Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 14

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 13 April 15 April >

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. J04n(talk page) 00:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Body earthing

Body earthing (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 consists of original research by combining journal articles which are not about the topic, and as well as advertising and fringe health advice. Doesn't meet

talk) 23:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. You just found a few (34) irrelevant articles where the words "body" and "earthing" occur in succession, and where the word "body" usually refers to the body of a vehicle. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This phenomenon is normally simply called Earthing or Grounding, but those words are too ambiguous. It might be more correct to rename the article Earthing (physiology) or Grounding (physiology). Futile attempts at searching for Body earthing are hence insignificant. The articles quoted may seem to not be about the topic, but the relevance of research papers mentioning simply Grounding or Earthing should now be clear.
In what way is the article written like an advertisement? It is not promoting any product or service.
The book Earthing establishes notability, even though it is not fully scientific.
Simple solutions may seem pseudoscientific in comparison with sophisticated solutions. OlavN (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of an unreliable pseudoscientific book does not help establish notability.
talk) 15:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes I think they are unworthy of showing notability because the papers are clearly unreliable. Also, pubmed shows exactly 4 articles (3 by the same group), not "many".
talk) 15:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The link to PubMed which I provided searched for "earthing+grounding". I just changed it to search for "earthing" alone and it turned up five more relevant papers (two of them by researchers not associated with the previous groups.) Here is the new PubMed link. I don't know on what basis you have deemed the papers "unreliable." Jonathan108 (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On reading the abstract and seeing they are nonsensical and published in unreliable journals. The concept that people need to be grounded by being wired up to a system with wires sticking into the ground outdoors is patently absurd and seemingly based off a child's conception of physics. Your pubmed search is a mixture of different topics. These aren't sources we can use to write an article.
talk) 21:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The papers themselves seem unreliable as well. They all share the same few authors. In the paper "Earthing (grounding) the human body reduces blood viscosity-a major factor in cardiovascular disease," the authors disclose that they are "independent contractors for Earth FX, Inc., the company sponsoring earthing research, and own a small percentage of shares in the company." This combined with the low reputation of the journal itself seriously calls into question the reliability of the paper.
The authors of another paper, "Earthing the human organism influences bioelectrical processes" have no other papers ever published on PubMed except ones on Earthing. They have also written the paper "The neuromodulative role of earthing" published in Med. Hypotheses. A Google search for their names, Karol Sokal, and Pawel Sokal, turns up no mentions for anything other than Earthing. In fact, a search for the Department of Ambulatory Cardiology, Military Clinical Hospital, Bydgoszcz, Poland, (Karol Sokal's affiliation) turns up nothing other than more articles about Earthing. Their email addresses is hosted at wp.pl, what appears to be a Polish internet portal and not an academic institution.
I have looked into the topic thoroughly and have not found any evidence of any study in a notable, reliable journal by reliable third-party authors. I have only seen many articles of dubious source and reliability, as well as the typical array of news articles and blog posts advertising this so-called groundbreaking discovery. These sources are not NPOV and are advertisements, and I haven't even seen any reliable third-party sources that discredit or disprove grounding to balance the article out. Per
WP:GNG
, we need the article to be based on independent, neutral, third-party sources to ensure NPOV, which the topic lacks. I believe that there is really no real secondary source on the topic either -- the article cites wholly original sources which seem to be self-published ones in disguise. Per IRWolfie, the existence of a single book that bills earthing as the most important discovery ever does not help establish notability either. Note that the book shares an author, Stephen T. Sinatra, with the papers published in Journal of Environmental and Public Health, and is known to be a contractor of Earthing's sponsoring company, so the book is not a third-party secondary source either.
Overall, the sources available are neither reliable nor independent, and cannot be used to express a neutral point of view. They represent mostly original research, with third-party secondary sources non-existent. Thus, the article fails to meet
WP:GNG, and thus should be deleted. Richard Yetalk 07:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
So you haven't bothered to read down to the last paragraph of the article? It shows that earthing is practiced by perhaps billions - those going barefoot, swimming etc. (Their health benefits must of course be corrected for the other effects of poverty.) OlavN (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See
WP:BOLLOCKS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
That's got to be the most absurd thing that I have ever heard as an argument. The neutral, third-party, secondary sources backing up your assertion are non-existent, as I have summarized in my argument above. Without those, Wikipedia cannot have an article on the subject. Period. Even if you were somehow correct in your assertion and Earthing is somehow real, Wikipedia seeks verifiability, not truth. Richard Yetalk 19:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deathstep

Deathstep (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 topic. No references. Orphan. Ambiguous advertisement? Technical 13 (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI... the creator of the article (User:A11HAV3FA113N) removed the AfD notice from the article and added a YouTube video to the external links with this edit. The edit was reverted immediately by a bot. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Angelone

Anthony Angelone (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 doesn't seem to have any notability rationale.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelghani Mustafa Abdelghani

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

The first deletion discussion deleted mostly because the article was of poor quality but without prejudice to recreation. The current article is also of poor quality. Unfortunately, he seems to be at least a marginally notable Egyptian novelist - see http://viaf.org/viaf/69184887/ . Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 00:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Olav Berstad

Olav Berstad (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 by

WP:DIPLOMAT
("Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources.")

Similar to

Store norske leksikon
. AFAIK Berstad, like most other diplomats, has never been involved in an “event of particular diplomatic importance”.

(This is a single Afd. I would be interested to know if people think biographies like this can be

bundled.) Kleinzach 22:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

P.S. For the record, here is the text in the

Store norske leksikon: "Olav Berstad, norsk diplomat, cand.mag. I utenrikstjenesten siden 1980, underdirektør 1996–98. Ambassadør i Baku 1998–2001, deretter spesialrådgiver i Utenriksdepartementet med ansvar for Barentssamarbeidet. Ambassadør i Kiev 2006-11." --Kleinzach 05:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the nominator acknowledges that the subject appears in an encyclopedia of national biography. That's usually grounds for inclusion on its own. Pburka (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pburka: This source you added [5] is misleading. It actually refers to the Norwegian Foreign Minister. He was the OSCE envoy, not Berstad. So it doesn't confirm the statement "he was the Norwegian ambassador to Azerbaijan from 1998 to 2001". --Kleinzach 12:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading in what way? The source states: "The Ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of Norway to Azerbaijan Olav Berstad, said that he [Knut Vollebaek] would visit Armenia and Georgia, too." It at least confirms that he was ambassador to Azerbaijan in 1999. Pburka (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree with the slippery slope argument (200x200x197 years since the
WP:DIPLOMAT. Enos733 (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
...and as of now, there does not appear to be consensus to delete this article. As I noted in the similar AFD, the DIPLOMAT guideline is inclusion criteria, not exclusion criteria, and in any event if enough of this ambassador AFDs turn out as these appear to be ending up, the guideline will eventually reflect that regardless of what's going on at its talk page right now. postdlf (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This discussion is more about whether being a diplomat is a presumption of notability or not. We have 2 reasonable opposing viewpoints and I see neither changing. This discussion is also going on at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:DIPLOMAT and perhaps an RfD is in order to get a better picture of the communities opinion on this. J04n(talk page) 10:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jostein Helge Bernhardsen

Jostein Helge Bernhardsen (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 by

WP:DIPLOMAT
("Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources.")

