Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 January	19 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. The keep side has shown that there are sufficient sources which can or have been cited. The main argument of the delete side is that there is nothing special, and that we would end up with 19110 articles on each bilateral relation. This is not a valid deletion rationale - Wikipedia is not on paper, and with 4 million articles already, 19110 is a relatively small number. Der yck C. 16:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica–Malaysia relations

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

fails WP:GNG. this article is based on a 2006 meeting between the prime ministers where they promised the usual want to cooperate more. no evidence of actual relations like trade, migration etc. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Out of pure reason; there is nothing remarkable about the relation between these two countries. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 04:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails
WP:GNG PianoDan (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete unless we want to create 19110 articles describing the relationships between all 195 countries (math is awesome!). Andrew³²⁷ 08:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(hunts around for the "Like" button on Wikipedia)PianoDan (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated Comment It's right here:
talk) 18:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Like[reply
]

Delete per the above.
AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep – This topic passes
WP:GNG
. There is enough significant coverage in reliable sources to support an article. Source examples include, but are not limited to (some are non-English):

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4 of these articles are based on the May 2006 meeting between the prime ministers. important to note whilst this was the usual handshake will cooperate more meeting no specific agreement was reached during the bilateral talks, I fail to see ongoing major coverage besides the 2006 meeting. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agre - these don't get past

WP:NOTNEWS. PianoDan (talk) 21:37, 19 January 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 23:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to allow discussion of the above sources. Sandstein 23:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000's arguments. NickSt (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, international relations are a staple encyclopedic topic and are part of Wikipedia's mandate as a gazzeteer under the
WP:5P. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note to closing admin editor has recycled this argument many a time [1], [2] without addressing the specifics of the AfD in question. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I once saw a wise admin note in an AfD close, every !vote and comment should be a "note to closing admin". You don't give your opinions any greater value by formatting them as memos to the top of the food chain, and I, at least, have always been taught that it's rude to speak about someone in the third person while they're "present". Regardless, unless you want to accuse The Bushranger of being a spambot, there's absolutely no rule against repeating AFD !votes, especially on topics on whose notability you have a categorical opinion. —
&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 09:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

When multiple AfDs can be refuted by the same argument, I use the same argument. Q.E.D. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:08, 26 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Everard

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

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

Just a man with a job, nothing special. Article looks like an advertisement. The Banner talk 21:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no significant independent coverage such as would meet the terms of notability. Promotional. ---- _nonsense ferret 00:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the references provided below and on the wiki page, notably in Le Soir and RTBF. Best regards.--EdWalker58 (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at the references you have provided, and the question seems to come down to whether we consider this a 'well-known and significant award' or not per the terms of
WP:PEOPLE. It doesn't seem to me that it is in an encyclopedia sense, nor does it seem to be part of the enduring historical record in the field, other people will take other opinions I'm sure. ---- _nonsense ferret 15:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you for taking the trouble to review the references. I agree, an award in itself does not necessarily qualify someone for inclusion in Wikipedia. More important are the achievements that enabled the person to be nominated for, and then to win the award in the first place. On what basis would you judge an entrepreneur in a services industry to be worthy of note, if not that he has won the top award for a person in business in his country? --
WP:BOLD. Best regards --EdWalker58 (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The test of significant coverage is a higher bar than merely having mentions in the press solicited by press releases - in the business world there are a lot of different awards thrown around, sponsored by different publishers and businesses, and these are heavily publicized and promoted. Outside of paid for promotion, truly notable and encyclopedic businessmen and awards are not numerous.---- _nonsense ferret 16:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary there are many hundreds of businessmen with Wikipedia entries. It is rather peculiar that the objection to Eric Everard's page has only been raised SINCE he won the Manager de l'Annee award. For four years, no such objection was raised. Would it help resolve this dispute if I restructured the article along the lines done by one of your fellow Wikipedians on the Dutch page (which I created last week)? His/her help has been constructive and useful. Best regards --EdWalker58 (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the age of the article (
see policy ), are reasons to keep this article. From my perspective, I think the article should be deleted because the subject is not notable or encyclopedic, and this cannot be remedied by rewriting the article ---- _nonsense ferret 17:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I have added another reference, this time to radio coverage on RTL. My arguments for retention are based on the subject's position internationally within the trade shows industry and as a businessman of standing in Belgium. The subject is an innovator, recognized globally as an innovator in his industry (hence his election as President of UFI) and within his country, where he received an award from the Prime Minister. I have responded to all your objections, provided citations when requested, offered ways to resolve this dispute amicably etc etc but each time you and banner move the goalposts. It is a shame. Best regards. --EdWalker58 (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no moving of goalposts, wikipedia's policies are consistent and stable. My view of whether the subject of this article meets those policies differs from yours, and I have expressed it clearly. Given you have been paid to promote the subject, I would be very surprised if you did agree with me ---- _nonsense ferret 18:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, there has been constant moving of goalposts. Look below, you asked for references, I gave them. Then you moved the goalposts. As stated elsewhere, I am more than happy for a neutral editor to edit the article to remove any point of view issues. This has already happened on the Dutch language page, don't see why it can't be done here. Best regards. --EdWalker58 (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a nonsensical argument, I haven't moved goalposts, because I'm not responsible for setting them, and it is totally irrelevant to the discussion which is does the article meet wikipedia's policies or not. The wikipedia policies are clear and have not changed. It is my opinion that they aren't met here, other people will not doubt have different opinions. I've looked carefully at the references you have provided to try and prove that the policies are met. After looking, I'm still personally of the opinion that they are not met. As pointed out earlier, Dutch wikipedia isn't English wikipedia, and they do not set a precedent for us here. Ultimately it is the administrators which need to be convinced either way, not me. ---- _nonsense ferret 20:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Dutch article does not set a precedent, on the contrary, the English page existed for four years, whereas the Dutch page was only created last week, then immediately edited to meet Wikipedia standards by a more constructive contributor. I welcome such editing by any neutral party. Indeed it is not for you to decide whether the page should remain. You have shown yourself to be closed to any rational argument or any constructive proposals to improve the article. This does not strike me as being in the spirit of Wikipedia. Best regards. --EdWalker58 (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As someone paid to write articles in order to promote a company I'm not sure you are best placed to be lecturing people about the spirit of wikipedia :) ---- _nonsense ferret 21:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not lecturing anyone - but I would like this discussion to continue on a polite and respectful basis. As I have stated umpteen times I am perfectly happy for a neutral editor to edit the article if there are any POV issues. If you feel the content is promotional, please feel free to correct it. Best regards. --EdWalker58 (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
as stated above, re-editing may remove a POV issue, but it cannot add notability to a non-notable subject. Attempting to insinuate that I am being impolite because I disagree with you is just a bit silly. ---- _nonsense ferret 21:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you have stated yourself, it is only your opinion that the subject is "non notable". It is not an opinion that is shared by those who select Belgium's Manager of the Year, nor presumably by the person who presented the award Elio Di Rupo. I think they are better placed to decide. Kind regards. --EdWalker58 (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has been placed on wikipedia almost four years ago and has since been regularly completed, without any remark or opposition. The man has become more notable than ever, since beginning this month he was elected "Manager of the Year" by the Belgian financial weekly 'Trends Tendances'. He received his award out of the hands of the Belgian prime minister. He is by all means a innovative entrepreneur. Because a Dutchman thinks that as he does not know this Belgian citizen, he is not noteworthy, he puts this on the deletion list. Only because a recently made article on the Dutch wikipedia does not suit him. As somebody asked the question: "Why deletion-proposal on the Dutch wikipedia for an article since long accepted on the English wikipedia?" he immediately introduced a deletion proposal on the English. This is not a very acceptable way of proceeding and I hope a moderator will assess it for what it is. Andries Van den Abeele (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I does not matter that I nominated it here because of a nomination on the Dutch Wikipedia. ENWP makes its own decisions. And my judgement is independent of what is happening there. For your information: related articles like his fellow directors Jean-François Quentin & Julian Kulkarni and his company EasyFairs are also nominated for deletion (and not by me) The Banner talk 14:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out
WP:LONGTIME - suggesting that the age of the article automatically makes it notable is a recognised wikipedia fallacy. ---- _nonsense ferret 02:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep of course! Elected "Manager of the Year" in Belgium...--Zeisterre (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article meets notability criteria. Eric Everard has been elected President of a world industry federation and manager of the year in Belgium on the basis of his unique contributions as an exhibitor within the events industry, not just in Belgium but internationally. The article includes many sources and citations.User:EdWalker58 —Preceding undated comment added 12:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed more then likely that you, as employee Group Marketing of EasyFairs ([3]), think that your boss is notable and want to promote him. The Banner talk 13:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am not an employee - if in doubt on this point please check with the company. I do assist with their promotion. This does not disqualify me from contributing to wikipedia. Rather than resorting to personal abuse and innuendo, could you please explain why a prominent entrepreneur who has recently been elected Belgium's manager of the year should be excluded from having a wikipedia entry? User: EdWalker58 —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps you are unaware about the wikipedia policies about conflict of interest
WP:COI And again I would reiterate that winning a non-notable award does not make anyone notable, simple as. ---- _nonsense ferret 13:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Perhaps not as an employee, but still working on their behalf and/or paid by them. Or is this page, that I looked up a moment ago, already outdated? Indeed, it does not disqualify you from editing on Wikipedia. But Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Paid editing gives a lot of people itchy feelings. Especially Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing makes people unhappy. BTW, that section states clearly: The writing of "puff pieces" and advertisements is strictly prohibited. And because you claim to live in Germany, I ask your special attention to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Covert advertising: 2012 German court ruling. The Banner talk 14:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC) And please, stop your laughable complaints about my other articles.[reply]
I have, as is advised on the COI page, sought to abide by Wikipedia best practices. Nobody is denying you the right to regard a Belgian award as non-notable. You are also free to edit the page to correct any perceived faults, lack of objectivity or point of view issues. In fact I would welcome it. Note that there are also Wikipedia policies about harassment, also referred to on the COI page.
WP:NPLT --EdWalker58 (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
It is not as much the award, it is the advertising for the person. What you wrote was a story of the type "Look how brilliant I am!". Thanks to CorporateMs work, the article is much better now, but I still doubt if he is notable enough to warrant a spot. The Banner talk 00:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CorporateM's work was done at my request. I am delighted to have reached a sensible compromise. The French and Dutch articles are more complete, as is appropriate for a biography of a Belgian national. Kind regards. --EdWalker58 (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
so Eric Van Zele is in fact manager of the year, and as a footnote Eric Everard is 'Francophone manager of the year' - is this award really notable? Do they have a separate manager of the year award for each language group? There seems to be a bit of vagueness here about what this award is - people talk about manager of the year as if it was a thing, but I don't see much independent coverage, doesn't sound like we will have an article about the award itself, so winning it isn't notable in my book. I won ferret of the year at the ferret fanciers annual celebration ---- _nonsense ferret 13:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Belgium is a bilingual state, so they do everything double. The Banner talk 13:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there are two awards, one for the francophones and one for the flemish speakers. Eric Everard's precise title is therefore "Manager de l'Annee", which translates into English as "Manager of the Year". This is normal in Belgium. The award is given by Belgium's leading business publication, Trends-Tendances magazine.--EdWalker58 (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any significant independent coverage (ie not from a press release) of either the magazine or the award? I note that another contributor to this discussion has nominated Trends-Tendances page for deletion due to lack of notability/sources ---- _nonsense ferret 14:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was covered in the Belgian national daily, Le Soir, and on national TV (RTBF and Canal Z).--EdWalker58 (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Refs? ---- _nonsense ferret 14:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the RTBF link: http://www.rtbf.be/video/detail_le-manager-de-l-annee?id=1789979 and here is the Canal Z link: http://canalz.levif.be/news/les-sujets/interview-du-manager-de-l-annee-09-01-13/video-4000231330522.htm?amp; --EdWalker58 (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Le Soir article was already cited in the article, but here it is again: http://www.lesoir.be/154973/article/economie/2013-01-09/eric-everard-%C3%A9lu-manager-francophone-l%E2%80%99ann%C3%A9e-2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdWalker58 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it correct that CanalZ is from the same publisher as the award? ---- _nonsense ferret 14:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added the two TV interview references to the Wikipedia entry. There are now four references to the award in the Belgian national media. Best regards.--EdWalker58 (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The award "Manager de l'Année" is a very important award in Belgium. All those who have received this award in the past have proven to be captains of industry. The article is written in a neutral way and cannot be considered an advertisement or a CV. It conforms to the requirements of
WP:BIO. Therefore : keep. JoJan (talk) 14:53, 22 January 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 is a clear keep close, but I'll leave the rename suggestion (and other proposals) to a discussion on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of pro quarterbacks with 5,000 passing yards in a season

