Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 27

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 School District 53 Okanagan Similkameen. except Osoyoos Secondary School MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okanagan Falls Elementary School (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 school that doesn't pass

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Oliver Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Osoyoos Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's also more I'd like to nominate in

• Comment - This is the wrong venue to eliminate categories — see WP:MFD Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Carrite (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not trying to nominate categories. I was saying that articles that are in that category should be also deleted.
    andley 23:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Redirect All - per consensus for typical elementary schools. Delete if no valid redirect target can be found. Carrite (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all to the school district parent articles (an example:
  Okanagan Falls Elementary School to School District 53 Okanagan Similkameen). Per Carrite, the convention is to redirect elementary and middle school articles.--xanchester (t) 23:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect all per consensus. Buggie111 (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And keep the secondary school, missed that in that wall of article titles. Buggie111 (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all except Osoyoos Secondary School (Grade 8 - 12) which shopuld be kept.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep
  talk) 14:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Osoyoos Secondary School per longstanding consensus for high schools. Redirect all others, per same rationale. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 2 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bigg Boss 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 19. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Significant coverage by Indian media Mid-day,CNN_IBN, Hindustan Times, Daily Bhaskar, India Today, Deccan Chronicle, NDTV, MSN, Times of India etc. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy (x1000) Keep: It's a Major reality show. Major. Major. La Major. All the copyvio content has been removed. There has to be a separate page for it. -- I'm Titanium  ^chat 07:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough sources (in the article as well as mentioned here by Redtiger) to support a standalone article --Anbu121 (talk me) 15:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable show! --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, but irrelevant. This discussion must focus on whether a particular season of the show is notable. Remember that
    notability is not inherited. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Refer to the links posted by Redtigerxyz u might get to know how notable season 6 is.-- I'm Titanium  chat 11:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed it. I meant Bigg Boss 6 is a notable show. I don't need to mention that Bigg Boss the series is notable. This can be merged to main article, but, I think then it'll make it too long. --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And ya, though I don't watch this show, I regularly watch is being discussed in Times of India- the newspaper I read. Discussion on even the minute details of the show makes me believe the show has got the speed. --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here, Titto's talking about this --> [1] -- I'm Titanium  ^chat 10:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 20:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 20:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to the main article Bigg Boss. The given state of article has nothing much encyclopedic that deserves standalone article. Encyclopedic stuff in it would hardly fit in a para. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think these British, US, Australian, Pinoy versions of Bigg Boss have much in common with the encyclopedic content you are talking about? [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Put these articles up for deletion for the same reasons and then you'll see what an uproar you'll initiate. And Dharmadhyaksha I would ask you to not chicken out this time around like you did in the Jhalak Dikhlaa Jaa case. Take a step bro if you are so passionate about wikipedia. Make the change.-- I'm Titanium  ^chat 08:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will say it only once. If the closing admins and others find it reasonable enough, they will act accordingly. If its falling on deaf ears, i am wise enough to not strain my throat.
And one more time for you;

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. A notable season of a major TV show, and is covered widely in the entertainment-related meda. Meets general notability criteria easily.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article still has some problems (namely, copyright infringements and fancruft) but
  reliable sources aren't among them. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

How do you suggest dealing with those problems? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright infringements no longer constitute the majority of the article; the remaining ones are already being processed at

plot}} maintenance tag on the page and an associated discussion on the talk page. Anyone who agrees that the "plot" information is too long can say so on the talk page and/or boldly remove the superfluous details from the article. (Someone already tried to do this but was immediately reverted by User:Imtitanium, so perhaps it's best to establish consensus on the talk page first.) —Psychonaut (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The tag will go in few days, without any change to the article. Then November would come and same tag will be placed as November 2012. The cycle repeats till good editors are fed up and find something else where their editing actually counts. The article DOES NOT CHANGE. You have now got experience with cleaning many copyvios on Indian TV shows. How many times did you have to return back to the same article?
Btw, i had asked one question at the deletion review which was unanswered as the review was soon closed. Would "

Barack Obama on social media" been cleared from AFC had all his tweets been mentioned in the article? Would biography of some celebrity been cleared when their daily schedule was mentioned? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

As you predicted, the maintenance tag was removed today without explanation. I've restored it and hope the matter will continue to be discussed on the article's talk page. Inconvenient though it may be, this is how we have to deal with such problems—we can't delete a well-sourced article on a notable topic simply because it attracts problematic edits. We have various tools, procedures, and venues in place for dealing with these problems—maintenance templates and talk pages for flagging and discussing content issues;