This is one of about 90 articles in

Store norske leksikon
. AFAIK Bernhardsen, like most other diplomats, has never been involved in an “event of particular diplomatic importance”.

This is a single Afd. I would be interested to know if people think this kind of article can be

bundled. Kleinzach 21:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe that permanent ambassadors, like Bernhardsen, should be presumed to be notable as they are certain to have generated significant coverage in reliable sources. Ambassadors almost invariably appear in Who's Who books, diplomatic journals, newspapers and almanacs. A quick search for Berhardsen finds several such reference on-line. Presumably more exist off-line, and given that references are likely to be in Norwegian and Ukrainian it's no surprise they're more difficult for English speaking editors to find. Here are a few I found in less than 5 minutes: [7][8][9] - a more in-depth search, especially by someone more familiar with Norwegian and Ukrainian sources would, I am certain, yield more results. Pburka (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I also believe that ambassadors have a presumption of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No, Ambassadors do not have a presumption of notability. If we are going to say he is notable for being a diplomat, we need sources that go into some detail as to his activities as a diplomat. Blueboar (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wikipedia should have articles on all permanent ambassadors for the same reason it should have articles on all national legislators, judges on national courts, etc. You can call that "inherent notability" if you like, or a presumption that GNG will always be satisfied for such individuals; I really don't care because satisfying notability guidelines (which are a good but not perfect proxy for determining what is or isn't important enough to include) should not be a concern with obviously important subjects such as this, so long as we follow the policies of V, OR, NPOV (which actually are important all the time). Or you can call it an
    WP:IAR invocation, because deleting articles on permanent ambassadors does not improve the encyclopedia in any way. postdlf (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment the (complete) SNL entry is as follows: "Jostein Helge Bernhardsen, norsk diplomat, M.A. I utenrikstjenesten fra 1973. Ministerråd ved Norges delegasjon i Genève 1992-95. Avdelingsdirektør i Utenriksdepartementet 1995–2001. Ambassadør i Kiev 2001-06. Ambassadør i Brussel 2006-11." I.e. it lists his appointments in the same way that WP does. SNL is
relaible source? --Kleinzach 04:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I see no indication it is an open wiki; they allow registered users to make suggestions, but they retain editorial control, and this article predates the decision to publish no more print versions. More importantly, their decision that ambassadors of Norway are sufficiently notable predates that decision. So I don't believe it has lost its normative status. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does the encyclopedia entry equate to "significant coverage?" The question is not whether the subject is an ambassador, but rather if the subject meets
WP:DIPLOMAT. Enos733 (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. With no prejudice against

reliable sources are located. J04n(talk page) 00:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Thomas Aigner (Media entrepreneur)

Thomas Aigner (Media entrepreneur) (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)

Advert masquerading as an article. Article fails

WP:BIO. Most references are generic or profile and the article has very little in the way of third party sources. Seems to be an advert for a single individual of no remarkibility. scope_creep (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not recommend to delete! Sure there can be mistakes in this article, but I ensure, that I have posted the sources properly and also the translation from the german article is correct. --
DISCU/EDITS/MAIL) 04:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
What I have to do, that the article doesn't sound like "advertising"? What information is needed to confirm its importance on the English Wikipedia-site? I enclose you the article of the now well known German moderator Kai Pflaume, whose importance is similar with Thomas Aigner as moderator [[10]]. I think, that both articles meet the criteria of keeping them in the Wikipedia. --
DISCU/EDITS/MAIL) 14:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Further Information: Thomas Aigner has hosted 580 Shows "sale of the century" and worked for

the biggest public broadcasters as presenter: ARD and ZDF. As well as private TV-Stations Tele5 and VOX. He was awarded for his work and is now working as film producer for unique aviation documentaries.

DISCU/EDITS/MAIL) 19:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The references can be updated, if wanted.[reply]

  • KeepDo not delete:

- The BLP does meet WP:BASIC WP:ENT - He had significant roles in television shows:

- Cited sources do meet WP:SOURCES
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES>
1. 580 Shows "sale of the century" on Tele5 germany (host); proof: [11], proof: [12], proof: [13]
2. 30 Shows "Voxbox Newsquiz" on Vox (host); proof: [http://www.fernsehserien.de/voxbox
3. 24 Shows That's amore on ZDF - Public Service Broadcasting (host); proof: [14]
4. 12 Shows "netNite" on ZDF - Public Service Broadcasting (presenter); proof: [15]
5. 1 Show "Internet new world" - 3Sat&Public Broadcasting San Francisco (moderator); proof: [16].

--

DISCU/EDITS/MAIL) 20:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Neither IMDB nor Wikipedia itself (as wikis) are reliable sources. Miniapolis 01:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Dave Pelzer. Sasquatch t|c 00:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Man Named Dave

A Man Named Dave (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 didn't find any reliable sources to show this book passes GNG.

talk) 21:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

notability is
talk) 02:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Odd that you would say that being in the LOC makes it notable... would you also say that every tweet ever posted on Twitter from 2006 to 2010 is also notable? Because those are in the LOC too. Independent reviews online? Where? I didn't find them in my search. --
talk) 02:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dave Pelzer unless substantially improved and reviews added. I'm surprised that I could find so little online about this[17][18] but it doesn't seem to have got the same press as his earlier books. The article is totally lacking in encyclopedic content, being nothing but a plot summary. Pelzer is very notable, but this book doesn't appear to be, and there's nothing mergeable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete listcruft--Salix (talk): 16:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the cover of GQ (India)

List of people on the cover of GQ (India) (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)

Pure listcruft. Provides no encyclopedic knowlegde. No discernible point except as a vanity list. I think it fails.