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

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

Possibly a notable topic for the NFL. In my
WP:BEFORE
I found a few articles talking about the 5000 yard records (see talk).
But the vast majority of the content of this list is for Canadian football, a game with very different rules. There are multiple entries in the list who have over 6000 yards, and many in the high 5000s. Seems like 5000 is not a notable accomplishment in CFL.
If the article maintains its CFL focus, I think this list has a
WP:NOTABILITY issue. If it is a combined list, then I think there is WP:WP:LISTCRUFT
as it is combining records from two different sports
If it goes down to just NFL, I could see it passing the notability bar due to the few refs, and that the 5000 mark seems to be rare and record breaking. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and change title to
chatter) 12:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but as an NFL-only list.
AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. These records are probably the most significant season passing records in professional football. The topic is clearly notable based on Google News Archive and Google News searches per the general notability guidelines of
WP:GNG. I personally remember when Dan Marino broke the 4,000-yard barrier for the first time; it was a huge media frenzy. Personally, I would style it as a list of 4,000-yard seasons since there have been so few 5,000-yarders, and clearly the USFL and CFL seasons need to have explanatory text regarding different rules and longer seasons, but that's an editorial/content decision that does not impact notability. Yes, the article needs work, but that's irrelevant to the keep/delete decision. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Very little quarterbacks have ever hit the 5K mark in the NFL. The CFL and AFL players probably have a lot more success in reaching the mark since they play on different fields with different codes and rules (and Jim Kelly, the lone USFL player is, well, Jim Kelly, a damn good QB), but they're still the same sport (gridiron football), so we should either rename the page to
Mati 03:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I can see the value of the list. Often times with a list, it is perfectly acceptable to have a "supplement to the list" which to me is shown with the different groups (i.e. NFL, CFL, etc.) I'm okay with it as is.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow i started a quarterback controversy...maybe i should get a job with the Jets. I admit i'm a canadian cfl and nfl fan but i think i explained that the cfl is an inferior league in terms of talent. We have had some top notch qbs like Warren Moon or Joe Theismann. If theres any Bears fans out there i think youre gonna end up liking your new coach as long as they can find a good defensive co-ordinator. User:paulbradley316 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.198.46 (talk) 05:53, 20 January 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 per

non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Lee Westwick

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

Delete - Subject is not notable in any way, appeared in a couple of episodes of a soap many years ago and that's it, Do we really need Wikipedia articles for extras? Aleczandah (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
t • c » 21:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Only asserted notability is spurious, being a "world record" on a website which is wholly unofficial. I will {{
^"talk" 12:29, 19 January 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. (

AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Kaurwaki

)

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

The person referred to in this article is a fictional character from a Bollywood movie Asoka (made in 2001)and not a historical character. Kaurwaki was the birth name of one of Ashoka's wife who was later renamed Tishyaraksha and became the mother of Tivala. It was Padmavati who led an army against him. Devi, a Buddhist, was his first and most favourite wife as well as the empress consort and it was she who sponsored charity. The article is also inconsistent. The first sentence refers to her being a fisherwoman and the last refers to her as a princess. The marriage was forcible in one para yet referred to as loving in another. Roopshah (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources on the page seem to show some notability. Improving the article would be a better option. Funny ^Pika! 17:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
just checked Abanindranath's memoir "aponkatha". the image given is of devi, not kaurwaki. also it was devi who led Ashoka to buddhism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roopshah (talk • contribs) 10:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i thimk merging of
Kaurwaki with Tishyaraksha is a better option than deletion. also the references given in the "to be deleted article" are news artcles about a bollywood movie Asoka(2001), not the real historical character Ashoka. the movie was a superflop due to its distorted history. read authentic books- "a history of ancient and medieval india" by upinder singh and "a history of ancient india" by j.p.mittal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roopshah (talk • contribs) 10:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This article is about the historical figure that the movie character was based on. The article is not inconsistent. She started life as a fisherwomen, but was married by Ashoka and made a queen. I don't see what you're talking about with the marriage. Howicus (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it is true she is the only woman mentioned in an Asoka inscription, I would think that that by itself would constitute notability. Moheroy (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reasons mentioned for deletion are irrelevant, there is no proof that Kaurwaki (or Karuvaki) was the same person as Tishyaraksha. Plus, Tishyaraksha was not the mother of Tivala. Kaurwaki is not a fictional character but a historical figure upon whom the movie character was based. Furthermore, M.N. Das, is an internationally renowned expert on Ashoka and he clearly states that Kaurwaki was a fisherman's daughter who became Ashoka's wife, she had converted to Buddhism and had guided him towards his religious leanings. The fact that she did charity is clearly given in the 'Queen Edict' at Allahabad which was commissioned by Ashoka himself. Furthermore, the news articles that you are talking about are not about the movie characters, but about the historical figures, (Emperor Ashoka and Kaurwaki) wherein the historians are claiming that his wife, Kaurwaki, was not a princess but a fisherman's daughter. Therefore, the article is not inconsistent and it is not about a fictional character, you're just denying the information provided by an eminent historian. Also, merging is not an option, when Kaurwaki and Tishyaraksha are clearly different persons. Animefreak234 (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability seems sufficient and reasonably referenced.--Staberinde (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources in the article certainly seem to be sufficient enough to meet
Ghost 21:22, 24 January 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 The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Paul Savramis

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

Insufficient reliable source material exists about this person's life to create a reasonable article about him. Jayron32 16:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spectacularly non-notable; fails
WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Chipper2Lews (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe I PRODded this before. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly non-notable by every possible WP measurement. Recreated from a rightfully deleted prod. Qworty (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thoroughly fails
WP:SIGCOV. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Snow Delete Unless he finds Atlantis or levitates (with witnesses) in the next few hours.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lol Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable ---- _nonsense ferret 00:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Savramis discovers Atlantis while levitating. We still need witnesses though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - its all been said. Rikster2 (talk) 20:55, 19 January 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 Userfy.. MBisanz ^talk 17:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Bekker

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Fails

WP:GNG and hasn't played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does playing in
WP:NFOOTY or not? Govvy (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

It doesn't. Countries send their U23 teams to play in the Olympics. ~~The first criteria only applies to players who have have played in their senior team.~~ Funny ^Pika! 22:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just read GiantSnowman's comment below and saw that I missed Olympics in

WP:FOOTBALL. Funny ^Pika! 22:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Playing in the Olympics themselves confers notability per NFOOTBALL; qualifying matches does not. Giant Snowman 15:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - or merge; he'll be playing shortly; been called up to the Canadian Mens National Team...will be likely capped in 8 or 11 days; why delete something that will inevitably be restored very shortly Prizby (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation is never grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

so than merge it until it can become official in a week or stick to your German football or get into the know with Canadian football Prizby (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge where exactly? Giant Snowman 22:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the creater of the page...something like User:Noonehasthisnameithink/Kyle Bekker like what has been done for Bryce Alderson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz/Bryce_Alderson or you can waste your time trying to delete something that will only reappear next week. Prizby (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – nothing to do with Canadian football, if he hasn't played in a professional league or for a national team at senior level then he fails
WP:CIVIL. Being "in the know" is no indication of notability. C 679 17:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Userfy to the creator of the page. The player isn't notable yet per the letter of
WP:NFOOTBALL, but will be shortly. Outright deletion would be a waste. PK T(alk) 16:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

"will be shortly".

WP:CRYSTAL. – Michael (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes. Hence, userfy. PK T(alk) 19:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - this player has been drafted in the first round by Toronto FC. He is now a professional in Major League Soccer. Bdure (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPORT explicitly exclude players who have signed but not played for a fully pro club. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - hasn't played in a
talk) 19:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

It's going to get re-created tomorrow, surely you guys have something better to do with your time SMH Prizby (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to get re-created tomorrow. That's only if he makes his debut for Canada. Honestly, I don't know what sort of issues you guys have here with us nominating pages for deletion because of the fact that they fail GNG and NFOOTY. And at the same time, your issues concern us either. – Michael (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

he's been playing with the starting XI squad in training Prizby (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:CRYSTAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:59, 26 January 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 both

Jacob (given name). Wikipedia is not a directory and the previous deletion discussions of this kind have shown that such lists of common names are too indiscriminate. So we should focus on the name itself in terms of etymology, ancient references, etc. This has already been done at Jacob (name) which page name serves as a generic disambiguation and shouldn't need any refinement. De728631 (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

List of people named Jacob

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

This page was at

MOS:DABNAME. I should also disclose that, in accordance with that guidance, I recently split some content from the disambiguation page to this list. – Fayenatic London 14:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep and move back to
Jacob (given name). Incompleteness is not a valid reason for deletion; if it were, a whole lot more articles would be fearing for their wiki-lives. This is no different from thousands of other name lists. (The entries on the dab page should be moved to the list.) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
As for the page name
Jacob (given name), the current anthroponymy article Jacob (name)
should be moved there.

As for other name lists, if they are very incomplete lists of people with common names, then they too be deleted; they are not a justification for keeping this one, see
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
.