dispute resolution for settling content disputes; and warnings, blocks, bans, and page protection for preventing disruptive edits. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I didn't say delete, even in the 1st AfD. But i agree with the 1st AfDs result of merging with the main article. Howsoever seemingly noteworthy the show be, the quality of the article doesn't warrant separate article. I agree that such issues can be solved on discussions. Is that your conditional keep then? But who is gonna do that? I can't do that as i don't watch this show. And i don't wish to watch it for the sake of cleaning it. Are other regular editors and Keep voters gonna do that? I doubt that.
I know that AfDs are not meant for cleanup. But we have a good option of merging the encyclopedic content and shredding all trash.
(Btw, i also know that merging and redirecting doesn't really work. But i won't say how out loud here. I don't wanna leak that bitching strategy these passionate editors follow. I would hope that it works this time.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Clearly a notable series.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a popular reality show in India.
  talk) 21:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Opponents seem to be arguing
  WP:NOEFFORT. AfD is not cleanup. I am satisfied that, with the proper improvements, this article can be made into a fine article. If you don't like the quality of the article, fix it, don't nominate it for deletion. Redfarmer (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Notable series and the season has already started. Ryan Vesey 12:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Keep individual article up to the end of season and later merge with the main series. This Big Boss season 6 wiki-page is important source of entertainment for those unable to follow daily.--Sankalpdube (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correctly said, this article is for entertainment and gossips. And welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for your first edit. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please state clearly the gossips you have come across in this article so that everyone can discern your point of view. One more thing, How random is this that this account has only one edit and that too on the article's nomination. And coincidentally you come along and give it a thumbs-up. We really should investigate whether this account belongs to you or not, Dharma. LOL. -- I'm Titanium  ^chat 10:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How random is this that this account has only one edit and that too on the article's nomination.

Not the rarest thing in Wikipedia. You may find the first edit in RFA too. But, still it surprises me everytime! --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh! That irony/sarcasm font is really needed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:38, 3 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable person who got elected to a position that doesn't grant notability. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, is notable in Dunedin and has attained significant media coverage. Wipkipkedia (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 22:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)-gadfium 22:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable position, non-notable person, the fact that he's notable in a town does not grant him worldwide notability. Buggie111 (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Change per Schwede and Dweller. Buggie111 (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Appears to fall below the level required. - SimonLyall (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:POLITICIAN. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I can understand why everybody else (other than the article's creator) has voted delete so far, but this guy is so outspoken that he gets regular coverage in The Press, which is published in Christchurch and is not a Dunedin newspaper. The article at this point makes no attempt to demonstrate notability, though. I'll put some references on the article's talk page as a starting point for expansion. If the decision is to remove the article, I suggest that it be userfied. Schwede66 20:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as should easily meet notability with more detail, as per Schwede66.
  talk) 03:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep seems to pass
  WP:GNG, which trumps POLITICIAN --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appears to pass the GNG, if you consider Talk:Lee Vandervis. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Updated article with references from National news agencies and more information.
  talk) 01:54, 31 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Mitchell (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 some impressive sources: the New York Times, Wired, Scientific American. Unfortunately, none of these sources actually mention Lewis Mitchell. As such, I believe this article fails the

I've added his appointment as the Edward Lorenz Postdoctoral Fellow in the Mathematics of Climate, a prestigious position from the Mathematics Climate Research Network. I believe this qualifies for "2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." This can be seen on the sidebar of http://www.mathclimate.org/ under network tab. IheartDA (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)IheartDA[reply]

Criterion 2 is for awards such as the Nobel or the Fields medal. Can you provide any sources to establish that this fellowship is particularly prestigious? -

MrOllie (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. A postdoc appointment isn't a prestigious academic award. The MCRN doesn't seem even a prestigious institution; I don't see any tier-1 universities in their network. The references to Science, New York Times, and even Wired are just fake; as nom mentions they don't refer to the subject. I can't find any independent, reliably sourced, third-party coverage. That is not particularly surprising for a recent post-doc. Churn and change (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it appears that the criterion for notability are just higher than I thought. Thanks for your time in making sure that all the pages up here are for only the most notable scholars. Cheers IheartDA (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)IheartDA[reply]

• Delete. Fails GNG and BIO. Lacks significant coverage by multiple secondary sources. Additionally, Claims that "Recent media attention for this work has been widespread..." supported by multiple fake references is clearly questionable, perhaps even
  WP:HOAX.--Hu12 (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete for lack of any sourcing indicating that he meets
  WP:PROF. Qworty (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Being a competent professional/academic is not a basis for notability. WP:GNG is not met.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a Fix (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 program. Google and Yahoo search no disternable results.

• Keep. The mere assertion it is not notable is not all that persuasive. The article cites reliable sources, indicating its notability. As an older program, not all reliable sources will be available online. In any event, it was notable in its time, and
  notability is not temporary. As for the lack of Google results, merely typing "in a fix", a very common phrase, is unlikely to produce "disternable" results. However, if you put the words in quotation marks and add "TLC", you will see that there are many hits specific to the program. Agent 86 (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Coverage exists although it is behind paywalls. Although the article details are not available, the article titles certainly do indicate that the show "In a Fix" is the primary subject. See: [10], [11], and [12] as examples. -- Whpq (talk) 19:41, 30 October 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 Kitarō discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tenkai (aka Astral Voyage) (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)

There is no evidence that this album is notable. See also

• Delete. Not seeing any reliable third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to satisfy
  WP:NALBUMS. This is just a track listing. --DAJF (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• redirect and merge to the already-existing Kitarō discography instead, as per all the others as well. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 06:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  csdnew 11:33, 2 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 Kitarō discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daichi (aka Full Moon Story) (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)