WP:BASIC (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Salix (talk): 16:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ifrit: Danzai no Enjin

Ifrit: Danzai no Enjin (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 manga. Tagged for notability issues since 2009.

talk) 21:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Arkorful

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Izerghouf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Kwame Boahene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Moses Odjer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Michael Anaba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Kennedy Ashia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Lawrence Lartey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Richmond Nketiah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Michael Sai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Jacob Asiedu-Apau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Francis Narh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Salix (talk): 16:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melody Publishing Company (Taiwan)

Melody Publishing Company (Taiwan) (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)

Organisational advert masquerading as an article. Fails

WP:ORG. References are orgs. own website with very minor third party news source. scope_creep (talk
) 20:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of
    notability. Prior to this instance of the article, there were several prior versions (also featuring interesting use of English), all of which were speedy-deleted, and their contributing editor was blocked. If this AfD results in deletion, it would be worth also salting this and the previous variant names. AllyD (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Salix (talk): 16:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Littler

John Littler (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 individual, tagged for notability, references and third-party sources since 2010. Nothing outside of blogs and Myspace to indicate this person was notable. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Salix (talk): 16:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo transistor radar with AAPS

Photo transistor radar with AAPS (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)

OR that belongs in a student project, not an encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 17:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Fraud

Harry Fraud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Minor producer Harry Fraud who fails
WP:BAND. scope_creep (talk
) 18:52, 14 April 201 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Bede Scharper

Stephen Bede Scharper (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)

Page reads like a resume. Page created by User:Prof2012 about a person who is a university professor? Please. I particularly like the nice Amazon links at the end of the article so you can buy his books. Recommend delete. Suttungr (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how/where this discussion proceeds (perhaps someone could guide me). But as the originator, I wish to argue for its value as a page describing a notable scholar/author on environment-social ethics and a popular TV commentator on religious, environment issues. De-link the Amazon links if need be, but the fact remains, TVO, The Agenda (an important Ontario-based news show), and CBC Tapestry (CBC radio) have him often as a panelist because of his value as a writer and scholar. He has also been nominated for "Who's Who" in Canada. Pof2012 —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Secret account 03:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mullaways Medical Cannabis

Mullaways Medical Cannabis (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)

Created by company. (See creator) Creator blocked for promotional username. Creator made other promotional edit before blocked. Just promotional all around. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 18:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The "Relevant Media Articles" section more than demonstrates notability, but the rest of the page.... ugh. I wonder if it might be better to just delete and recreate from scratch—it looks like there could be a very interesting article buried in there. —Ignatzmicetalkcontribs 19:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Pure promotion with no encyclopedic value. None of this is supported by reliable independent sources, no could it ever be. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wow. I thought I'd seen some incredibly bad attempts of promotion and deception but this has to take the cake. An over the top mixture of promotion, original research, synthesis, bad references, deception and coatracks. Sources that don't verify claims. Masses of unreleated claims, vanity central. Seppedy Delete as pure promotion, and with the inflated puffery and original reseach almost as a hoax. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A perfect example of why it's too early to worry about notability when self-promotion is the problem. This business might be notable, but none of this should even be visible in history. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsalvageable spam. I also note taht some of the article copied from [19] so also a copyvio. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a promotion to me as well. If there is some notability to the business, then I would say feel free to recreate, but there is no way that something useful is going to come of the incarnation. Not at least without a ton of work (in which case recreating would be the best bet). Zell Faze (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What a mess to sort through. I couldn't make it even a 1/4 of the way through with out having
    WP:OR despite its attempt to be well referenced. Mkdwtalk 08:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sharad Sagar

Sharad Sagar (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)

Student whose article seems to fail

WP:BIO
. Article has a large number of self referential references, and very few and low quality third party references. A Google search turns up a number of pages, but a closer examination determine that these are profile pages, not genuine third party sources and a very few newspaper articles. scope_creep 18:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are good enough references. Rockefeller 100, Telegraph India and many other. It's other matter that some are self pages. Also, Google search has a lot more results than personal results. Google pulls a lot of other results, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.127.226 (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep.

WP:DENY - as noted this batch of Survivor AfDs is a bad-faith sockvandtrollfest. Good-faith merge discussion can take place on the article talk page. The Bushranger One ping only 06:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Francesca Hogi

AfDs for this article:
Francesca Hogi (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 lacks notability outside Survivor. The only thing she is remembered for is the fact that she was voted out twice on the first episode and nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurvivorFanHH (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Common Property Amendment

Common Property Amendment (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 RSs have been added after several years of being tagged for lack of sources. Either abandoned article, or perhaps the whole thing some editor's own personal campaign.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 03:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian entertainers

AfDs for this article:
List of Christian entertainers (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)

Has been deleted previously, it is a list of only ten people. Tiller54 (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Expanding upon the above. (1) Treats "Christian" as an unchanging characteristic, like nationality, race, or height. (2) No logical connection between the philosophy and the profession. (3) Poor-or-worse sourcing. (4) Andy Dick?!?!? Bwah-ha-ha. Carrite (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note also that this was previously considered for deletion at AfD in 2005 and ended in "Delete," with one commenter rightfully noting "Should we also start to list Italian plumbers? Jewish accountants? French dentists?" Carrite (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Although the article sucks, that is not a valid reason for deletion. Even if the article existed before, that doesn't necessarily mean the article should be deleted. It seems to me that the term "christian entertainer" is too open-ended, since the definition of both is extremely subjective. Roodog2k (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leaving an article incomplete and making assumptions based on bare statements is enough of a good deletion reason. I didn't even know Tom Hanks was Catholic in the first place, but this article makes it seem like it's a big known fact.
chatter) 03:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
No, stubs are "incomplete" articles, yet, they're not deleted. Actually, the whole point of Wikipedia is that it's not written in stone; essentially, every article is a living document. If the Tom Hanks statement is inaccurate, fix it. There are better reasons to delete this article. But, there are reasons to keep this article. The nominator, in my opinion, has not made a valid reason for deletion, but I can think of equal reasons to keep and delete. Roodog2k (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OK, I'll crap and get off the pot. Not a very good topic for a list. Inherently difficult to manage due to the enormous number of people who identify as Christian, which is a very subjective definition to begin with. Not all christians share the same definition of christian. Some evangelicals consider Mormons and Catholics as not Christians. Do you have to be a member of a church or congregation? Also, the term "entertainer" is too open-ended. What is an entertainer? A singer? An actor? A director? A political commentator? However... however... this would be a good candidate for a category.Roodog2k (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of psychology

Timeline of psychology (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)

Completely no rhyme or reason for this list. Just a random list of books and persons that editors think are relevant to psychology for various POV reasons. Not encyclopedic. TimL • talk 17:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POAD

POAD (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)

Hong Kong advertising company. Does not seem to meet

WP:CORP. No significant coverage from independent sources. Maintained by SPAs. Funny Pika! 16:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect. If there is smth to merge, this never harms, and after the material has been merged, it is clearly advantageous to redirect rather than delete, since it will be clear where the material is. I will apreciate some help with the merging.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FC Arsenal Kyiv Reserves and Youth Team