In response to your comment in parentheses: on the contrary, the entries on the dab page for people known by "Jacob" alone should stay there, per
MOS:DABNAME, because editors might link to Jacob meaning any one of them. They should of course be repeated in this list, if it is kept. – Fayenatic London 19:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
In response to those three indented points, my numbering reflects your order:
* Foo (name) should be used only on an article/SIA that concerns both the surname and the given name; Foo (given name) should be used whenever only given names are discussed.
* We all seem to agree that we must cover the surname in this case; in the absence of a clear guideline that the given names must not be listed, they should be. But see my "Comment[s]" below regarding whether 1, 2, or 3 pages are needed where Foo=Jacob.

* OK, i looked at
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
, and learned it's not policy. Nor is it a guideline. It does reflects the views of some of the few dozen editors who've contributed to it, and citing it as if it were a policy, and devoid of caveats at that, is far from helpful.
* In fact it counsels, "Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons ... are disregarded", and it seems to me that the claim that "This is no different from thousands of other name lists." is the kind of claim the essay warns against dismissing as you did. My experience suggests to me that what Cf asserts is true, and probably reflects wide agreement that there is no problem with including such names.

I don't know which entries Cf meant by "(The entries on the dab page should be moved to the list.)" I agree w/ FL that the surnameless Jacobs belong on the Dab page; i see no one questioning their place on any given-name SIA.

--Jerzy•t 10:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, per Cf, "Incompleteness is not a valid reason for deletion"; the existence of {{

Expand list}}), {{Inc-up}}, and {{Dynamic list}}, is prima facie proof that incompleteness is an invalid reason.
--Jerzy•t 10:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Those templates encourage editors to make the list as complete as possible. One problem with incompleteness is

WP:NPOV, because some people will add their favourites. Anyway, the rationale for deletion is not that the list is incomplete, but that it would not be useful if it were complete. – Fayenatic London 19:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep and split several ways: at its creation,
PROD
request misrepresented the content) by moving in from the Dab what we (i & at least some other Dab-CU regulars) routinely
leave on the corresponding Dab page (i.e., the given names of fictional characters whose fictional activities are described by their creators, at least in large part, via unaccompanied given name, so that those characters are legitimate senses to be disambiguated, for the same reasons that Mowgli would be the primary title even if Kipling had mentioned his surname in the story or in his own memoirs), or

split to (e.g.) Jacob (surname) (another clearly specified form of SIA), since being spelled the same way does not mean a particular surname is a given name, any more than we should treat The Cloud with the water-vapor structures treated in the article Cloud.

--Jerzy•t 04:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "orthodox given-names
SIA". In my experience, including work on many name pages as a member of WP:WikiProject Anthroponymy, there is usually not a split between the etymology page and the list of people with the name. If there are enough entries with (i) the surname and (ii) the given name to justify separate pages, then the eymology, variants, diminutives etc are usually kept on the page called Foo (given name) and the people with the surname are listed with a briefer intro at Foo (surname). If one or both lists has only a few entries then they are usually combined on one page, Foo (name)
.

I also don't know what you mean by "corrupted". At first I moved all the entries that were improperly on the DAB page to the list, thinking that the list should be deleted anyway. I thought you were objecting on the talk page to deletion of the surname list, on the grounds that it was not too long; I accepted this objection, and as you did not edit the page for the next hour, I split the surnames to a separate page. As I understood your note, you were supporting -- or at least not opposing -- the PROD on the given name list.
I had not heard that rationale before for keeping the fictional-character-with-a-given-name entries on a DAB page. I routinely move such lists to given name pages, and believe that this is right following
WP:OVERLINKING anyway, and the links should be removed rather than helped via the DAB page. – Fayenatic London 18:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

(I follow here the same numbering convention i stated below at 10:25, 23 January 2013.)

* Well, my use of "orthodox given-names
SIA, right or wrongly regarded it as a spinoff of keeping Dabs from being used (particularly in anthroponomy contexts) like SIA, and encountered little reason to regard SIA as anything more than a generalization from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) done for the specific purpose of remedying the misuse of Dabs for content like we're discussing. (But blush!)
* While it's irrelevant to this AfD, i'll offer my opinion that it's perverse to act as if the derivation of the name belongs to the surname, just bcz there are fewer people surnamed than given-named with it. Do you use an {{about
}} to link the given name page to the name or surname page? The anti-intuitive nature of asking users to ignore seems so strong that i suggested the 3-page symmetrical structure of my 2013-01-23 10:25:06 comment on this talk page without seriously considering the notion of letting the structure look like the one i would use if i believed the derivation was about the surname but not about the given name.

* As to "corrupted", i confused myself (jumping around within and between the histories of the two pages involved) & erred in saying "corrupted (in large part by the nominator, who renamed it only after i complained that the
Jacob (given name)
,
  the change interferes with its function if the page is kept and
  degrades the accuracy, efficiency, or both, of the deletion process if it's deleted.
  (This is not the place to characterize your succeeding attempt to rectify the disparity by unilaterally changing the name.)
* Thank you for the link to
MOS:DABNAME
; the relevant passage would seem to begin Persons who have the ambiguous term as surname ... and be ended by an unless ... clause.
Note that it in no way rules out entries for "[p]ersons who have the ambiguous term as surname or given name". In fact, it clearly anticipates that some such entries will be on some Dab pages, both by ruling out its own restrictive force in some specified circumstances, and more importantly, never ruling out anything but their being mingled in the same section with the Dab entries of other kinds.
Your sentence beginning "If character names were repeatedly linked within a fiction article" would perhaps be more than a straw man if Dab entries existed only to compensate for use of links to Dab pages within articles. I presume you have never reflected on the plight of users -- forgive me if i've already alluded to this on this page; i just want to get to a stopping point, and being sure whether i did or not seems more onerous than forging ahead -- who have in mind a term describing their topic, but are not lucky enuf to have guessed either the article's title, or a redirect whose target is the article (rather than a Dab page). They will be taken to a Dab page even if every internal link from any article that formerly targetted to that Dab has been bypassed (i.e., had any ambiguity resolved). (There may a page with stats on how many user-typed Google or Wiki searches are served by a Dab page; the percentage could be small, and still justify the effort to accommodate those users smoothly.) There are plenty of fictional characters whose given names are more memorable than the titles of the works they appear in, and those names are likely search keys from users seeking info on either character, work, or less-memorably named characters in the same work.

--Jerzy•t 08:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural remark: I accidentally left the preceding notice before my Keep statement, then moved it to the end of the page in the next contrib, preceding it by white space to make it less likely to get lost between contribs. It seems logical to me to have it where it's easy to find (at start or end), in order to facilitate avoiding duplication or neglect of other relevant listings. I find it hard to imagine any logic for putting it where it

is out of chronological order with its chronologically ordered neighbors,
has Keep/Del contribs both before and after, and
has direct responses to Keep/Del contributions both before and after.

But my mileage has varied before.
--Jerzy•t 05:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: IMO, this page is not the place to settle the following related questions, but these issues may be worth mentioning for the attention of someone (perhaps the closer?) who cleans up immediately after Keep:

The remark in the nominating statement that
There are about 800 pages in this case, too many to list; see
Wikipedia is not finished
", so i don't mind saying "800 pages, too many to list today." And in particular i won't give priority to producing an alpha list of people (given-)named Jacob, not only bcz we have an automated one, but bcz an alpha list is not the most useful one: one by date of death (and decreasing age, for living people) is likely to be better (unless your problem is having a specific one in mind, but needing to guess at the exact spelling of the surname).
My reasoning for routinely splitting out (rather than deleting) surname entries that show up on Dabs is that even tho (e.g.) "Roosevelt" is not a true Dab problem (
WP:PAPER
), but YMMD.
Seems like i've heard, perhaps recently, at least one editor worry about very short sections on lists getting lost among very large ones, implying the view that the ToC does not suffice to deal with the confusion or awkward navigation. So, where (as here) a surname and given name are spelled alike, and often transliterated/respelled to suit namer's or bearer's cultural context, does it make sense to split the content? (If so, the pages must link appropriately among themselves.) In the worst case, there could be a 3-way split:
1. origin, and a table of foreign equivalents (usually equally applicable for surname and given name use), at Foo (name),
2. a list of bearers of surname at Foo (surname),
3. a list of bearers of given name at Foo (given name)

--Jerzy•t 10:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Precedents for deleting lists of people sharing a common name include:
The central rationale in the "Sarah" debates was that for a popular name, (i) a complete list would be enormous and not useful, and (ii) if we were to attempt a selective list, there is no basis for consensus on who should be included. I used to argue for a short selective list, specifically this version of Sarah (given name), but I thoroughly lost the argument at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Archive 6#Again with the popularity contests... – Fayenatic London 18:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The original proposal to delete this page was by user:Dangnad (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2010 at the top of Talk:List of people named Jacob. – Fayenatic London 19:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid anyone being confused by that statement, what our colleague
Jacob (given name), along with some explanation of why. They remain unanswered on the respective talk pages.
--Jerzy•t 21:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: I'll repeat what Fayenatic said above, "a complete list would be enormous and not useful". And, there should be discussion leading to policy that lists of people by given name are not encyclopedic or otherwise appropriate for Wikipedia. The only use I can imagine for such pages is to see how many people share a name, and a link to All pages with titles beginning with Jacob while clouded with other uses, is always up to date and excludes no one. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have no objection to the short lists that we have of people with relatively uncommon names, or rather, names where only a few people have achieved notability. It's lists of people who share a common name that are not justifiable. – Fayenatic London 18:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: For the record, using such pages to gather name-frequency stats is a lousy idea.
    1. Until WP is finished [wink], there will be a tendency for the many people named Frank to add missing notables to Frank (given name) at a faster collective rate than the few named Algernon to add to Algernon (given name). Nah, the redlink hints i'm right, but in daylight, i think i'm wrong.
    2. There's much better data available from e.g. the U.S. Census; IIRC the three lists (by surname, by male given name, and by female given name) give data for enuf names to account for 90% of each of the three applicable populations. (Fewer sig digits for rarer names, but you can deduce at least 2 significant digits even for the least common names listed.) I'm not sure if more than the 1990 Census is available on line, nor whether any more is publicly available by other means. I'll try to remember to put a URL, & explain how to get the hidden digit, on User:Jerzy -- and almost certainly succeed if someone expresses interest via my talk.
  --Jerzy•t 09:21 & 19:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Why did anyone think this was a valid encyclopedic topic? An article on the name itself is one thing, listing every person of note to ever have this name is just information, not knowledge. There is a difference people. A category is the most this needs as that is all it really is anyway.
talk) 23:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
- There is a specific guideline against using categories for such purposes at
  WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. – Fayenatic London 13:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete - Utterly
WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. "People named Jacob" is not an encyclopedic topic. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:59, 28 January 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. Tone 18:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaston Lagman

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

Previously deleted by PROD back in July 2008; nothing has changed, this player remains non-notable and fails both

WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails
WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - per nom. Govvy (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no indication of notability. C 679 18:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hasn't played in a
talk) 19:14, 24 January 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

talk) 21:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Octavia (TV serial)

Octavia (TV serial) (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)

