with me, but IMNSHO, the wiki doesn't need articles for every artist to receive a commission or minor award, just as it does not need articles for every CEO of every registered company, every member of every band, every person to ever appear on a prime-time TV show, and every student to receive a scholarship. Notability is not inherent, nor is it inherited: just because a video-game I work on is notable, and has received several awards which my effort made possible, it does not mean I warrant my own wiki article, much as though I might wish it otherwise. besiegedtalk 22:02, 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 00:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adil al-Jazeeri

Adil al-Jazeeri (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)

BIO1E at best. MSJapan (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 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 01:49, 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 00:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GlobalSecurity.org

GlobalSecurity.org (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)

While this web site (or its leaders) seem to be frequently quoted, the site itself appears to fail

WP:WEBCRIT
as 1) It doesn't appear to be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself and 2) It doesn't appear that it has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.

The only hint of notability is the article's claim of having been evaluated by Forbes magazine for their Best of the Web, but I've been unable to confirm that as the link is dead and I haven't been able to google it or search it up on the Forbes site. The web site is listed at botw.org, however. {{collapse

Related: The article about its founder, John E. Pike was brought to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John E. Pike and deleted. Toddst1 (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the result of the Pike debate was merge rather than outright delete. So rename this article to Pike? Hcobb (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect: The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John E. Pike was Delete, not Merge. Toddst1 (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Weak keep - a simple GoogleNews search brings up plenty of "hits", but on closer inspection they all seem to be instances where Pike or GlobalSecurity.org have been cited as a source about something else. See here, here and here. There doesn't seem to be a lot of coverage of the company itself that would help it meet
    WP:ACADEMIC #7 ("...if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area.") or whether you could consider the combined expertise of GlobalSecurity.org to collectively meet such a guideline. I'm very much on the fence... The organisation is cited extensively in books like this one and this one as a source of reputable, factual information. There's also some outliers like this case study about the site itself. I would have thought Pike might meet the above criteria but GlobalSecurity.org is a collective of experts who are cited as employees / fellows of GS.org so I think keeping it (with all its experts) is better than keeping just one of the experts, if that makes sense. Stalwart111 00:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 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 01:48, 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 00:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buck Downs

Buck Downs (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)

WP:AUTHOR Toddst1 (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 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 01:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete - originally created by a sockpuppet, this article should've been removed two years ago. Nothing in the article makes it in any way worth keeping. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:22, 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 Speedy Delete. (non-admin closure) — Dengero (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WISK - Who is the Serial Killer?

WISK - Who is the Serial Killer? (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)

Unremarkable movie. Sounds like an indie production advertising on wikipedia. Dengero (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I would have thought this was a hoax but it may have been very independent thus obscure from attention. Google News and Books provided nothing and the only evidence of relevant links are two YouTube videos, here and here. I won't tag it as G3 yet until Brazilian sources are provided, if any. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 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. WP:GNG, WP:NBASEBALL j⚛e deckertalk 05:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Clabo

Rodney Clabo (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 case for notability, under

WP:BASE/N. I suspect the article was only created as a memorial. De-prod'd with no reason given. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 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 Speedy Delete under CSD#G6; redirect to an indefinitely blocked user page by User:Bbb23 (non-admin closure). Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Land Before Time XIV: The Quest to Sparkling Forest

User:Dude725/The Land Before Time XIV: The Quest to Sparkling Forest (edit | [[Talk:User:Dude725/The Land Before Time XIV: The Quest to Sparkling Forest|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hoax article created by a sockpuppeteer, Mr. Daniel Keith Van Ness, "the best editor in town." Freshh (talk) 01:04, 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.
  1. ^ "Source:Pacific Northwest National Laboratory".
  2. ^ "Source:Beijing Proteome Research Center".
  3. ^ "Source: University of Delaware".
  4. ^ "Source:Yale University Library".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_November_19&oldid=1142634022"