FC Arsenal Kyiv Reserves and Youth Team (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:FOOTYN Alex (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

FC Chornomorets Odessa Reserves and Youth Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
FC Illichivets Mariupol Reserves and Youth Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
FC Karpaty Lviv Reserves and Youth Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
FC Kharkiv Reserves and Youth Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
FC Dynamo Kyiv Reserves and Youth Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
FC Metalist Kharkiv Reserves and Youth Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
FC Metalurh Zaporizhya Reserves and Youth Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
FC Shakhtar Donetsk Reserves and Youth Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
SC Tavriya Simferopol Reserves and Youth Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
FC Volyn Lutsk Reserves and Youth Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
FC Vorskla Poltava Reserves and Youth Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
FC Zorya Luhansk Reserves and Youth Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as blatant hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Say Anything (video game)

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

I'm almost entirely certain this is a hoax (see

Times 16:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blanco Caine

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

Fails

WP:BAND. Claims of notability focus on an as-yet-unreleased mixtape. References are either user-contributed, apparent press releases, or trivial. As said mixtape will be dropping next month and article creator has some hope for public response, I suggest userfication rather than outright deletion. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

This artist is a successful recording artist from the Chicago Hip Hop scene, has achieved reputable media coverage in both regional and national magazines/blogs/online news portals such as Yahoo!, Fakeshore Drive (Chicago), The Hip Hop Weekly (brother publication to The Source Magazine) and The Hype Magazine. Please give me an opportunity to dig up some historical content from published sources which which change the landscape of the bio section. Thanks for all of the help and comments with this article to dateTheurbanlink (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed on the talk page: the Yahoo News source is user submitted material, the Fakeshoredrive piece is a mere 55 words introducing a music video (and thus trivial), and the HipHop Weekly and The Hype's clothing entries, well... I don't read hiphop magazines, and perhaps they do write in sheer layers of hype, but those things read a lot more like something written by the artist's promotional team than like uninvolved third party coverage. That leaves the Hype interview piece, for which only one question assumes that the interviewer had any knowledge of the artist at all, and which overall qualifies as "the musician or ensemble talks about themselves", stuff excluded from notability consideration per
WP:BAND. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I review this article and peruse other artists pages I agree that perhaps I should take this out of article space and over to draft space. Although there are MANY artist articles with similar or less media coverage surrounding them, I don't want to create a sub-par article. Is there a way for me to take it out of the article space and back into draft mode rather than losing it altogether? I would appreciate that opportunity. Nat I understand that perhaps you do not read hip hop magazines and YES, there is a different flavor to the writing with those outlets. I would point out however, that the hip hop magazines ARE the bible for the global hip hop community and therefore have much more impact on the entertainment industry as a whole than would say Chicago Sun Times. Standard tier 1 media, i.e., WSJ, LA Times, Forbes, have almost zero importance in the hip hop world or urban music community at-large.

It is not my intention to disrespect anyone or their experience I would just humbly suggest that the editor's of Wikipedia expand their knowledge of what is important media coverage outside of the standard, Time, People, Rollingstone, etc. when classifying media status. Thank you for all your work Nat and attempts to assist me in finding more relevant outside resources.Theurbanlink (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm not putting down the indicative value of The Hype or Hip Hop Weekly, but rather addressing the individual articles, which at least by sniff test appear to be press releases... and, doing further research, not without reason, as you can see the The Hype material here labeled as a press release. Wikipedia standards say that press releases, even when reposted or even reworked by significant sites, do not add to notability. A press release posted at Forbes.com would get the same treatment. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you very much for your patient explanations, they are much appreciated. I understand that press releases are not solid source documents now. I WOULD point out however, that press releases are how many media outlets get their information for articles and use those pieces as the editorial content for their stories. I as a writer, receive press release material from Associated Press, UPI, PRNewswire, etc., and if you see a syndicated story that has the insert (Associated Press), that is material from a press release and is utilized to syndicate stories across the globe with the same content. But as I said in a previous posting here, if there is a way to take the article back to the draft stage, I would be happy to flesh it out according to your great explanations so that it is a fit for Wikipedia. I want to do things right and not do anything to weaken the Wikipedia brand and I want to grow as a solid contributor to Wikipedia. I have no personal attachment to the article or person addressed within, I felt as a journalist, this person was worthy of coverage and inclusion and that his media coverage within the entertainment media community was notable enough...I was wrong. RespectfullyTheurbanlink (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, The Hype cannot be considered an independent source on Blanco Caine, because The Hype lists Caine as one of their "clients", on on-site banners that go to this page. -Nat Gertler (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Octāves

The Octāves (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 college a capella group. No third party sources, which are required under Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Does not meet alternate guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria musicians and ensembles. GrapedApe (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

randley 16:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

River Coruisk

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's only source is an Answers.com link; no other sources available to confirm the purpose of the article which is that it "may be the smallest river in the United Kingdom". —  Cargoking  talk  15:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2012 United States Presidential election YouTube parodies. J04n(talk page) 16:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Style

Obama Style (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 parody Lester Foster (talk | talk) 15:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable! Changed my !vote to a different target. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 00:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Beede

Brittany Beede (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)

Same case that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eli Cottonwood and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Novak. She was under one year in WWE farm territory and a few months in NXT. After his release, she retired. I think that, in her short career in wrestling, she didn't was notable, like Novak and Cottonwood. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trilingo

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

BLP without reliable sources. Selfpromo? Linkfarm. The Banner talk 13:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal–Papua New Guinea relations

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

fails WP:GNG. all there is to this relations is diplomatic relations. Which can be covered in 1 line in their foreign relations articles. No ongoing high level visits, trade, diplomatic incidents. LibStar (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I found this quite interesting as the two countries are teaming up in present phase, something to follow. As per linkages, there are issues relating to migration of Nepalese citizens transiting through PNG en route to Australia. --Soman (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a reason to keep. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Neither of the references says anything about Nepalese citizens entering Australia via PNG, which sounds highly unlikely to be occurring. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cred24

Cred24 (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)

Definitely fails WP:GNG, the three sources are simply three different web directories containing a brief self-description of the website. Vituzzu (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No indications of notability, a search for various sources results in no news, and no third-party sources for this company at all. Some minor primary sources read using Google Translate, but do not support GNG, even if they were assumed to be reliable.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted A7. Peridon (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lovende

Lovende (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)

Crosswiki spam about a small company which definitely fails WP:GNG, please note two of the three sources are ads (belonging to the same SEO-network) while the third one is a simple online selling sites aggregator. Vituzzu (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. Lars restaurant

St. Lars restaurant (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 is about a restaurant. It is not clear that the restaurant is notable and the article is very poorly organized and is rife with errors. I am nominating it for deletion specifically to clear up the question of notability.