Unaired television programme: made in 2007, this was due to be aired in 2008 or 2009 but was apparently never broadcast. As such, it seems unnecessary to have an article about it, particularly one that still describes it as 'upcoming'. Though there are a few sources, I don't think this is considered
notable under our guidelines. Robofish (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to Jilly Cooper. If we had an article about the 1978 novel, I would say to merge it there, but the article is well-sourced, and easily updated to remove "upcoming" and "as of 2009". --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
(｡◕‿◕｡) 05:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:22, 19 January 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
East Antarctica Ranges. MBisanz ^talk 17:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

East Antarctic two-thousanders

East Antarctic two-thousanders (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)

Totally arbitrary division. Why is 2000+ a notable division and not say, 3000, 4000 or any other x000 number? Why just those on the east, and not the west, which is currently redlinked? Also, there are lots of other, better organized and sourced lists of Antarctica's mountains. Prod declined for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The convention to number mountains by the thousands (apparently for mountaineering purposes, as hinted in the article) seem to originate in the German Wikipedia. See de:Zweitausender, and the deletion discussion linked at that articles talk page; note also that Portal:Mountains/Other mountains has definite German influence. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not think that the criterion for inclusion is itself a problem. All such lists have to have criteria for inclusion which are in some sense arbitrary, and if it had originated in the US would no doubt be feet rather than metres.
List of Munros is an example in Wikipedia of a very notable set based on such an arbitrary criterion. The question for WP is whether 2000 metres is the right figure (and presumably few people would travel to Antarctica just to bag 1000 metre peaks and which could be said to be much less notable). My impression from a quick look on Google is that the 2000 metre point is quite widely used internationally but input from those with an experience in this would be useful. --AJHingston (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
But isn't
talk) 21:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

If a reference could be found for "These peaks are collectively referred to as the East Antarctic two-thousanders", I would support keeping it as it would show that the term is used. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to both of you — even though there is an article on Two-thousander and several other thousanders, I found no proof whatsoever that "X thousander" is a widely used term for mountains. "Two-thousander" + "mountain" gave me only 200 unique Google hits. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point was not that "X thousander" was a widely used term, but that "East Antarctic two-thousanders" might be a term that is applied to the peaks in this article, just as Munros is a term applied to Scottish peaks. That is what the article is asserting, but there is no source. If that term is used in a reliable source, then I think the article is worth keeping. I agree with you about "X thousander" on its own. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Two-thousander, three-thousander, four-thousander, and eight-thousander. I prodded the first three, and AFDed the last one. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I agreed with you at first glance on "X thousander", clearly others do not. Two-thousander has been denied prod with some sources given and eight-thousander looks like a snow keep at AfD so I have denied prod on the other two. Let us not be hasty and let us wait until mountaineers tell us what is in their guide books which are reliable sources in most cases and not generally available on the web. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This article did not come from German Wikipedia and the outcome of the delete discussion at
two-thousanders). Even a cursory review of Google books reveals dozens of mountaineering sources for "x-thousanders". So the terminology is widespread and what is needed are some references to such usage (I have now added them to some of the articles). Whether the specific title of "East Antarctic two-thousanders" is valid is a fair question, but I see it as no different from "Rivers of Lower Saxony"; you may not find the exact phrase in the literature, but the topic is valid. Certainly the arguments presented here are not grounds for deletion at this stage, IMHO. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The comparison with Rivers of Lower Saxony seems to me a good one. With geographical features we do not require that they be independently notable under GNG, and grouping by type and location is routine. Both river and Lower Saxony are in a sense arbitrary (how big does a watercourse have to be to qualify for example?). I do not think that we can disqualify this list simply on the basis that others have not attempted to do it before, but only if the criteria for inclusion are poorly chosen because the wider consensus is that some other height is the recognised cut off for similar lists or that East Antarctica were not a commonly accepted geographical area. --AJHingston (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the authoritative international body, the
UIAA, has a official list of Alpine four-thousanders, see The 4000ers of the Alps - Official UIAA List. The UIAA also appear to have sponsored a list of Pyrenean three-thousanders. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Then why did I find absolutely zero pages using "X thousanders" as a term for mountains of a certain height? Ten Pound Hammer • ⁽What did I screw up now?) 20

22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know. Perhaps you made a typo. At the "find sources" link you provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eight-thousander I see "about 21,000" hits and in the plural "about 73,800". For the present AfD only "about 14,800" but the East Antarctic qualification is in there too. I'm certainly not suggesting all these are true hits or meet notability criteria. Thincat (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its an arbitrary list that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, better in a climbing guide. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:19, 4 January 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing much about two-thousanders (and then just as adjectives), much less East Antarctican ones. Two, four, six, eight. Who do I appreciate? Just the gold standard eight-thousanders. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as
Original Research --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep for now or at least rename to
List of mountains of Antarctica (currently a dubious totum pro parte redirect to ultras of Antartica) and expand or rename to List of mountains of East Antarctica. We shouldn't lose the information; the objection seems to be the title. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and consider how to name it. A list divided by height seems eminently reasonable, and I think there has been enough evidence to show that this is the general naming term used. Into how many groups in should be divided needs discussion, and probably a =n appropriate wikiproject would be a better place for that than here. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps WikiProject Mountains. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also fourteener. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is currently not possible to create a complete and correct list of two-thousanders for this region, due to lack of data. Most of the altitude measurements were performed 50-80 years ago with low accuracy. I've added a new entry to the list - the highest mountain in Queen Maud Land, Jøkulkyrkja, jumps straight to the sixth place on the list. BTW,
East Antarctica Ranges is an almost identical article. - 4ing (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I did not know about
East Antarctica Ranges. That is now the decider for me. Since that exists, we do not need this article, where the inclusion criteria are more problematic. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or Redirect to
East Antarctica Ranges. No point in two copies of the same article. Funny ^Pika 18:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I commented above and subsequently saw that
WP:CSD#G8 deleted without discussion. Because of my involvement I shall not give an opinion here. Thincat (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

FYI: I'm considereing nominating
Wikipedia:RELIABLE, and the availablility of accurate data for this region is very limited, making the list arbitrary. - 4ing (talk) 09:38, 17 January 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
East Antarctica Ranges, this articles is nearly identical. --Dede2008 (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Why is this being held over instead of closed? Carrite (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
East Antarctica Ranges have additional info (on prominence) and it avoids the argument above for now. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment – I've now created the article
List of mountains in Queen Maud Land. Currently, it lists approximately 100 two-thousanders, and and at least 100 more can be found in the sources. No need to keep this article, which lists the 29 known peaks whose summits reach or exceed 2000 meters above sea level. - 4ing (talk) 08:06, 23 January 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
WP:CSD#A7 by Jimfbleak (talk). JohnCD (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Miarmy

Miarmy (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
reliable references and fails to meet notability guidelines for software. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 11:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

There are cites from NVIDIA Company, and tons of websites, we'll continue add them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeahy2 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 18 January 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. There is a question here about notability but no general agreement. Some sources have been provided in the article, so I see no policy mandating deletion, and so this will default with the no consensus result. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Randy J. Goodwin

Randy J. Goodwin (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 with Starred in two television series and recurred in three others. Biographical article about an actor. Six pages into a Google search I can't seem to find anything that would establish basic notability under
WP:ACTOR as far as I can tell. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The individual in the article does meet the criteria for
WP:ENT. Silver Buizel (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Which one? Criteria #1 specifies significant roles, and I'm not seeing significance in any of them. ~
talk) 17:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
t • c) 09:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. In addition to provided reason, there are also
Alternatives to Deletion. Silver Buizel (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete - This looks like someone right on the fence notability-wise. I could be persuaded to keep this, but not without much better references. The article currently has two: one is a dead blog, and the other is that child support bit that should probably be removed as undue weight anyways. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:42, 18 January 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) 09:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Move to incubator - as Bongwarrior says, right on the fence. He could be definitively notable later, but that isn't a reason to keep the current article in main space. It can always be re-created. Perhaps move it to
talk) 17:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and allow stub to continue to grow over time and through regular editing. While sure, this fellow gets a LOT of one-ofs in episodic televison, his being
WP:GNGACTOR. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for now - Usually, I agree with MichaelQSchmidt (we agreed on Emma Degerstedt and I think others) but I feel there isn't much for a better article at this time. Google News searches for The Vampire Diaries, Abby and Girlfriends provided several TV listings thus minor mentions with even one for CSI: Crime Scene Investigation here and a few for Linc's. Unfortunately, I would like to have found some theatre roles but, alas, no. Indeed, his longest role was for Fast Track with some results here (mainly foreign but there is one Chicago Sun-Times article from 1997). Although this is similar to Emma Degerstedt, this actor is a grown man so a younger actor (currently attending school) is understandable though young and old can achieve the same levels sometimes. In addition, it seems he hasn't been significantly active recently though if he does have a family then that makes sense. I wish I could say keep considering the patches of good roles but I have no prejudice towards a future article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 01:52, 24 January 2013‎
I might think
"significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Has had nontrivial recurring roles in multiple notable TV series, meeting the requirements of WP:ENT. Therefore, highly plausible as a search term. Notability guidelines are intended to identify topics that users are likely to refer to an encyclopedia about, not as some sort of measure of the subjects themselves. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - appears marginally notable, and the article needs some work, but it does appear he is meeting WP:ENT, and there is a fair amount of traffic to that page 1207 views in the last 60 days, which is pretty good for a new article for such a minor actor. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes
WP:GNG even if not specifically WP:ENT#1. I found some reviews of his work as an actor in Variety, see, e.g., [5]. I saw a few more behind paywalls. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 29 January 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 - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JAINA

JAINA (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 about a community organization, which takes donations and promotes community forum. The google search result for JAINA gives [6] only one result of community website of JAINA - [7]. The article does pass
WP:ORG and should be deleted as per also speedy deletion criteria No, G11: Unambiguous advertising. As the article promotes non notable names of persons awarded by them. Besides organization - JAINA, asks for donations in its website link [8] and therefore it seems it has been created for self-advertisement. Jethwarp (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I withdraw my deletion nomination, as some of my concerns have been addressed to - like removal of non notable list of awardees, etc. As per my [9] talk page discussion with User:Malaiya, I am satisfied of organizations notability, etc. Thank you.Jethwarp (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This organization is a representative organization of Jains in the US, similar to every organization listed here -Category:Religious organizations based in the United States. Since JAINA is an acronym that happens to be the same as the word Jaina, which is used for the follower of Jainism, Google invariably shows the latter. However, the article is well referenced and mentions sufficient sources. Non-notable names have been deleted from the article. Like every religious organization, political organization, educational organization, even Wikipedia itself, JAINA asks for donations on its website.--Aayush18 (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has sources, and while the word "Jaina" is difficult to search (as noted above), a GNews search for "Federation of Jain Associations" yields several pages of promising results[10] such as [11][12][13]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a well known, prestigious, non-profit religious organization in USA. Its acronym "JAINA" is used in other contexts also (for example a variation of Jain), thus you will find unrelated items using a Google search also. However note that it is frequently mentioned in newspaper reports, a few of which are cited there. Note that all non-profit and religious organizations accept donations, from
Tirupati Temple. Malaiya (talk
)