There is no evidence that this album is notable. See also

• Delete. Not seeing any reliable third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to satisfy
  WP:NALBUMS. This is just a track listing. --DAJF (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• redirect and merge to the already-existing Kitarō discography instead, as per all the others as well. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 06:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  csdnew 11:33, 2 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Abraha (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)

Doesn't establish WP:Notability, links are to youtube and what appears to be a blog. Good faith search did not produce any others. Previous PRODs declined. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We should take into account that the subject sings in the Tigrinya language for a primarily Eritrean audience, and internet coverage in Eritrea is poor. Of a population of 6 million, only 200,000 have internet access of any kind, mostly via cellphones. However, the many image and video results that show up on a search, and the fragments of discussion in English, indicate she has performed at many large concerts and dominates the Eritrean pop scene. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Aymatth. She is mostly certainly notable in Eritrea and Eritrea and Internet don't exactly go hand in hand.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per both of the above. I'd be curious if there are any Tigrinya-language links, though - it's not a language I know. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:14, 2 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Glozman (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)

• Delete - Unremarkable bio. A search on the web shows only Facebook and Linkedin - so reliable sources are unlikely to be found. It has almost entirely edited by one user (Boca Raton) and CantorGlozman and fails on
  WP:PROMOTION. Kooky2 (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. I did a search and was unable to find anything to suggest that this person is notable. Even a wide search under the name with no limitations brought up nothing I would say is usable. There's a very slim possibility that he could have results come up in a foreign language, but considering that he came to the US in 2007, if he was that notable then he'd have at least 1-2 usable hits in English by now. I seem to remember this guy being speedily deleted or something to that effect at some point in time? For some reason I remember seeing this come up in a speedy or AfD scenario.
  talk) 03:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fan gating (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)

delete, doesn't appear to be a term in common usage a search does show some but looks to be slang. —

Why should it be deleted? It is a term that every company that wants to have its own page in any social networking site should be familiar with. Which every entrepreneur should know for their success in social platforms. (copied and pasted by HiaB after refactoring my comment.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aishwaryaa Ravi (talk • contribs)

• Delete. No attempt made to show that anyone uses the term, still less that it is notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find any useful evidence that any expert lexicographer thinks this term exists. And Wikipedia is not a
  dictionary. Ubelowme _U ^Me 17:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Delete per
  WP:HOAX. Qworty (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is a real term used in the Social media industry, especially in regards to facebook. While there are lots of blogs[13] and howtos[14] and press releases[15] about the concept, I can't find enough mentions in reliable sources currently to show this as passing
  WP:NEO. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI) 14:27, 30 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This is a procedural listing based on a decision at

• Siobhan Roberts (February 7, 2004). "Who needs a speed bump when you've got a white elephant? 'One of the practical things it's done is slowed traffic down on the street ? a lot'".
  Globe and Mail
  . p. M3.
• Kate Harries (May 6, 2004). "Art by the yard; Search for the perfect garden sculpture leads to an odyssey through Ontario's arts community 'We allow for a measure of craziness when it comes to my gardening purchases,' writes Kate Harries". Toronto Star. p. J1. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
• Alana Wilcox (November 30, 2005). The State of the Arts: Living With Culture in Toronto. UTOpia series. Vol. 2. Coach House Books. p. 351.
  OCLC 699812267
  .
• Zosia Bielski (August 12, 2006). "Home on the strange: odd abodes celebrated: Shunning orthodoxy". National Post. p. A10. Retrieved October 16, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
• Nathalie Atkinson (June 2, 2007). "There's no place like home". National Post. p. 4. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)

Probably the relist was correct, but I can't see a different outcome for this. Cavarrone (talk) 07:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 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) 13:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, there seem to be more than enough reliable sources named by Cavarrone and listed in the article. The odd fact that the article itself is sprinkled with possibly unreliable sources does not change this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Just because it makes the news does not make it notable. Being written about in a news paper happens every day for many man made things (same story regurgitated over and over). And the fact as seen here the names is used by a famous sculpture - that is not just a lawn ornament.Moxy (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When something makes the news, over the course of 4 years in succession, in different newspapers, it is hard to treat as a flash-in-the-pan or nine-days-wonder, which Wikipedia rightly shuns. Art available for the public to view, which attracts comment in multiple reliable sources over the years, clearly passes our

WP:GNG test. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Its called "An Elephant in the Room" not "The Elephant House" - cant believe not one person here has even looked at this fact. As for

WP:GNG - "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion.Moxy (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's

list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - this topic passes
  WP:GNG, in part per the sources listed above by User:Cavarrone, and also per some in the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Sufficient sourcing to pass
  talk) 20:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - This topic has received significant coverage in
  WP:GNG and should be kept. ʈucoxn\^talk 01:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as notable, per Chiswick Chap. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough sources have been found proving it is notable. The closing administrator did the right thing last time by ignoring that one editor who constantly insist that you need hordes of sources, that two aren't enough. Dream Focus 08:17, 1 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, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The subject of the article does not seem notable. A Google Books search for James Leonard Park shows several books he has written, all of them published by Existential Books, which has not published anything by other authors and does not seem reputable. The article cites a book called Lessons from Sedona, which discusses his work briefly, but it itself is published by iUniverse, a self-publishing company. The article also claims that he teaches at the