You can help! 19:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Have added eight new articles to prove notability. St. Lars is one of Norway's most famous restaurants. It is interesting with it's unique take on food (everything goes on the custom made grill) and produce (horse, bear and the like). And the mix of three very different and prominent owners - world know tv-host, venture capitalist and Grammy-winning producer, makes it highly relevant and notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leanphil (talk • contribs) 19:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. Lars is probably Norway's most important new restaurant (Maemo aside) the last five years. Always controversial, always good reviews and always in the news. All famous Norwegians eat there. Even international celebrities like Rihanna (friend of the owner Tor Erik Hermansen) have been spotted there. Entotrefir (talk

I agree with Leanphil and Entotrefir. St. Lars is really something totally different. Viestad and Hermansen are both Norwegian celebrities with an international following and the restaurant with the custom made grill is extraordinary. Not to mention the produce of horse and bear which you cant get anywhere elseJohansveno1984 (talk) . —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Norway. St. Lars is definitely notable. Fantastic food and very high-end clientele and media profile. The article also seems very well sourced. StkSE13 (talk) . —Preceding undated comment added 11:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The consensus is that the links provided by user:Whytestone demonstrate sufficient coverage for notability. Thryduulf (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Navidi

Sandra Navidi (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)

Basically a

single-purpose account. bender235 (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's simply a curriculum of a person who appeared sometimes on TV. --Vituzzu (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This Wikipedia article is specifically mentioned in this piece with the subject implicitly labelled as a self-promoter. Important notability claims remain unsourced in the article, for example:
  • Navidi frequently appears as a keynote speaker and panelist all over the world - one reference to an AXA roadshow where she was a guest speaker
  • She frequently appears as an expert in international media outlets and as a guest speaker at various events. - no reference
  • She has been interviewed on ARD, ZDF,Westdeutscher Rundfunk (WDR), Bayrischer Rundfunk, n-tv, Arte TV, Deutsches Anlegerfernsehen, CNBC, Fox Business, CCTV China, Phoenix TV China and Voice of America - Unreferenced list of television appearances linked only to channels
The only sourced notability claim is to appearing on Wall Street Warriors, a programme formerly broadcast on "Mojo HD". It seems she appeared in up to 6 episodes in 2006. The source given with the 2012 appearance is just a page with an embedded YouTube video. It's difficult to judge the reliability of these two German sources but there's certainly not significant coverage of the subject. The Career section is pure puffery.
Of course, lack of sources isn't a reason for deletion but the subject clearly has not recieved significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, thus failing
✰ 15:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep I just reviewed the notability criteria for biographies. One acceptable criteria is that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". I have these sources which are directly about Navidi. Here are three examples (taken from the External links section)
DLDwomen Magazine at issuu.com
Interview by Larry Parks (Larry Parks bio on page 3)
Der Westen - Die Schöne und das Geld (German)
On the adjoining talk page I elaborated more fully on the specific concerns voiced by other Wikipedians on this page, and answered the concerns they've raised.. Whytestone (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC) — Whytestone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Fenton

Craig Fenton (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 asserts subject is

  • author
  • historian
  • public speaker
  • radio personality specializing in 1960’s and 1970’s music.

What is verifiable is that subject of the article has written two

self-published books. That's all. Fails any number of notability guidelines. Shirt58 (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wipaire

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

non-notable company. The Banner talk 10:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk)

18:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Company is notable in the field of floatplanes. In any article about lightplanes using floats during the latter half of the 20th century, there was a good chance that either Edo or Wipaire was mentioned. There were other float suppliers during those years, of course, but Wipaire was a significant presence. It deserves an article; that is why I created one when I learned that neither the company's founder nor the company was in Wikipedia. Thanks. --Spray787 (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WIPAIRE
This company is presently one of the largest aircraft-float manufacturers in the United States. Its product line ([28]) runs the gamut from LSA to Twin Otter. Definitely notable. --Spray787 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UNregular Radio

UNregular Radio (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 internet radio station. Looks like advertising. The Banner talk 09:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
czar · · 05:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fyreball

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

Article on an obscure startup which failed over 5 years ago, which is included in a single category which has absolutely nothing to do with the article. Devoid of any notability and relevance. Mecanismo | Talk 09:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been created and maintained either by non-registered users or accounts whose single purpose was to maintain this article and link it to other articles on wikipedia. Appears to be spam for a defunct startup. -- Mecanismo | Talk 09:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Convey Computer, merge Hybrid-core computing. This one is a bit difficult since this is a double nomination, and not all voters explicitly mentioned what article they are talking about. Still, the two voters who said smth about Convey Computer agree that it does not obey the notability policies; hence, it is deleted. For Hybrid-core computing, there is no ambiguous consensus, and merging into Heterogeneous computing seems to be the decision closest to consensus: All information is retained, and if ever this technology becomes notable or sources appear sufficiently demonstrating notability it can be restored.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid-core computing

Hybrid-core computing (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 sources for term, seems to be an

WP:COI
creator.)

I am also nominating the following related page:
Convey Computer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No independent source for company,

advert. Widefox; talk 15:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a mo\re thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
t • c) 02:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The paper is a primary source for the product (so could be added to the Hybrid-core computing) and doesn't tell us anything about the company, we need secondaries for notability for both. Widefox; talk 13:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reference for that, or is it
wp:crystal! Widefox; talk 13:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SMD high school

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 notability as per

WP:NHS, I propose that the article be removed. KDS4444Talk 07:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