The claim by
Jai Jagdish Hare (17 November 2005), Shardha Ram Phillauri, the author of Jai Jagdish Hare, and significantly contributed to Hatim al-Tai, among others. Malaiya (talk
)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:04, 19 January 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. Tone 18:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AssaultCube Reloaded

AssaultCube Reloaded (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 speedied as the game is allegedly breaching the original rights but non of the content was a copyvio and that interpretation for a speedy didn't gain traction at
Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Does not meet the GNG. I could not find any independent references for the game. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any references either. Jucchan (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, no reliable sources. Yet another of a zillion freeware games out there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only refs provided are download and developer's sites - no 3rd party reliable sources to establish notability; created by a now-banned SPA as likely spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spectacularly fails
WP:GNG, no third party sources evidencing notability. ukexpat (talk) 16:04, 21 January 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 The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Veridicanism

Veridicanism (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 religion appears to be non-notable. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources online. The little green pig (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to introduce the subject. Perhaps it's not ready yet for wikipedia. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not. The website for it has just started, there is no mention of it outside of online forums. I think it may be better to revisit this in a few years.
I understand if it must be deleted. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackspiritpubs (talk • contribs) 07:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding. There are many places to introduce or promote this (such as Facebook), but Wikipedia is not one of them. --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:GNG, and even the page author has admitted that it is not currently notable enough for inclusion. — sparklism ^hey! 13:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I nearly PRODed this yesterday at NPP but I got sidetracked with something else and when I came back today it was already at AFD. Recommend deletion based on the fact that it seems to be a
neologism with low notability and no widespread use. Basically fringe. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reading about "the online Church of the Veridican which started in January of 2013," I'm tempted to invoke
WP:MADEUP. This "religion" appears to consist of a single person, one Edward J. Gordon, and a few self-published books. --MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete no evidence of significant independent coverage - does not meet the requirements for notabiilty ---- _nonsense ferret 18:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the whole thing looks like a minor splinter group of Christianity, very probably with a single church. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not even a church - just a website. --MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete more like a splinter than a splinter group, since there doesn't appear to be a real group. Even then, it would need to have significant coverage in
Reliable Sources. First Light (talk) 19:41, 21 January 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. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Halo

Luna Halo (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 can't see any notability for the band, no major label, no hits, only an opening act for bigger groups. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. One album, Shimmer and three EPs on Sparrow, an EMI imprint. One EP on Warner Bros. One EP and a full album on a Columbia imprint. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Puzzling nomination. The band has releases on major labels, and there's already significant coverage cited/linked in the article (including a bio and 2 reviews at Allmusic), and there's plenty more out there, e.g. CMJ New Music Monthly, Orlando Sentinel, The Tennessean, The Tennessean. --Michig (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Chipper2Lews (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to meet
professional by WikiProject Albums), and the potential for more within the NewsLibrary.com database (articles in the Knoxville News Sentinel, Dayton Daily News, and The Patriot-News look the most promising) for those with access. Gong show 17:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets
WP:BAND through the amount of independent, reliable coverage already contained in the article and more found via a simple Google search. — sparklism ^hey! 10:29, 21 January 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
what's up) 15:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Cannabis withdrawal

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

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

Only cites 3 studies after 3 years as an article - questionable notability. petrarchan47 t c 07:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be merged back to Effects of cannabis, as it comprises only a small section? petrarchan47 t c 07:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge – 17
WP:MEDRS compliant review articles that mention "cannabis withdrawal" have been published so the subject is clearly notable. Boghog (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment – No objection to merger. Could be split out again as a seperate article if it is included as a diagnoses in DSM-5 which is due to be published sometime this year. Boghog (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Effects of cannabis, where it is at home. Pundit|utter 08:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Effects of cannabis per above. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 08:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above.TheLongTone (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge adequately sourced with no apparent notability issues. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 13:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. The three main references (Kouri, Budney 2003 & Budney 2001) are all primary sources and therefore unsuitable as references for a Wikipedia medical article. In PubMed, most of the journal articles describing cannabis withdrawal do so in the context of
cannabis dependence. However there are a couple of suitable sources listed. I shall try to improve the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: I'm wondering why Wikipedia has an article for Cannabis withdrawal and Cannabis addiction, when Heroin has neither related page, but is deadly and pervasive. Cannabis is less addicting than caffeine - are we perhaps missing a bigger picture here at Wikipedia? Could there be an issue of WP:UNDUE with regard to these articles? petrarchan47 t c 02:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see
Cannabis dependence"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, that is what I meant. petrarchan47 t c 21:27, 22 January 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. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Wright

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

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

Subject does not meet notability requirements and the BLP lacks references. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 03:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax: The bands mentioned aren't even influential! Mewtwowimmer (talk) 05:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without the statement, "bass player of the influential hardcore band", this article would definitely meet the criteria for speedy deletion. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 07:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find evidence that this person meets
WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gong show 17:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete not notable, cannot find significant independent coverage of the man or the bands. ---- _nonsense ferret 01:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged it for speedy deletion as a hoax. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:57, 21 January 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. Tone 18:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American slaughter

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

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

Subject of the article lacks notability and article is not referenced with reliable independent sources. A quick Google search also fails to verify or find any of the aforementioned elements and confirm the existence of the film, hence it's clearly non-notable. Speedy delete if applicable. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 02:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
neutral point of view, not a promotional perspective. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. It fails
WP:NFF. Majoreditor (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. There isn't even a single source out there to show that this is anything other than an unknown independent film. All I can really find are links to things obviously published by someone involved with the film going to various forums and talking about the movie. There are no RS out there and this is a fairly blatant attempt to use Wikipedia as a forum to promote the film. A note for admins: even the original editor's page is being used as a promotion for the film, as they've pasted most of this info on their user page.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 04:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per the above.
WP:USUAL applies, though - if the film does get made, does get distributed, and does end up meeting our criteria, then an article might be appropriate. Someday. Meanwhile, I'll have a look at the author. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per being far
TOO SOON. Casting has only just been announced,[14][15] and the thing does not have any coverage. Allow back ONLY when filming actually begins and it gets enough coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:30, 19 January 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. (
AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Lady Margaret Butler

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

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

This is basically genealogy-cruft, there is little here beyond genealogy, the only non-trivial mention of her seems to be in one historical novel, which does not confer notability. PatGallacher (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Minor but significant historical figure. Adequate secondary sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep I can see why, just based on this article, its notability was questioned. However, Lady Margaret Butler seems to have been regularly at court with the status of grandmother of the Queen. Her contemporaries would have considered her significant. Every biography on Anne Boleyn, Mary Boleyn, the six wives of Henry VIII or Elizabeth I - and that adds up to thousands of books - would have at least one or two paragraphs about Margaret. I will look through my books and see if I can improve the article. Boleyn (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on the article and Boleyn's comments, I think she's notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets
^✰ 14:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the coheiress of an earldom and the mother of another earl, she seems noptable enough to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 19 January 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. However I have no objection to userfying or incubating upon request.
✉ 00:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Retrospec

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

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

This is a tough one for me to call, because
notable enough to have an article, and a redirect would be problematic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:40, 11 January 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) 01:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 12 January 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with regret. Tough for me too. Interesting article, I'll be sorry to see it go. But googling news for "retrospec games" yielded just one possibly decent coverage of one of their games: http://www.gamershell.com/news_7728.html Not really enough. Ultimately an article about the group has to comply with
talk) 01:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Addendum: Perhaps
talk) 17:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The best sources I was able to find Googling were essentially game catalogs, such as those at GameSpy and IGN, but there was little about the Retrospec group itself. There are some in-depth articles on the Retrospec group archived at the Retrospec website, but I don't know enough about the gaming scene to know if PC Zone and Retro Gamer are considered reliable sources. Perhaps more knowledgeable editors could take a look? Mark viking (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the lack of significant independent coverage, I must conclude not notable ---- _nonsense ferret 01:20, 19 January 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. Tone 18:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Anwer Aleemi

Syed Anwer Aleemi (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 provides no reliable sources on the subject, and I am unable to find any through Google Books, News, or Scholar, despite the claims the article makes for his importance. It's possible there's another, more common spelling of his name, but I can't find it, nor can I turn up any references to his organization "Human Rights International" (there's an Italian NGO by this name, but he doesn't seem to be a part of it), or his book of poems "Flames of Thoughts". (I don't speak Urdu, though, so my searches were limited to English-only.) So I thought I'd put this article up for AfD trial by fire; I'd be happy if somebody can turn up some sources and fill this one out, but I wasn't able to do it myself. Khazar2 (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:22, 3 January 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 00:03, 11 January 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, Courcelles 00:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Delete for me - don't really see the coverage you'd expect to see for the chair of an international human rights think tank, or renowned poet. No significant independent coverage, not notable ---- _nonsense ferret 01:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Zia Khan 17:42, 19 January 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. (
AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Bedford & County Golf Club

Bedford & County Golf Club (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 club - the claims to notability are weak (6th in the country but not by a credible organisation). No evidence that a notable competition has been held here. Biker Biker (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies WP:GNG due to two independent sources included. It does not matter if notable competitions are held there or not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either Keep or merge with Clapham, Bedfordshire, where it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:24, 3 January 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 00:04, 11 January 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, Courcelles 00:59, 18 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GatherSpace

GatherSpace (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:CORPDEPTH--does not have in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. There are sources but most are press releases, blogs, or passing mentions. A Google News search did not turn up much more. Promotional article by now-blocked editor. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 2 January 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, JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:32, 3 January 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 00:05, 11 January 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, Courcelles 00:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - four re-lists? I'll bite. As the nominator suggests, many of the sources aren't really
notability. Quite a few of the sources seem to have been prompted by one particular announcement which doesn't really suggest "depth" to me - short term quantity over longer term quality. Another one of these, "what's the CORP version of BLP1E?", cases. Stalwart111 03:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - AfDs are not supposed to be relisted more than three times. Somebody needs to make a call. No opinion. Carrite (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. With that said, the second relist was only nine hours after the first relist. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Commercial spam. I would like to document the timeless prose, however: "GatherSpace is a California-based company that provides on-demand tools to manage customer requirements." Sounds like an exceptional enhancement of user-consumer recipient mechanisms. Shit, if you're gonna spam for yourself, at least make it coherent... Carrite (talk) 02:45, 25 January 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 to keep following relisting The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Small Industries Corporation

National Small Industries Corporation (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)

Multiple recreations, by it's own admission it has a main purpose to promote small businesses, Maybe I'm off base here but I believe that this might warrant coverage under the main government page but think that it fails gng for a standalone article.
talk) 00:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's the organisation that promotes small businesses, not our article about it. Notability is obvious from a quick scan of the Google Scholar and Books search results linked above.
Phil Bridger (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Notable organization under of Government of India.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:33, 4 January 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 00:10, 11 January 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, Courcelles 00:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: Notable Government organization. However article needs to be developed with additional citations and references. Bharathiya (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is well known Government of India established concern, which promotes small scale industries, add to stub category for improvement.Jethwarp (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have done major additions and improvement to the article.Jethwarp (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep: Of course it is notable. Good work Jethwarp! --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:46, 21 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hellowallet