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Added two reliable independent sources that discuss his life in some depth. The New York Times confirms he was a teacher, probably retired from teaching now given his age and life philosophy. The relevant text from the Chuck Hega source I posted an extract in
  talk) 23:36, 17 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Green Cardamom, thanks for finding these sources. The New York Times article cites Park as an example of a person living almost entirely on Social Security, which unfortunately does nothing to establish his notability as a philosopher. On the other hand, it seems like the Chuck Haga articIe does deal with him as a philosopher, so it does start him down the road to notability. But it's just a start, and he has a long way to go before he meets the threshold. At any rate, I can't fully judge Haga's article since I haven't been able to find the full text anywhere; by any chance could you post the link? --
  talk) 19:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The Haga article is in a commercial database accessed behind a paywall so no outside link but I posted the relevant text in the article talk page. It makes up a good portion of the article. I didn't want to post the rest for copvio concerns. The NYT article and the Haga article shows that multiple independent reliable sources chose to interview him for a quote as an expert or representative person on this subject which adds to his notability. --

talk) 16:28, 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,  Gongshow ^Talk 12:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, refs do not establish notability, fails any applicable notability guideline you care to choose. (
  WP:GNG, etc). Hairhorn (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I just searched some more for the Haga article and found a link to the paywalled original on the website of the Grand Forks Herald. An article in the Grand Forks Herald confirms he is employed by that paper, strongly suggesting the article was origally written for it. So, we have a total of one reliable source citing Park as a philosopher: a column (not a news item) in general-interest newspaper with a circulation of less than 35 000.

The New York Times article Green Cardamom mentioned does quote him, but only as a man on the street, not as an authority on any subject, let alone philosophy. The only paragraph in that article that mentions him having anything to do with academics runs:

"Others see Social Security as a way to keep going, perhaps in a simpler way. James Leonard Park, an eccentric former Methodist minister who retired in 1968 at age 27 with $5,000 in the bank, has taken this approach to another level. Until he started collecting Social Security at 65, he lived a bohemian life in Minneapolis on about $2,000 a year. Most of that came from teaching adult education classes on voluntary simplicity, though he said he has written 15 books."

For Wikipedia's purposes, Park is not notable. Period. —

Neil 04:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I was hoping someone would find more sources because he seems like he could be notable but it doesn't look like any more sources have shown up. Notability doesn't have to be national, probably this a regional persona who was better known in the 70s-80s, probably sources on microfiche somewhere in county libraries. --

talk) 06:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It's certainly possible; I didn't know Haga's article existed until you found it. But given what we have, I agree that this article doesn't make the cut. —

Neil 16:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - The two references now in the article New York Times 12 Sep 2012, Grand Forks Herald February 13, 2011, is all I found as well when looking for "James Leonard Park". Those two articles provide some biography information, but not enough to put together a biography article per
  WP:AfC, there might be a way to get an article in Wikipedia on the topic. Journal of Heart Centered Therapies September 22, 2001 might have inspired his Our Existential Predicament: Loneliness, Depression, Anxiety, and Death book. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:51, 3 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Kitchen (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 deleted article, (see

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Weak keep. I don't know. He seems to have had a decent amount of additional coverage since the original AfD discussion in 2006. He got a couple paragraphs in the New York Times, was featured in this CNET article and had previously been in Computer World. I think this qualifies as meeting the
  WP:GNG threshold, but only just barely. Should be edited for NPOV. --Batard0 (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Gongshow ^Talk 12:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Doesn't meet
  WP:GNG. His appearances on TV were brief and didn't generrate more than a sentence or two of comments. An early reference is Defense Technology International, September 1, 2010, Volume 4; Issue 8: "Everyday events show the extent of digital vulnerabilities. ... "It makes you wonder if this is happening in other devices," Hak5’s Darren Kitchen said on the CNET technology podcast "Buzz Out Loud." The podcast went on to discuss the appearance of USB stick-borne control system malware aimed at Siemens system configurations at utility power plants." -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:25, 27 October 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SureClick (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)

According to [[17]]

"If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy."

Neither

Specific products should not have stubs created for them.

"Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product (PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator, Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, R-36 Explosive Space Modulator, etc.) especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion." ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you arguing for a merge/redirect? If so, where? With 2 manufacturers it's not immediately obvious how to merge. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm saying that the product should not have its own page per the Notability standard I cited. If the product MUST remain on Wiki (which is questionable) it should be merged with one or both of the companies that produced it.ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 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,  Gongshow ^Talk 12:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A first mention of the product is Chemist & Druggist June 11, 2005, then some press releases, then Ventura County Star September 8, 2006, then the remainder through 2011 are press releases, most of them oddly announcing the release of the SureClick product. The Wikipedia article links to a source mentioning "A precautionary recall of Amgen's Neulasta SureClick injection device."[18]. There is not enough reliable soruce material on the SureClick topic to meet
  WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:40, 27 October 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 00:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable. No real assertion of notability. One obituary ref establishes that he is the stepson of an actress and the other is a simple directory listing.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being unrelated to Fred MacMurry is no reason for inclusion. Qworty (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Made quite a few movies, according to IMDb ([19]). Article is of bad quality, but not beyond salvation. The Banner _talk 13:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong, obvious Keep, surely passes our
  guideline for actors, multiple notable roles that span from seventies till nowadays, just take a look at his "what links here" page [20]. Cavarrone (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Gongshow ^Talk 12:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - An early mention is in New York Times June 7, 1980. This January 23, 2007 press release mentions, "The in-depth segment also features current TV Actor Sam McMurray (over 150 appearances including Friends, King of Queens and The Tracy Ullman Show}." His mom was in acting.[21]. So was his stepmom,
  WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• First, your analysis of sources is definitely minimal, we have more than 300 articles and several thousand of book sources about him. And it is not well clear on which basis you have chosen these sources, as we have definitely better sources about him, such as a biography by
  Stand By Your Man ([25]), a major role in A League of Their Own([26]), a major role in Likely Suspects ([27]) a role of weight in Raising Arizona ([28]), a role of weight in Stone Cold ([29]), a major role in The Munsters' Scary Little Christmas ([30]) and so on, and the significance of these roles is verifiable by reliable sources. Cavarrone (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Those sources might support a
  WP:GNG as well. Given the amount of times he has appeared on TV and film, you would think some news story writer somewhere would wonder who is this person and what is his life story so as to produce third party reliable source coverage on this life. Yet, nothing has turned up. Sam McMurray's publicity people could easilty get Variety or other trade papers to write about McMurray. That would help his career, so it's not clear why his agent, publicity people, manager, etc. want to keep his life a secret. However, Wikipedia is not the place to generate such biography content. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Your argument totally ignores our
  WP:BASIC criteria. We have already enough sources for a little stub, and probably more are available offline. It is not clear what kind of sources about McMurray's life you are asking for. Yes, he was never involved in sex scandals, he is not a disciple of Scientology nor he made talking about himself for gossip of any nature, and the main part of the coverage about him is about his work and his performances, so, is this a fault? Cavarrone (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If this is to be kept, someone needs to demonstrate that there are multiple sources engaging in non-trivial discussion of him and his roles. Showing he's been mentioned in lots of g-hits etc change nothing.--Scott Mac 17:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He appears to have had a career that is sufficiently significant to warrant an encyclopedia article. Coverage includes The Albany Herald (starring role in Likely Suspects), Los Angeles Daily News (starring role in same show, presumably), Beaver County Times (starring role in Baker's Dozen), Los Angeles Times (starring role in stage play Tom and Jerry), Chicago Tribune (major role in The Tracey Ullman Show), and there are books that cover him such as Friends: The Complete Guide and Hey! It's That Guy!: The Fametracker.com Guide to Character Actors. --Michig (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Friends: the Complete Guide"? Author seems to be "bada bing". This book is, in fact, apparently listed nowhere outside of google books [31] and looks suspiciously like a Wikipedia compilation.--Scott Mac 18:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes that book looks dubious, but the other sources are easily sufficient to demonstrate that an encyclopedia article is appropriate. --Michig (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding that book specifically, it was published by PediaPress, so it is highly likely to be Wikipedia content. Chris857 (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. [32] Wknight94 ^talk 19:07, 3 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Denied prod without explanation. Concern was "

• Delete as per my earlier Prod rationale. AllyD (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It could almost be done speedily given the lack of content. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is clearly not notable and given that the name of the original editor looks like it's a filming house, I'm going to guess that this is a purely promotional edit. It hasn't even started filming yet, assuming it ever will.
  talk) 03:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Nothing showing up on this particular Dragonfire on a search (as opposed to other "Dragonfire" films). No coverage in reliable, independent, third-party sources to get us notability. Churn and change (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, sounds like a hoax to me. No serious investor is going to give you money to film in all those exotic locations if the film features a Bond knockoff called "James Bob". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete - Really? There is absolutely zero coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. James Bob, eh? More seriously, this has no cast, no crew, no director, no release date, no coverage in even unreliable sources and no chance of being a real film. The creator's namesake, Rattlesnake Pictures, doesn't appear to exist in any capacity either. At best, this is
  WP:CRYSTAL. More likely, this is a pure fabrication. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:59, 30 October 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.

Saanvi venna (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)

Her death even got some coverage in India, but we can't keep this article as per

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is nothing notable about this particular 10 month old child. Her death is sad and unfortunate, but it is a news item. -- Whpq (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be deleted. This murder is not the same as most other murders. How often have you heard of a neighbor and family friend kidnap a baby and kill? Among the Indian community in the US, this is a really rare event. An Indian targeting another Indian family friend living in the same apartment complex. The ransom asked for, is also not that high. From how the murderer did this, it is truly weird. Even after accepting his guilt, he asked the cops to inform to the media, that his wife gave them the hint, so that she can collect the $30,000/ reward. I think when more details about the motive would come out when the trials start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayaprabhakar (talk • contribs) 09:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - In reply to the above, I am no expert but isn't it well known that a lot of kidnappings are by people who know their victims, which includes neighbors? In any case, this is just news, sad, but not notable. -- Patchy1 01:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Tragic, perhaps, but I see no evidence that it belongs in an encyclopedia at this time. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:01, 1 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 Miss International. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miss International 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)