"despite the policy set out in
talk) 21:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
"An unsourced article on a school, or an article on a school without enough content for a rounded article, should not have its own page." -- from WP:All high schools can be notable KDS4444Talk 07:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I've told you before, existence is not notability and no guidelines or policies confirm your assertion that all secondary schools are automatically notable. Please address this specific school's notability by citing specific sources which discuss it.--
talk) 14:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
And as I've told you before, no amount of verbiage on your part is going to change the fact that articles on high schools are going to be kept! You may as well turn your attention to more useful pursuits than arguing against consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, please show me the discussion where this consensus was established.--
talk) 14:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
In the hundreds of previous AfD discussions on secondary schools. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"However, outside the Anglosphere, particularly for countries in Asia and Africa, Internet coverage is very poor. Where this is the case then, to avoid systemic bias, local sources should be sought. This may involve researching local media, for example at a neighboring library."
We all know that reliable sources need not be readily available online. So, I ask the nominator, has a paper search been conducted in a library or perhaps a newspaper archive in or near Srinagar as recommended by the very essay you cited? Atlantima, who is very eager to see an article about a secondary school deleted, has jumped in quickly before anyone else (such as a guy like me) has the opportunity to mention
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an exceptionally useful rule of thumb, that it accurately describes and summarizes our working consensus over quite a few years, and that it keeps this type of debate to a minimum. Articles about the vast majority of secondary schools are in, and we work to expand them and reference them as time goes by. Articles about the vast majority of primary schools are out. Done deal. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not "eager to see an article about a secondary school deleted". That statement seems to come very close to a personal attack on me. I'm simply trying to enforce the notability guidelines. It just so happens that secondary schools are routinely given exemption from those guidelines for no clear reason. No guideline or policy says that we should counter systemic bias by lowering our standards for proof of notability. --
talk) 14:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah, there's your problem. Notability guidelines are not "enforced". They're guidelines. Nothing more. Your attempts to act as some sort of unofficial enforcer for something which does not need enforcing are getting you nowhere. You are mistaking Wikipedia for some sort of monolithic bureaucracy, which it isn't and never has been. We work by consensus. How many high school articles can you show us that have been deleted at AfD? See? That's consensus! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
talk) 14:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Atlantima, I have struck out the comment you didn't like. I am not criticizing you as an individual; I am disagreeing with you on this particular issue. As a matter of fact, I consider healthy disagreement at AfD to be an essential part of the process of developing a more nuanced understanding of consensus, and I respect your input.
You yourself pointed out that this school is mentioned in the English language source "The Indian Geographical Journal" from 1934. It is also discussed briefly in another English language source, a 2002 newspaper article in The Tribune, called Heavy polling at Salahuddin’s village, where it is reported that this high school functions as an election polling station. This tells us that the school had been in existence for at least 68 years. Of course, I wish that we had more source material readily available in English. But no one, so far, has reported searching for sources in Kashmiri or Urdu, the languages of Srinigar. I consider these two sources to be enough, for now, for a brief stub on the school, which can be expanded in the future. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Students for Justice in Palestine. Redirecting instead of deleting, as redirects are cheap and there may be some information here that can be salvaged. Any sourced information that was contained in the article can of course be merged back into Students for Justice in Palestine. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Student activism in the BDS movement

Student activism in the BDS movement (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 are so many things wrong with this page! it begins with a patently false statement - no such merger has occured. it appears that this page was created as

Wikipedia:Content forking, and interestingly enough, none of the criticisms didn't make the move when the editor created the split. (i have no problem in reintroducing some of the material on their appropriate pages.) Soosim (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE Information can be merged into another article, if found credible. Z554 (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Back into Students for Justice in Palestine and [added later per editor below: and Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions and delete article. That's where the material was and was removed without discussion. Then correct any problems with sources or interpretations of sources, etc. CarolMooreDC🗽 03:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we keep this, it really will need to be renamed to avoid confusion; I thought that it was something about students involved in BDSM advocacy. Nyttend (talk) 05:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or merge) per above. If merged, needs to be edited to remove the bias that is apparent in the first sentence. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the relevant sections into Students for Justice in Palestine and Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions and delete article. Some of this belongs on the SJP page, and any general unique characteristics this article attributes to student BDS activism can go on the BDS page, as well as a few exemplary student BDS actions, so as to make the BDS article more comprehensive. As others have mentioned, there are inaccuracies even in the lead: "The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement has been led by student activists on college campuses. Campus chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) have prominently sponsored action in universities." In truth, student BDS activism is but a part of the international BDS movement which incorporates segments from all strata and sections of society, and it's essentially impossible to qualify or quantify which of these segments "leads" the BDS movement (especially since BDS is more of a strategy with constantly-evolving tactics than it is a "movement" as such), and, strictly speaking, if there is a "leader" of the BDS movement, it is the aggregate of persons and organizations from within Palestinian civil society from whom the 2005 BDS call originated. There's no "leader" in either a hierarchical sense or an understanding based on impact or effect. As to the second sentence in the lead, this has been brought up before in other discussions, but SJP doesn't really have "chapters", as SJP as an organization is completely decentralized and lacks any sort of regional, national, or international hierarchy (though some have amusingly tried to impose such a structure upon SJP). I realize these are more nitpicks than cogent defense of my suggestion to merge, but I think these issues speak to the greater problem with this article: what little content included in it isn't directly copied from other pages would likely have to be cut anyway for being factually incorrect, misleading, or at least lacking in a reliable source. Direct action (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article has no independent notability. Anything that is relevant in the article (and there are serious RS problems on the page) belongs in the Students for Justice in Palestine article.Scarletfire2112 (talk) 06:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to
    WP:TOOLONG, as such as the subject of this AfD falls within the scope of the article Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, a summarization of verifiable content and merger of that content to the parent article appears to be in order, with a redirect left in this space. If the parent article meets SIZELIMIT in the future a consensus on that article talk page can determine what part of that article can be spunoff as a subarticle.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mineral County Technical Center

Mineral County Technical Center (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 training establishment. Being the "the oldest operating technical center in WV" does not cut it for me. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though the article does not (yet) have a formal deletion page. Appears to fail to meet any notability criteria. KDS4444Talk 08:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this the formal deletionnpage? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete Seems to an obscure wee college. Clearly non-notable, fails

WP:ORG. scope_creep (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

That may be so but it still has insufficient notability for WP. High schools are deemed notable but training establishments are not necessarily notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. Deadbeef (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Awards

Leo Awards (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, unreferenced awards page, which is hosted by an organization that is redlinked. Does not meet

WP:GNG. Deadbeef (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I've found a few possible mentions of notability: [41], [42], [43]. Samwalton9 (talk) 07:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Samir (footballer born 1994)

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

Contested PROD on the grounds "premier league in country", but original rationale, Article about a footballer who fails

WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league or at senior international level, is true and the article should be deleted. C679 06:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 06:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of diver training organizations

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

This article has deteriorated into a list of names and weblinks of any organisation that offers dive training, and Wikipedia is not a directory. The selection criteria for this list is simply too imprecise to keep out spammers and the list no longer has encyclopedic value. RexxS (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see anything raised in your deletion rationale except for cleanup and maintenance issues. Those are not valid grounds for deletion; see
    WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. And the selection criteria could simply be "merits an article", as it is with most lists of X where most examples of X are not notable. postdlf (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The current title allows a huge number of non-notable organisations on the grounds that they are organised groups of people and that they train divers. Virtually every dive shop, dive school and dive club in the world fits this requirement.
What criterion for notability would we apply in this case?
A more exclusive criterion would be diver certification organisations which independently issue diver certification recognised by at least one other notable organisation. The organisations currently listed are mostly in this category. I suspect that this was the original intention for the list, but the name was not well chosen, and no conditions for inclusion were provided. A better name for the article might be 'List of diver certification organisations • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What criterion? Simply, "does this merit an article"? For which we have
    WP:GNG (probably nothing more subject-specific) to guide us in that determination. If it already has an article, then it obviously goes in, and judging from Category:Underwater diving training organizations it looks like there are plenty of articles on individual orgs. If it's a redlink, then we remove it if there's no reason to believe it should have an article based on available secondary sources. This is not a new problem or one unique to this list. We do this all the time.