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

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

This is a new article where the notability of the subject may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. On a News search on Google and Bing there are few hits, and the great majority of those are passing mentions. There are a huge number of references given in the article, but not much substance to many of them. I am not sure whether it should be deleted and am nominating it in order to get a consensus view. Please see the related article Matt Fellowes which comes from the same contributor and has the same issues. David_FLXD (Talk) 04:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC) David_FLXD (Talk) 04:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a new article; HelloWallet has had a wikipedia page for the past 2+ years. The references in the article come from independent, reliable sources and directly relate to HelloWallet as a company. While I do have a COI, I am open about it and believe I have made responsible edits that are unbiased, factual, and informative. I requested help from editors in IRC groups and consequently edited the article accordingly. ElisabethLesser (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, you are quite right, this is not a new article, dating from 14 July 2011. I did not look carefully enough, and was misled by all your contributions being to these two articles. David_FLXD (Talk) 04:29, 4 January 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user David seems suspicious to me. This page has been up for 2.5 years. Why the issue now? And, why is he misrepresenting the facts? There are "64,100" links to this organization in Google, not a "few." And, it has been up for a long time with no objection. Why is he suggesting it has not been? This is suspicious. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biography where you will find: "like a profile or curriculum vitae (résumé), a biography presents a subject's life story," This entry takes available data points and constructs a story, like hundreds of other company profiles. If David disagrees with that story, than he can suggest an alternative with other available data points. But, don't make up facts. That is suspicious. I see no reason for deletion. I just did a news search and see that this company is partially owned by Steve Case, and that it was just featured in the Wall Street Journal last Sunday. Although, I guess David's advice would be that biographers should ignore media coverage? I better tell my college history professor to change his curriculum. --ConcernedReader2 (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)— ConcernedReader2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

In answer to your question, "Why now?" I raised it because I looked at
notability. I would agree with you that the Wall Street article last Sunday is indicative of notability, but it is not enough to establish that by itself. As I stated in the introduction above, I felt that this article (and Matt Fellowes) were marginal on notability and nominated both in order to get a community consensus rather than just take a decision myself, which I could also have done. And speaking of misrepresenting the facts, how many months from mid-July 2011 to then end of December 2012? Would it be 17.5 months? How do you make that equal to 2.5 years? I will refrain from challenging your credentials, I don't believe I need to. David_FLXD (Talk) 10:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, you are right. It is 17 months and not 30 months. In any case, your argument is again suspicious. Notability is a subjective term, so it is in the eye of the beholder. But, when I think of lack of notability, I think of someone like you or me. I don't think of a company that seems to have been named by ABC News, one of the major US networks, as one of the 5 coolest US start-ups, or a company that seems to be frequently quoted in the top US papers in America. They also seem to have raised millions of dollars, including from one of America's most successful and wealthiest technology leaders, which by itself makes them one of the most notable US young companies. I also don't think of someone who seems to have won a Top 100 GameChanger from Huffington Post along with people like Steve Jobs, has testified in front of the U.S. Congress, and is cited by a US President and one of the most famous politicians in the 21st century. Seriously, you seem to have some kind of ulterior motive here. If you think that the facts have been misrepresented, edit them. But, don't make up facts to justify your points. It is highly suspicious. --ConcernedReader2 (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A) Unsubstantiated allegations against an editor of "being suspicious", and having an ulterior motive don't belong here. B) Such allegations by an editor with precisely 2 edits, against one with a 4-year history of editing a variety of articles are particularly implausible. If you want to help the case for keeping this article, stick to
policy based arguments. Mcewan (talk) 12:23, 12 January 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with
WP:CIVIL
) and on topic. The sources I found are

Harvard Business Review case study of HelloWallet This looks like a legitimate source from a reliable publisher, but I have only read the abstract, not the paywalled case study

a review at MyBankTracker.com

article at BusinessWeek

article at the Washington Post

another article at the Washington Post

OnWallStreet.com article Looks like a news article, but possibly a blog

article at the Washington Business Journal

All sources except (6) look like secondary in depth sources from reliable publishers. Sources (1) and (3) are of nationwide significance and you could argue that (4) and (5) are, too. There seem to multiple secondary reliable sources for this topic, which suggests that the topic is notable. The article could be made more neutral and the references list could be thinned to just the reliable sources, but these are matters of editing and don't suggest that deletion is needed here. Mark viking (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis Be

Genesis Be (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. Genesis Be fails
reliable sources to assert her notability. The references present in the article are either blogs, dead links, or don't mention the subject at all. — ξ ^xplicit 01:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Pyrajenn: I've removed or replaced dead links or links that do not mention subject at all. I've also deleted statements that may be deemed subjective or promoting the subject rather than have a neutral tone. Please review again and offer any other corrections that may need to be done in order to make the page valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrajenn (talk • contribs) 01:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:10, 3 January 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 00:13, 11 January 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, Courcelles 00:53, 18 January 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. Scottdale Inferno →
talk) 21:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC) 21:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Scottdale Inferno

Scottdale Inferno (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)

Short stubby article with no references that indicate notability
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

San Jose Pirates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect
San Jose Pirates to American Inline Hockey League#Teams. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:37, 3 January 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 00:15, 11 January 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, Courcelles 00:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both as The Bushranger suggested. This is a little too far down the food chain - coverage is virtually non-existent, and both articles are barren and unreferenced. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:40, 19 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alta Ventures Mexico

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Alta Ventures Mexico

Articles for deletion/Alta Ventures Mexico (2nd nomination)

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

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

Subject fails
WP:GNG Hu12 (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Passes
talk · contribs) no longer exists on Wikipedia and and has vanished.[reply
]
Its a Bloomberg press release re-post (common practice). Key is the wording "today announced..." and evidenced by the signature at the bottom "Contact: Alta Ventures Mexico, Justin Wright...". This is a primary source which is not independant and sources such as Press releases, rutine notices and announcements of mergers or sales of parts of the business all fail
WP:GNG.--Hu12 (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment- To quote the GNG " Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]". The WSJ article offers more than trivial coverage of this organization.
talk · contribs) no longer exists on Wikipedia and and has vanished.[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think any of the sources cited are sufficient to pass
WP:CORPDEPTH. Hut 8.5 17:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I !voted to delete on the first AFD, but even then the WSJ article and this one from Milenio provided enough of what is expected by the GNG to at least suspect that the subject could become notable, and I think that the addition of the Techcrunch article [16] is enough to push it over the line — Frankie (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CORPDEPTH is fairly clear that entries that;.."inclusion in lists of similar organizations" do not establish notability.--Hu12 (talk) 18:17, 10 January 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 00:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Milenio article is about Alta Ventures because they made it to the finals, not merely a list that just happens to include them, which could be the case for the finalists announcement itself. Also, it's not just a list: it may not be a major award but it isn't trivial either, and being a finalist carries a little weight. I could agree that it's not a
supersource
, but we can't just dismiss it simply because it fits a generic pattern. All these sources are independent, and Techcrunch and WSJ at least provide significant coverage; they allow us to see how the subject is becoming notable (in both the common sense and WP's sense of the word), and they also provide enough content so that no original research is required to build an article.

I was able to find some additional sources that provide significant coverage [17] [18] [19] [20] (although I'm on the fence on whether pulsosocial.com meets
WP:RS). Also note the many hits that reproduce or reference the $70MD fund announcement ("possibly the largest such VC fund in Mexico’s history" [21]), and the company and/or its founders get mentioned as relevant players in articles discussing VC initiatives in Latin America [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] — Frankie (talk) 01:48, 11 January 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, Courcelles 00:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These are only supposed to be relisted a maximum of 3 times, please make a call. No opinion. Carrite (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a delete for me - such coverage as there is doesn't seem significant in the context of encyclopedic notability. ---- _nonsense ferret 01:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-notable company. Werieth (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It appears that the Dow Jones article [27], Techcrunch article [28], both WSJ articles [29] [30], and three Gigaom articles [31] [32] with a mention here[33] provide enough significant coverage to meet the following guidelines of the GNG as follows, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." Additional notable news includes the IBM developerWorks interview[34] and main stream Mexico press[35] [36] mentioned above. Additional qualifying news articles from notable Mexico publications require a log in to access the articles. Alta Ventures has preserved these articles in PDF format on their website. The GNG says: "Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English." The following articles published in El Norte meet both of these requirements. The cover article in the business section of El Norte [37] alone should qualify as significant coverage. The other three articles mention Alta Ventures and its programs.[38][39][40] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.61.189 (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC) — 76.21.61.189 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

"Paul Ahlstrom" and his departure from VSpring, and incidental mentions are not significant and fail both
WP:GNG.--Hu12 (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I feel that this is a case of
WP:CORPDEPTH. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The organization is in a new VC industry and has in a short amount of time made significant achievements and received sufficient notable coverage to merit creating and sustaining a page. The company coverage both from US and Mexico sources gives it
WP:TOOSOON requirements do not state that a company be establish for any length of time only that topics and sources exist. I see no current mention of press releases on the company page only independent articles from CNN, IBM, Forbes, TechCrunch, Gigaom and DowJones and Mexico press which collectively meet and satisfy the requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.199.242.186 (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC) — 63.199.242.186 (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 no consensus. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Management of Sri Lanka

Institute of Management of Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

no assertion of notability. needs sources as fails
WP:ORG Widefox; talk 21:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I am not very fond of all local schools and colleges of South Asia finding its way into Wikipedia (see my tagging of some Pakistani colleges), but this institution seems to be a national body established by a legislative act of Sri Lankan parliament (text here: [41] and here: [42]). Its claims to international affiliations seems true as seen e.g. here: [43]. It has been mentioned in Sri Lankan press (e.g., [44], and membership of the Institute finds its way onto CVs of senior management: [45]. If insufficiently sourced, relevant tags need to be added. kashmiri 16:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I did substantial copyedit, now the article should look cleaner, albeit not perfect. kashmiri 11:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[46] appears to be a press release, so not independent (no author is claimed, no guarantee of editorial control), so doesn't count as a
WP:ORG. I doubt issues such as being a national body are relevant for notability. Widefox; talk 09:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 5 January 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, -- Cheers,
ey 00:16, 11 January 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, Courcelles 00:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a national professional body of some notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are national professional bodies intrinsically notable? (I only know about secondary schools). There's no secondary source still for meeting
WP:ORG. Widefox; talk 15:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Not intrinsically notable, no. Depends what they are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
..then if we rely on coverage in secondary sources per
WP:ORG right? Where are they? Widefox; talk 18:17, 25 January 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 Sunil Kumar Verma. MBisanz ^talk 17:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wo desh ki beti