• Delete per nom. Also, there is no substance. Wikipedia, as with the encyclopedias of old, should focus on things after the fact. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too early for such article (very little info is available as of now. GrayFullbuster (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss International seems the obvious outcome if a standalone article isn't merited (which it isn't). --Michig (talk) 08:10, 3 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. Scott Mac 21:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable comic series. The references are either unreliable soureces or leave a lot to be desired. There is no specific comic book notability guideline AFAIK so I take my guidance from

• Keep. The sources aren't as many as I'd like and it didn't get nearly as much attention as some of the other indie comics that have come out in the last few years, but I think I managed to scrape together just enough to pass notability guidelines. Bloody Disgusting seems to have fallen all over themselves to report on it, but other than that it mostly got a lukewarm reception.
  talk) 04:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:HEY: User:Tokyogirl79's improvements to the article have qualified the topic's notability. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:51, 3 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 18:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Xardel‎ (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 as per

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He appears to be best known as a French academic. He was Director of
  talk) 06:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

His works, including that book, appear to be very very sparsely cited.

talk) 09:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Clearly does not meet notability requirements as an author (see
  WP:AUTHOR) and has received negligible coverage by secondary sources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

He is not "best known" for anything. I see no source that refers to Xardell as former editor in chief. He has not published 74 books either; the WorldCat listing contain many duplicate entries and translations of existing titles, and many of the entries listed look like very obscure books of no obvious importance. The 6 sources cited in the current BLP don't come anywhere close to demonstrating notability. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've re-written the article from scratch including new sources and quotes for sources that otherwise are difficult to access, as a courtesy for verification purposes. --
  talk) 00:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It still does not come even remotely close to qualifying as notable as per

WP:AUTHOR, not to mention that almost all of the author's (obscure) works were written in French and have little if any relevance for English WP. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

From what I can see the claim is that he meets

talk) 09:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I agree that if the argument for notability were based on

WP:AUTHOR, the subject still would not meet the rquirements. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• in 2006 an article in the Hindu stated Prof. Dominique Xardel, who is the Assistant Dean at one of Europe's most prestigious business schools Essec in France,[33]. The school's official website would list his current position. Dream Focus 07:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His name does not appear on this faculty list for ESSEC.[34] Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has an active faculty page at ESSEC and the source below says he is current there. If you want to verify it why don't you call the University or email them to confirm. --

talk) 16:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Given that he is not listed on the faculty page, it would be more accurate to say that the entry you found is an inactive faculty page. But either way, having a faculty page, active or not, does not help to establish notability as per

WP:ACADEMIC. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Or, the faculty list you found is not up to date. --

talk) 17:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It's the college's faculty website list -- what more definitive source is there? Xardel has allegedly been at that institute since the 70s, so I fail to see any validity to the argument about the site being out of date. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is based at ESSEC but we also know he teaches at different schools around the world. --

talk) 08:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment Here is his career history (Google translation):

• 1960-1977: Various management positions in companies such as Union Carbide, Julhiet Group, Unilever, Union Express and Time-Life International
• 1978-1988: Director of the ESSEC
• 1981-1990: Editor of the Harvard-Expansion
• 1984-1991: President of the European Association of Intercultural Management
• 1988-1991: Director General of the International School of Business
• 1992-1999: Director of Marketing at ESSEC Ms.
• Since 2001: Director of International Development, ESSEC

According to

talk) 16:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

(also I would encourage readers to see this version of the article which contains additional information deleted by Rhode Island Red). --

talk) 16:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

He does not qualify even under criterion #6, which states:

His associate deanship at ESSEC would not qualify -- it is specifically precluded. His alleged directorship of ESSEC would not apply because ESSEC is not "a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center, which is not a part of a university". His alleged presidency of the EAIM would not qualify becuase the institution is not "a notable national or international scholarly society"; in fact a Google search did not provide any evidence that an organization by this name ever existed.[35] The "International School of Business" would not qualify either because it is not a presidency or chancellorship, and the institution does not seem to be notable (I couldn't even find any mention of it on Google[36]). Furthermore, the subject has received negligible coverage in reliable secondary sources, except perhaps for passing mention in a couple of old articles (and passing mention is never sufficient for establishing notability). Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ESSEC would probably qualify as "a major academic institution" (WP:ACADEMIC #6) of which he was Director for 10 years. According to the New York Times, ESSEC is "one of France's most respected graduate business schools."[37] According to our very own Wikipedia article ESSEC is "one of Europe's top business schools." It says "Director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university)" - ESSEC is not a branch of a University, it is independent. The quotes above show it to be "highly regarded", and could find more if needed. --

talk) 17:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

That argument fails as well. ESSEC is a college, not an independent research institute, and Xardel did not hold "the post of President or Chancellor" at ESSEC, so he does not satisfy criterion #6 in that regard. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 08:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Read more closely please and try to focus on the key details. I’ll repeat again, criterion #6 says “director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university)”. ESSEC is not an independent research institute; it is a business college. Criterion #6 would require that Xardel hold/have held the position of President or Chancellor at ESSEC, which is not the case. Secondly, Xardel’s official CV shows that he was not even sole director of ESSEC; he was merely “Director of International Affairs” for the MBA program.[39] Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was Director of the ESSEC from 1978-1988 [40], his current position is different. His online CV doesn't even start until 1989 so obviously it is incomplete and not a good source for determining prior to 1989. We know he was working at ESSEC prior to 1989 from multiple independent reliable sources. The school does primary research with support from the ESSEC Research Center, created in 1963, in other words ESSEC is a research center. --