    And it's simply a matter of style choice that the title does not include "notable" as a limitation; the omission of that does not legally bind us to literally include all training organizations that exist. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#List naming: "[T]he precise inclusion criterion of the list should be spelled out in the lead section (see below), not the title. For instance, words like 'complete,' 'famous' and 'notable' are normally excluded from list titles. Instead, the lead makes clear whether the list is complete, or is limited to famous or notable members (i.e., those that merit articles)." postdlf (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

    ]

  • This is a navigational list in as much as it lists articles by a fact their subjects share in common, complementary to Category:Underwater diving training organizations. If an organization's status as such cannot be verified, then it should not only not be in the list, but also not be in that category (and its notability would be questionable if such basic info is not available in any RS). Verifying individual entries is, again, a clean up issue, as there are no doubt notable orgs for which that fact can be verified. BTW, I assume you meant to treat "training" and "certification" synonymously here, but it would be more clear to stick to the term the list uses. postdlf (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it isn't a navigational list. The only ones that exist outside of category space are disambiguation pages. Don't get confused with the requirements for what needs to be included in a category - that properly only includes Wikipedia pages. A "diver training organisation" may be taken to be an organisation that delivers
    dive centres and dive clubs that do that. It's simply too broad for a sustainable list. You also assume wrongly: Diver certification is a process defined by a diver certification agency which has to meet certain agreed standards in most jurisdictions world-wide; Diver training is the process undergone by a trainee diver in order to receive a certification. The number of agencies that set the certification process is relatively small; the number of outlets that are licensed to carry out the training is legion. And therein lies the problem with this article. --RexxS (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The main purpose of stand-alone lists is to provide information, not navigation - see
    Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. Here's the list of Featured Lists - please feel free to point out to me the ones that are navigation lists. This article is a stand-alone list. It has a clear description in the lead of what it contains: "This page lists SCUBA diver training organizations". The article on diver training states "Competent diving instructors may work independently or through a university, a dive club, a dive school or a dive shop. They will offer courses that meet, or exceed, the standards of the certification organization that they work with. Many dive shops in popular holiday locations offer courses that try to teach you to dive in a few days, and can be combined with your vacation". So yes, universities, dive clubs, dive schools and dive shops may be diver training organisations, and tens of thousands of them are eligible for this article as it stands. As you already know, subjects that are not notable are just as acceptable as entries in lists, which is why we don't use "Has a Wikipedia article" as the inclusion criterion. In any case, this article already has masses of entries that fit the current selection criteria (and potentially many thousands more). If you want to change the selection criteria to something useful (and "Has a Wikipedia article" isn't - because of the Western ethnocentric bias in en-wp), then please tell us how to trim the current list to fit your new criteria for "List of diver training organizations" at the same time. If it was that easy, it would have been done by now. --RexxS (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • If the article is to be deleted, what do we do with the useful information?
One possibility is merge into an article titled Diver training and certification or something similar. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a stub
Diver certification agencies is a redirect to List of diver training organizations, and would also be a better title. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The information is never lost, but it may be better to write the article you suggest, Peter, with an accurate title and manageable inclusion criteria. That would also allow the possibility of this list becoming a redirect to such an article rather that just being deleted. --RexxS (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about a Smerge? Bearian (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I appreciate nom's concerns. Left alone one of three things will happen. (A) someone will set a limiting criterion and trim the list back. (B) Someone will set a limiting criterion, but not trim the list back, so that it will grow, but only slowly. (C) It will get parsed out by geographically, and you'll have pages like "List of diver training organizations in Australia." All three outcomes would be enough of an improvement. I don't see a need to delete the page as it currently is, and potential spamability, while a concern, is not a criterion for deletion. Listmeister (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 03:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RoboLaw

RoboLaw (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 should never have been accepted at AfC. It's a two-year project funded by the EU, though you'd never guess it from the article (see the history for more verbosity copied directly from the Request for Funding). Lack of references is obviously, lack of Google News hits makes it clear that this is not a notable thing. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because I agree with the analysis by Drmies, who does his homework. I am wondering how an article can wend its way through AfC without the article containing a single reference to a reliable, independent source? Are some of our AfC reviewers lacking a clue? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that an OTRS notice permits a chunk of text to be copied does not imply that it should be copied, especially when it is as indigestably non-encyclopaedic as this. However, while I'm tending to deletion on this rather typical looking EU FP article, I did find this article from The Economist (via Highbeam, sub reqd). AllyD (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC) There is also this piece from Wired. AllyD (talk) 08:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cullen: yes, unfortunately. Good will is required to be working at AfC, as you probably know, and sometimes there's a bit much of it. AllyD, well spotted--thanks. But I don't think that "two articles and it's notable" is a good rule; what the Wired article will give us is a couple of nicely verified sentences in a main article. Don't feel like you can't vote delete cause you found two sources. :) Drmies (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable, per nom. AuthorAuthor (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. scope_creep (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't spot any notability here using a UK Google perspective. I don't have full access to AllyD's perspective but what I've seen looks very, very thin and I am inclined to think that Drmies is correct in his response. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The Wired article and the Economist (I have Highbeam access) are both substantial coverage. Although I agree with that notability is not established by simply counting to two, in this case both the sources are beefy enough for me to say it squeaks past. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This decision does not prevent the possibility of a proper merge discussion on the appropriate talkpages. J04n(talk page) 16:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colossal Connection

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

I don't feel the team established any individual notability apart from the notability established by the

The Heenan Family. I feel that most of the relevant information is already there which means this article is unneeded. Feedback ☎ 04:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose deletion. I don't know what's going on with all the recent deletion proposals for wrestling tag teams, but deletion is not the proper way to handle them. The tag names are likely search terms, so if it's true that the article is not needed, then the proper solution is to merge the content and redirect the title to the article that covers it - i.e. this should be merge proposals, not at AfD. In his case it's not true that
The Heenan Family contains the same information; the history section and references for the Colossal Connection are not there. Diego (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They formed in April 1989 and broke up after Wrestlemania 6 in April 1990. Their title reign alone lasted nearly 4 months. Either way longevity is only part of their notability, with or without it they still fit
WP:GNG as Gary Coleman pointed out.-LM2000 (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
No they did not form in April 1989. They formed in November. Andre was fighting for the intercontinental title between Summerslam and Survivor Series, and before Summerslam he was feuding with Big John Studd. BerleT (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A18 (band)

A18 (band) (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, does not seem to pass

WP:NBAND (unless the listed labels are major, which they do not seem to be) Uberaccount (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 02:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 02:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol (season 13)

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 season has not been confirmed yet, and no

Mati 02:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to When Heaven Burns. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This city is dying, you know?

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 an odd one, but ultimately, I'm not sure a random sentence from a foreign TV programme deserves an article all to itself. Perhaps as a paragraph in When Heaven Burns, but a lengthy article doesn't seem appropriate... Mabalu (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

czar · · 05:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Tre' Newton

AfDs for this article:
Tre' Newton (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)

Former high school standout that fell in obscurity in college. Once notable, but now no longer is. bender235 (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was the creator of that article, and I made a mistake. Tre Newton did not lose notability, he never had it in the first place. Why keep the biography of a third-string college running back? Please test this article with
WP:ATHLETE to see that he does not meet the criteria. --bender235 (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
He might fail
WP:GNG with the huge coverage easily found simply by clicking the news link above. Here is [one of many] such articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, according to the article history the creator of the article was User:Jumpman Jordan and not User:Bender235.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hino 600

Hino 600 (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 by

Standard 04:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A distinct make and model of produced motor vehicle which, by long-standing consensus, establishes notability. Nominator's statement indicates
    WP:BEFORE was not followed; a lack of sources in the article is not a reason to delete, rather, sources need only exist to establish notability. A Google search shows sources available; a {{trout}} may be in order. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boursorama

Boursorama (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 was listed for PROD, "Unreferenced article about a non-notable business, an online stockbroker." There's much more extensive page at the frWP; given that, and the Euronext listing, I thought it better to have a community deccision. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is to keep in some form, discussion re. merging can continue on the article's talk page. Michig (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative information seeking

Collaborative information seeking (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 nominated per

WP:BOOKSPAM). The topic is more widely known as social search. Adblock2 (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to redirect it, why don't you withdraw the AFD? AFD is supposed to be used in circumstances when you want to see a link to the article turn red, not when you want it to send you to a different page. Nyttend (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Please consider this: 'search' and 'information seeking' are not the same. And 'social' and 'collaborative' are not the same. These words should not be used interchangeably, and so these topics should not be merged. ShahChirag (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is s clear consensus for keeping this. Whether it remains as a separate article or is merged elsewhere can be sicussed on the article's talk page. Michig (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Social information seeking

Social information seeking (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 nominated per

WP:SPA). The topic is more widely known as social search Adblock2 (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ShahChirag/Archive.

I am also nominating the following related page by the same author due to the same reasons:

Collaborative information seeking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We both agree that
    WP:GNG. I see no evidence of this. The terms are not generally accepted beyond a small research group. If you know some evidence of their notability or wider use, please share. Why is it beneficial to have three articles covering the same topic under slightly different names? Adblock2 (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, the sources are still not there.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Il Mio Miracolo (You Are My Miracle)

Il Mio Miracolo (You Are My Miracle) (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 song is not notable; no sources

talk) 23:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
t • c) 01:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss of Fury

Kiss of Fury (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 album, no sources / references. Puffin Let's talk! 10:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
t • c) 01:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Party weekend tourism

Party weekend tourism (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 is too generic a topic to be of any use to an encyclopedia... It does not cite any sources and is an orphaned article... The Wikimon (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
t • c) 01:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protection Forum for Bengalee Hindus of Assam

Protection Forum for Bengalee Hindus of Assam (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 noteworthy. Fails

WP:ORG  Mrwikidor ←track 19:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:Only trivial/incidental coverage by the sources, verify the existence but not notability. Google search mostly shows links to blogs and self published sources. --Zayeem (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
t • c) 01:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trannylicious

Trannylicious (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 album. Band doesn't have an article and chart references don't work. Also, searching for "Trannylicious" and "JohnnyBoyXo" on Billboard produces no results. The album exists but at this point, this article seems to be somewhere between a hoax and intentional deception. OlYeller21Talktome 04:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
t • c) 01:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manasi Devi

Manasi Devi (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 a BLP article which does not have a single credible source... The article should contain more information and sources... The Wikimon (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
t • c) 01:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ambush Records

Ambush Records (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 notable artists seem to be signed to Ambush, the two founders are very unlikely to be notable themselves with very minor stub-articles. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 16:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
t • c) 01:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
t • c) 01:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ideally this discussion needs more participation but I can't really relist it because of the fourth paragraph of

NAC—S Marshall T/C 10:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC) [reply
]

Ngưu Lang Chức Nữ

Ngưu Lang Chức Nữ (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 seems like a case of misinformation if I'm not mistaken.. The term "Ngưu Lang Chức Nữ" is a Vietnamese translation of the Chinese "Niulang Zhinu", meaning "The Cowherd and Weaver Girl". This is actually a Chinese folklore story. However, this article depicts a Chinese tale as a Vietnamese festival. When I look at the interwiki links, they are all about the Chinese tale. See also: Qixi Festival. Cold Season (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 00:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
t • c) 00:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep. According to the relevant articles themeselves, the Qixi Festival is based on a nameless Chinese tale about two lovers. The article in question seems to be a deviation of it. Also, clicking on the Google, scholar, and books links provides a large trove of sources. This article needs expansion, but it is notable. Deadbeef (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The links provide solely Vietnamese-language hits, which just highlight the fact that this is misinformation. There is no hits for Nguu Lang Chuc Nu (with or without diacritics) for English sources, supporting the fact that the hits are due to a native name for something foreign, namely the Chinese tale (which is not nameless by the way). There is no references for the existence of the article topic, namely a native Vietnamese festival (the article's scope) or a Vietnamese tale. I should note that the misinformation is highlighted by the scope as indicated by the lead sentence (stating that it's a festival) or the festival-stub template, which is placed by the article creator (the sole content contributor); this contradicts the article title, which is about a tale. Simply said, there's little that indicates something other than
      misinformation. --Cold Season (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Either move and rewrite so the Chinese origin is clear or redirect to
    talk) 01:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Zenderman episodes

List of Zenderman 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)

The list does not have any content; no episodes were ever added. Dianna (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hygiecracy

Hygiecracy (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)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable philosophy, neologism supported by a single blog site. Juliamars999 (talk · contribs) has also added this to numerous articles, so a broader cleaning may be necessary. JNW (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Drummond

AfDs for this article:
Lauren Drummond (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)

User:Frgewhqwth attempted to nominate this for deletion, citing its first AfD. I fixed the tag. —Ignatzmicetalkcontribs 00:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/us/politics/well-trod-path-political-donor-to-ambassador.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
  2. ^ http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,821959,00.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_April_14&oldid=1142633261"