talk) 18:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: Another of his publications is
  ISBN 2227320400 Le Bonheur d'être homme: entretiens avec Dominique Xardel of interviews with the French Worker-priest Jacques Loew french wiki article . Xardel is also an amateur pianist who cofounded Festival Les Amateurs !. A French Grande école is a big deal, major positions not likely to go to nonentities.John Z (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

A dead link and an internal reference to a WP article with no sources. Swell. Perhaps you can sell the case for notability to French WP; he's clearly insufficiently notable for inclusion in English WP. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment According to a number of sources [41][42][43][44] , Xardel was "Editor-in-Chief of the European Harvard Business Review (Harvard L'Expansion)". This would pass
  talk) 19:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

First, none of the sources you provided are

WP:RS, and an independent secondary source would be required in this case. Secondly, his resume states that he was simply an "editor" (whihc does not qualify based on criterion #6); not editor in chief (and there are many inconsistencies between the entries listed in his resume and the entries floating around on these sketchy looking websites. Lastly, the publication in question is called "Harvard L'Expansion", not "European Harvard Business Review", and I see no evidence of that the publication is notable. Overall, another failed argument. This individual is clearly not notable so why are you grasping at straws? Are you affiliated with Amway? Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You have a history of deleting editing Amway content on Wikipedia. You are on some sort of anti-Amway crusade (perhaps for good, I dunno, but it's part of your edit history). I on the other hand have a history of being actively engaged in dozens of AfDs because I enjoy saving articles by giving them every possible opportunity by doing the hard research. I don't care if this article is deleted, I've never edited an Amway or MLM article on Wikipedia before. I care that this article is given a fair shot and opportunity and not ramroded by someone with an anti-Amway agenda.

Back to the sources: Those are reliable secondary sources. Using a primary source CV isn't how we do things on Wikipedia. "Harvard L'Expansion" was the European edition of the Harvard Business Review, it has since changed (no longer French but split into German and some others) but it was certainly notable in its day. --

talk) 21:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry if you were offended by my bringing up the possibility of an Amway connection, but since the BLP subject clearly does not meet any of the notability criteria, I was stumped as to why you would keep bending over backwards to keep the article from being deleted. On the flipside, you don't do yourself any favors by saying that I have a history of deleting Amway content (in fact, I wrote a pretty big [and dare I say it, very well written] chunk of the article on Amway) or that I'm on a "crusade" (which implies a POV violation and an assumption of bad faith). So let's just call it even and move on.

I see no justification for saying that the deletion nomination is being "ramroded (sic)"; quite the contrary -- you've made a Herculean effort to make the slimmest of cases for notability and still haven't succeeded. Deletion is an easy call in this case. But since you don't care if the article is deleted, that simplifies matters. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was offended by your suggestion of COI during a content dispute and wrote some things that I have since stricken. I care that the rules are followed, not what the outcome is. There will be more people involved in this AfD before it's over so don't be in such a rush to think it is now "simple", it will last weeks. We have differences of opinion about the sources and rules, that is what AfD is about, fact finding and rules applications. I feel like you are giving me a hard time for researching sources and having an opinion that you disagree with.

Regarding the sources: One source is an academic book publishers website, and the other a professionally published book. These are institutions known for editorial oversight. It's true his CV doesn't say "Chief" but since we don't use primary sources we can't rely on the CV when there are reliable secondary sources. This is a well established principle on Wikipedia, if Mr. Xardel's CV said he was President of Paris University in 1975, you would not allow that information unless there was a secondary source; likewise, it's unfair to cherry pick including primary source info because it's convenient to your argument. There could be reasons why his CV doesn't say Chief, we just don't know, that is why we rely on secondary sources. --

talk) 22:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The other issue here is that the BLPs subject’s personal CV posted at his faculty page at ESSEC does not list him as editor-in-chief, and it can't be simply assumed that the other sources trump Xardel's own CV. And lastly, the journal in question is obscure, low-impact, and long defunct; and I see no examples of anything from the journal itself that indicates that Xardel was ever editor in chief. BTW, this source seems to indicate that Jacques Barraux was EIC of L'Expansion during the time when Xardel was allegedly EIC (i.e., 1987).[49]

So, in summary, there is not sufficient unambiguous evidence that he was editor in chief; the journal itself does not seem to be notable; and even if Xardel was editor in chief and even if the journal were notable, he still wouldn't qualify for a WP page because

This is an interesting source you found[50], it shows a number of things. It shows that Jacques Barraux was Editor-in-Chief of a magazine called "The Company" (L'Entreprise) for the March 87' issue. But Harvard-L'Expansion uses quarterly dates, such as the "Spring 87" issue mentioned in the source, so they are obviously not the same magazine, Jacques Barraux was not Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard magazine, according to this source. The source also calls the Harvard magazine a "prestigious" quarterly which undermines notions of it being obscure. BTW I believe the magazines are still in print and can be seen L'Entreprise and voila L'Expansion - perhaps even the present-day version of the former Harvard magazine. Both L'Entreprise and L'Expansion are owned by the same parent company, L'Express.

Remarkable what turns up with some searching on google.fr. I'm hoping a native French speaker will appear who can help us further. So long as new information is coming to light the AfD will stay open. The process is "smooth", we are doing exactly what should be done: research, investigate, discuss. --

talk) 03:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak keep. Cardamom's arguments above that he meets criteria 6 and 8 of
  WP:GNG criteria. We won't be able to see this coverage online because French newspapers are not in the Google news archives, at least to my knowledge, and it's likely French magazines and academic journals of that era have not all put their archives up online for easy access. It's a guess, I know, and there's no guarantee that this coverage exists, but I feel at this time that we should give the subject the benefit of the doubt because we're not able to search for it properly. Rhode Island Red's arguments are well constructed, but on balance I think the best course is to keep the article. --Batard0 (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Note: changed to keep (from weak keep, so it's rather inconsequential) based on Uzma's excellent source sleuthing. I wasn't able to find any of these myself. Well done. --Batard0 (talk) 17:30, 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,  Sandstein  07:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets the actual notability requirements both as academic and author. Cited in Responding to Globalization Aseem Prakash; Jeffrey A. Hart; from Routledge, 2000. The cavil as to whether an "editor" is "editor in chief" is a nice tangent having zero bearing here. Meanwhile "Harvard L'Expansion" does indeed seem to be a publication for HBS alumni [55] making that nit a tad useless. Collect (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -

• Significant coverage: New York Times October 13, 1982 (the hidden, rest of the article is all about Xardel ("The school, known as E.S.S.E.C., is one of France's most respected graduate business schools. It is 20 miles west of Paris in the suburb of Cergy-Pontoise. The director is Dominique Xardel." The article then is about Xardel and the school)
• Significant coverage: Joyce E. Jones (June 1996). "Xardel, Dominique, The Direct Selling Revolution: Understanding the Growth of the Amway Corporation (book review)". Journal of Consumer Affairs. 30 (1): 283. Retrieved October 27, 2012. - Although this is a book review, the review is written in a way that attributes the thoughts in the book to Xardel. As a result, the review provides biographical material for the Wikipedia article.
• Significant coverage: Business Line February 10, 2005
• Other coverage: Business Line September 8, 2004. There also is reliable source coverage in the French language.

The topic meets

WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Uzma Gamal has found clear proof of the notability of this person. Dream Focus 15:17, 27 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valentino Petrescu (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 with reliable references - does not appear to have fought for any significant titles. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Fails
  WP:MMANOT as he has not fought for top tier organizations.
  LlamaAl (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Not Delete He has competed on the recent TUF smashes and is a big name on the local UK mma scene. He has fought against current UFC fighter Jimi Manuwa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintsfc08 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being "a big name on the local scene" is not enough to show notability. Having once fought a fighter who became notable doesn't show notability either (see

WP:NOTINHERITED). Mdtemp (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Page Updated (information and sources), Keep I have spent some time adding in useful information and sourcing to the page, and after looking over the page I feel that it just about meets
  WP:GNG, so for that reason I vote keep. Pound4Pound (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He has no fights for a top tier MMA organization and only 1 fight for a second tier organization. Fails
  WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Subject clearly doesn't meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters (
  WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:17, 3 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. Jenks24 (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Wilkinson (fighter) (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)

On notability grounds - not fought for any top teir organizations. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Fails
  WP:MMANOT.
  LlamaAl (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Has no fights for a top tier MMA organization. Fails
  WP:MMANOT. Mdtemp (talk) 21:24, 1 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. Scott Mac 21:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The subject of this article whose main claim to notability appears to be by being an author fails the notability requirements of creative professionals found in

• Delete for failing
  WP:RS, to name a few. Qworty (talk) 07:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 30 October 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 Ally Condie#Matched. Michig (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

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

• Comment. I haven't quite made up my mind yet, but I'm leaning towards delete purely because the coverage so far has been light. This should get more coverage as time goes on, but there's no guarantee of that and I've seen many books with large followings that don't. I'm willing to personally userfy a copy of the article if it's decided that it should be deleted.
  talk) 10:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect to
  talk) 03:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: I noted that the last novel reached #2 on the NY Times young adult list, so its quite likely this one will make the bestseller list as well. Thus, if this cannot skate by for a few weeks, I would prefer a redirect to Ally Condie over deletion at this point, as it seems quite likely to me that the result of this AfD would be different in a few weeks. I understand that Wikipedia:Notability (books) doesn't directly address best-seller list inclusion, but previous AfDs have treated favorable if its one of the premier lists and a top position is reached.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ally Condie#Matched where the information about this yet to be published book is available in the context of the "Matched" trilogy. If the book garners notice after publication, it is a simple step for any editor to undo the redirect and history is preserved without the need of going through userfication. -- Whpq (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]