Wo desh ki beti (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 poem written by a scientist who, although marginally notable, is not noted as a poet. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Possible merge and redirect - Detailed searches through Google News provided nothing so the poem probably never received any attention and if it did, the sources may not be English. I'm willing to perform the merge if other users agree. SwisterTwister talk 20:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A merge based on what sources? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 5 January 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) 00:14, 11 January 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, Courcelles 00:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NOTTRIBUTE probably applies. Non-notable newly authored poem about a tragic criminal event. Carrite (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (no redirect) with
WP:SPA.—Baldy Bill (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I disagree with the Merge option: if
Neil Degrasse Tyson had written a letter to the editor protesting gun violence in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, we would probably not note such an event in his article. Even though both Tyson and the shooting are notable, the fact that he chose to speak up on this issue that is outside his normal area of expertise is not a notable event. The same logic applies here -- a somewhat notable scientist has reacted to a somewhat notable event by writing a completely non-notable tribute poem. So what? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Also: If merged, a redirect is required by Wikipedia's attribution policy, as otherwise the merged content becomes
WP:COPYVIO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:55, 26 January 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
Davis Langdon & Seah . MBisanz ^talk 17:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Langdon & Seah

Langdon & Seah (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)

Run of the mill company and spamish. Also, Wikipedia is not a business directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep They seem a significant international company; the article is indeed spammish, but I just removed most of the improper material. I wouldn't have bothered if had not been so easy. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the significant coverage about the company. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:47, 10 January 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, -- Cheers,
ey 00:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and redirect to
Davis Langdon & Seah (check the history section of both). If needed, I can help in merging. However, need a link which states that these are exactly same.--GDibyendu (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Here is the link from Reuters report that states that Davis Langdon & Seah has been renamed to Langdon & Seah. So,
Davis Langdon & Seah should be merged into this, as current name is Langdon & Seah.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I think
Davis Langdon & Seah should be deleted at well. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:42, 15 January 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, Courcelles 00:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge here. They're a company with a 79 year history in various guises[47], and there's press coverage in English[48][49][50][51] but since their business has been done in S and E Asia since the 1930s, much coverage will be either in other languages or in non-internet sources. The corporate history is a little confusing, but they now seem to be separate from
Arcadis UK). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scoring the Deal

Scoring the Deal (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 TV series - yet to screen. No independent sources in article and g search only shows press release type hits. NtheP (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Independant of HGTV: ESPN episode preview: http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/trending/post/_/id/12496/scoring-the-deal-finds-homes-for-athletes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiffany1gr (talk • contribs) 21:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 5 January 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, -- Cheers,
ey 00:17, 11 January 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, Courcelles 00:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/realestate/all-eyes-on-the-ball-not-the-condos.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.200.224.201 (talk) 17:27, 18 January 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 Scoring the Deal. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Abrams Team

The Abrams 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)

Non-notable company which seems to be pinning notability on association with a new reality TV show (that hasn't yet) screened. Only references are not independent and there do not appear any reliable sources about the company. NtheP (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notable and reliable sources on The Abrams Team and its association with the reality show "Scoring the Deal" https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1g-WTa06xbcTDRsTms3aFp3QTg/edit http://therealdeal.com/blog/2013/01/02/celebrity-broker-discusses-sport-y-role-on-new-hgtv-show-video/ https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1g-WTa06xbcRUFabWNXZ3NhWDQ/edit http://news.yahoo.com/hgtvs-scoring-deal-cape-cods-priciest-properties-220000090.html http://therealdeal.com/blog/2013/01/02/celebrity-broker-discusses-sport-y-role-on-new-hgtv-show-video/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiffany1gr (talk • contribs) 21:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 5 January 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, -- Cheers,
ey 00:18, 11 January 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, Courcelles 00:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/realestate/all-eyes-on-the-ball-not-the-condos.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.200.224.201 (talk) 17:26, 18 January 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) 12:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
talk) 19:00, 25 January 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderboss

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

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

Seems to fail
WP:CORP. I can find no mention of this company in the usual places (Google News, Scholar, &c.), and the article itself makes no real claim to notability. Even the company's own web site has disappeared. Alexrexpvt (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 5 January 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, -- Cheers,
ey 00:19, 11 January 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, Courcelles 00:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to establish notability. -—Kvng 20:58, 20 January 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. (
AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Owl City concert tours

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Owl City concert tours

Articles for deletion/Owl City concert tours (2nd nomination)

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

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

Per
reliable sources. A long indiscriminate list of concert tour dates is not necessary or notable. Its not even navigationally accessible. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. These tours have recieved significant coverage in reliable sources. There were several sources noted in the first AfD and a quick Google search found these: Variety, Cave, The Pitch, The Guardian, LA Times, The Columbus Disptach, Chicago Tribune, Dallas News. I would imagine most if not all of these shows were reviewed in reliable sources. The article should be improved beyond a simple list using the available sources. --Michig (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the nominator removed a large section of the article including the reflist & half the references see here whilst given a misleading edit summary. I have since reverted. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
andley ^{(what's up)} 18:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep It satisfies policy as a navigational index. -
Talkback) 20:54, 3 January 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 00:19, 11 January 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, Courcelles 00:42, 18 January 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linak

Linak (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. Appears to be a minor manufacturing company at most, with the usual handful of self-published press releases. Might be savable, but it's not making a good case for notability as yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I contested the prod, which was placed by someone mass-tagging Brazilian company articles as spam. Notability doesn't appear to have been a concern of the prodder, whose rationale both times (it was re-prodded after I removed it) was based on calling it advertising. Nyttend (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:37, 4 January 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, -- Cheers,
ey 00:21, 11 January 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, Courcelles 00:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spammy and unsourced piece that should have been PRODded away... Carrite (talk) 06:15, 18 January 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. Tone 17:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fulham Davies

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

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

Delete - Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidlines.Does not cite sufficient and verifiable references.--Ntmg (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. The only sources cited in the article are a local newspaper obituary, another local newspaper article, and the Social Security Death Index. He sounds like an exemplary citizen, but nothing in the article suggests the kind of individual distinction that qualifies for
WP:BIO. I can't find anything else online. --Orlady (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:00, 4 January 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 00:22, 11 January 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, Courcelles 00:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Sounds like this fellow was an outstanding individual who was loved and respected by family and friends and led a full life, but we are not Ancestry.com Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - It could be because of age but Google News searches including the alias "Ki", the documentary film and companies (Merrill Lynch and Fenner and Beane) did not provide anything useful. However, a Google Books provided two results (Security dealers of North America and Investor's reader) but they seem to be directories. Although obituaries are often excellent sources for details about a person's life, this article reads too much like a personal biography. SwisterTwister talk 07:50, 24 January 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 Fijit Friends. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fijit Yippets

Fijit Yippets (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 toy. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:GNG Seasider91 (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Fijit Friends Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 5 January 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) 00:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as above, not notable enough for own article.TheLongTone (talk) 09:41, 11 January 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, Courcelles 00:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect into Fijit Friends; not seeing enough coverage to warrant a separate article at this time. Gong show 17:43, 18 January 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 Fijit Friends. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fijit Newbies

Fijit Newbies (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 toy. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:GNG Seasider91 (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Fijit Friends Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 5 January 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) 00:25, 11 January 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, Courcelles 00:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect into Fijit Friends; not seeing enough coverage to warrant a separate article at this time. Gong show 17:43, 18 January 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 Nicolas Cage#Relationships and family. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weston Coppola Cage

Weston Coppola Cage (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 son of Nicholas Cage. Appeared in two films in extremely minor roles, and "co-created" (aka lent his name to) a comic book with his father (The Cages were neither the writers nor artists). He has also been arrested. Not
Wikipedical (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Not quite yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:08, 4 January 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, -- Cheers,
ey 00:26, 11 January 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, Courcelles 00:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to father as non-notable. He's not done anything very significant and all coverage seems to lean heavily on his father. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:21, 18 January 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. Keep and protect stub during ongoing content/merge discussions j⚛e decker ^talk 18:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroepistemology

Neuroepistemology (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 looks like a verbatim copy of somebody's thesis. It's impermissible
neologism. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep The page has 148 references which utterly refute the idea that the topic is original. See
WP:SK: "nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question". Warden (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep the stub A neologism it is not; the term is used in the book Philosophy of the Brain: The Brain Problem, in the title of a book Neuroepistemology: What the Neurons Knowledge Tries to Tell Us, and in the title of an article Neuro-epistemology: a post-modernist analysis of the neuro-sciences.The topic has been researched by
WP:NOTFORCLEANUP for details). The article thus should be kept. Update: Given Warden's stub with two solid references, I have clarified my vote to keeping the new stub. Mark viking (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Author has now created the related article
Neuronal Epistemology, which looks less like an original thesis. Any thoughts as to which of these to keep, or how to combine them? NawlinWiki (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The
Neuronal Epistemology article is superior, mostly because it is shorter and thus contains less original research. Both the original article and the new article have serious problems. Both have original research in the form of synthesizing many very different and wide ranging references, with no indication of secondary references that back up the synthesis. My "keep" was because the topic itself is notable. Mark viking (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What this needs is some work and guidance for the author(s), not deletion. I find it hard that someone would consider that OR. Even if this is off someone's thesis, it's still obviously notable and it's a topic we did not cover until now. It just needs to not look like someone's thesis. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Excuse me for shouting, but the comments above are uninformed. Those 148 references are a combination of things that are unrelated to the article and things that are self-published. The article on
Neuronal Epistemology is just as much OR as this one, and so are some other articles the same author has created. The term neuroepistemology is legitimate and could perhaps serve as the topic of an article, but a proper article would have zero overlap with the article as it currently exists. All of the material in the existing article is OR. In my view we should not keep an article merely because the topic is legitimate -- there has to be at least a minimum of usable text. Looie496 (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I'm not much the shouting type, but I agree completely with Looie496. Yes, this is a notable subject. However, this article is so bad and flawed that I think it is irredeemable. It should be deleted so that somebody else can create an article about this subject. Revising the current text is, IMHO, not an option. --Randykitty (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just had a look at
Pragmatic naturalism by the same editor and noted links to Barnes and Nobles and Amazon for the same book. This article has those links, too, but also adds another book seller. Sure enough, the Pragmatic naturalism article turns out to be a copyvio of that book. I'll have a look and see whether this article is a copyvio, too. --Randykitty (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
PS:I'm pretty much convinced that this is a compilation of phrases found in the book linked above, but as most of the contents are hidden, I have no way of verifying this. --Randykitty (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep -- or split and rename - It does not look too hopeful as is. Perhaps some of the content can be salvaged. I think a better article would be titled "Epistemology of mind". That is where we should be looking for google, and scholar hits, content and sources. Greg Bard (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, I'm changing my vote.Greg Bard (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be a little careful here, as there are similarly named but quite different topics in this field of philosophy. Epistemology of the brain concerns what is knowable about the brain, or nervous system in general. Neuroepistemology is about the effects and constraints of using a neural system on epistemology itself; just as philosophers consider language as constraining our ability to reason and to know, they consider brains to do the same. Epistemology of mind is yet a third topic, as many philosophers consider the mind and the brain as separate entities. Mark viking (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: A Google Books search demonstrates that the topic itself is notable and discussed in
WP:RS. One solution may be to turn the article into a WP:Stub, possibly supplemented by whatever bits from the present article that editorial consensus deems salvageable. That would provide a fresh basis on which future editors could build the article. --Mike Agricola (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep: I think that this article is salvageable, and isn't nearly as horrible as some seem to think. I agree with the sentiment that what it requires is cleanup, not deletion. However, if it is indeed
a copyright violation, then I would say to delete it. Bensci54 (talk) 07:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete ~~or stubify~~, then start over from scratch. ~~I don't see a problem with Wikipedia having an article on this subject,~~ but the existing content is really so bad that the only option is to start over from scratch. I don't think any of the existing content can be salvaged. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Uncle G makes a compelling argument, directly below, and that makes me change my mind to "delete" only (not stubify). I'm no longer so sure that there wouldn't be a problem with having an article on the subject. It may well be that there's no good way to get anything encyclopedic out of this, but I think that the
WP:BURDEN will be on whomever wants to start such a page from scratch. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
OK to keep the stub, per below. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's correct that there is indeed a topic that is known as neuroepistemology. It has been redlinked on
Solar system that states that it's all a giant Plutonium atom. What this article and its fellows are are a regurgitation of the theories of one Yuri Zambrano from Mexico. Colonel Warden waves the 148 references around and talks of reading the article. Reading the article shows that the stuff that is best sourced is stuff that isn't advancing the central tenets of the content. Whereas the thesis propounded by the article is sourced to Zambrano, who isn't published anywhere except via Lulu; via a publishing company in Baltimore that I have never heard of, cannot find any evidence of the existence of, and seems in any case to have only ever published one book; and a poster presentation at IBRO 2011. Published peer-reviewed scholarship that is acknowledged in the field, this is not. Uncle G (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The article doesn't seem to have a single clear thesis. It seems to be more of a survey of the field and so has a rambling character, as others have noted. The thesis of the nomination is that neuroepistemology is a neologism and the concept is original. That is not correct and so we should not delete on this ground. The article certainly needs work to prune and improve it but that's just ordinary editing. There's plenty in there which we can build upon, such as the work of the Churchlands. I have an ebook copy of Patricia Churchland's Brain-Wise: Studies in Neurophilosophy now and thought I might have a go at rewriting the article. But when I realised that we already had a long article on neurophilosophy, I decided to wait and see how this discussion turned out. Warden (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main issue here is less whether this concept is notable than whether this text can be edited. Most sentences seem to be devoid of any meaning: "To carry in your pocket: Neuroepistemology is the timing when the episteme meets the neurons knowledge". Really? Do neurons have knowledge? "Timing"? "Neuroepistemology must be undertaken as a subject for scrutinizing neural performances and their mental events"? If I were to have a go at this, I would delete everything after "Neuroepistemology" and continue from there... --Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the relevant part of Churchland's book, she characterises the issue as "how meat knows", which seems to be a pithier statement of a similar kind. It seems that the author of this current draft was not especially fluent in English so the prose is quite stilted. Per
WP:IMPERFECT, we should make some allowance for this and consider the potential of the topic, not just its current state. Warden (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm quite happy to consider the potential of the topic, and I'm very receptive to a page based in part on Churchland's thinking. But I've come to the conclusion that the only practical way to create such a page is to blank the existing one and start over from scratch. Thus, the only way that I can envision a "keep" would be by keeping a blank page, in which case it makes better sense to delete and start over from scratch. I certainly would not want to
WP:SALT the page title. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - the resident philosophy teacher next to me says "I don't know". I think he's trying to make a joke. It's certainly a known concept - whether it's notable is debatable. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, you can be my Wiki-Zen Master any time! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G1. Rambling ill-written article of little discernible sense. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comment There seems to be a growing consensus that the topic is notable, but there may be little or nothing worth keeping of the current article. In this case, perhaps
WP:POTENTIAL applies. That essay recommends creating a stub over outright deletion--perhaps stubifying the article would be a compromise both the keepers and deleters could live with? Mark viking (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Perhaps, if the stub were to be written de novo. I can't see my way to picking out a bit of the existing text for the stub. If you can create a text for the new stub, I might support that, but otherwise I think we'd be looking at "keeping" a blank page rather than a stub. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have created such a stub. This is fairly trivial work which in no way requires deletion. Deletion is disruptive in such a case because it removes the edit history which may be helpful to future editors. It would also be contrary to our licensing policy which requires maintenance of an edit history as proper recognition of our contributors. Warden (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I now have no objection if we keep the stub. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The stub looks good to me--thanks Warden. I've changed my vote above to 'keep the stub'. Mark viking (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there are now closely related discussions at Talk:Neuroepistemology#Merger proposal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protein episteme, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deconstructive pragmatism. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Colonel Warden's new stub per
WP:HEY, with this discussion as consensus against any attempts to revert to the previous version (as has already happened several times). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 17 January 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, JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stubified Version and Protect - Keep the stubified version and protect it against non-registered editors for a reasonable time. PianoDan (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: my revised opinion is now to keep the stubified version. But, as noted, we are having a problem with one editor repeatedly reverting the stubification, and that is unacceptable. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:09, 18 January 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 Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar . MBisanz ^talk 17:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shabda Cayanika

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

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

Seems to fail the
GNG; lacking substantial coverage by independent sources. bobrayner (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Like many articles in the Sarkarverse, it appears to have lots of citations and footnotes and so on; but the only real source is the book itself. bobrayner (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge with the article on the author. It is possible there is critical material on this from outside the movement, but I cannot find it. At present, there's nothing said here beyond what would fit there as a footnote or entry in a bibliographic list, because this is a collection of writings. (I'd suggest that might be the way to handle some of the other books listedin the Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar navbox. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to reconsider my !vote. Rather, I confirm it. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article creator's comment: I will try to insert more secondary sources on it to show its aderence to the WP notability criteria. DGG: who asked you to reconsider your vote on this AfD? I had a look at your talk page but I didn't find anything. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did. bobrayner (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to give a closer look at the title of the talk section (it's not referred to this AdF). I never asked to reconsider the vote to DGG! You're completely wrong.--Cornelius383 (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge this infomercial. History2007 (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article creator's comment: Just added more sources to the article. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Good grief! There are 26 volumes in this original series of books! Certainly, the vast amount of material alone establishes some sort of presumption of notability. The series begins with the letter A and proceeds onwards in great depth through the Bengali language. While the overall topic is philology, the way in which this normally dry topic is presented brings the subject to life by touching on just about anything and everything. Unfortunately, I do not have the details - might take a while - but I have heard that this series of books is part of the curriculum on philology at one or more universities in Bangladesh. It might also be part of the studies at the college in Ananda Nagar. --
Abhidevananda (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Lots of things are in alphabetical order. However, not every alphabetised pile of text is
notable. bobrayner (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or merge to
Location (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge. Re-create if there are multiple independent sources indicating that it meets notability for books. Can I just also note that works by Inayatullah would generally be RS for articles on Sarkar. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete The only book references to this that I could find were two very minor treatises, one a very confused bit of cosmological nonsense and the other a tract against wife beating by someone whom I gather is associated with Sarkar's movements. Mangoe (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to
^«৳alk» 21:42, 16 January 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, JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's note: This book is a part of the vast literary heritage of Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and it's one of the various articles related with Sarkar, that I recentely wrote on WP and that have been proposed for deletion by BobRainer. Have we to prefer an encyclopaedia representing the various aspects of human knowledge or have we to continuosly propose for deletion all that we don't like/agree? It's very easy to delete an article but it's more difficoult to build one, or constructively help to support/expand/improve it. As a relatively recent editor I ask me: is it more useful to see in WP some experienced editors (strengthened by their advanced procedural knowledge and by a discrete logistical support of a few others) engaged almost exclusively in the easy work of deletion rather than in the more difficoult task of articles' creation and improvement? I hope you all will understand if I express here my strong complaint but I don't really even know where to write it.--Cornelius383 (talk) 08:59, 26 January 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 Acronym#Pseudo-acronyms. History retained so that someone can create a properly-sourced article out of this, because it's obviously a real concept, even if at the moment it's sources are dubious. Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan initialism

Orphan initialism (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 whole article stands on one single blog entry. Both
WP:N apply. There, I have an account (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete too neo, too soon to be a notable, nay significant term. Consign to the WPB of history. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep supported by a second SME source now. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt that about.com is a
reliable source? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

That article is written by a "professor emeritus of rhetoric and English at Armstrong Atlantic State University and the author of two grammar and composition textbooks for college freshmen"[63] so that sounds fairly reliable. (
WP:RS allows academics writing self-published sources on the area of their expertise.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, only one of the reliable sources uses the term: another cite on the topic [64] seems not to use the term at all. Curiously, there is a Category:Orphan Initialism which seems to be older than the article. TLT, whoops I mean TheLongTone (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Editors should also see
Orphan initialism; it's lead section even mentioned the latter term as a variant of the same phenomenon. Cnilep (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While I have never been happy with the fact that the list of examples far, far outweighs the description of the concept, that is a matter for clean-up. The fact is that at least two of the cited sources, Slate and the Washington Post, are presumed-reliable "old media" sources describing the phenomenon, and About.com plus two blogs provide more depth (as well as the label "orphan–" or "orphaned initialism"). Note, too, that Arnold Zwicky, the blogger alluded to in the nomination, is a noted linguist credited with coining similar terms for language phenomena (e.g. Recency illusion; "Extrais", one of several competing terms for Double copula). Cnilep (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Although, so far as I can see, neither Slate nor Washington Post mention the phrase "Orphan Initialism", correct? 219.79.90.11 (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct; they do not use the phrase but do describe the phenomenon. I believe this is in the spirit of Wikipedia policy as described at WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Major differences. Cnilep (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the term itself is the topic of the WP article and the term is not referenced. Thus the term itself is not yet notable, perhaps will never be notable. Wikipedia may not be used to enhance or create notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point that Cnilep is making is that even though those two articles don't cite the actual phrase, they count as reliable sources towards the notability of the *concept*, as opposed to the notability of the phrase itself. This is relevant in light of the policy Cnilep linked, which is a fair point, but frankly I don't think it's enough to save this article. 219.79.90.11 (talk) 10:05, 16 January 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, JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Cnilep on the notability of concept. See further interest here. There's enough interest in the topic to make it into the title of a rap album. M Pinck (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A random post on a forum and a rapper of dubious notability? Seriously? Very interesting how someone in that thread offered a link to the "Inevitable Wikipedia list of what they call 'orphan initialisms.'" (bold mine). By the way, if we must keep this article, I propose we change its title to "Orphan acronym", in light of recent consensus at Acronym.
Also please note that if this article disappears, the concept will still have sufficient coverage in a subsection of the Acronym article. (Interestingly, said section is entitled "pseudo-acronym", not "orphan initialism".) 220.246.157.1 (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The concept (under multiple names) is covered in the brand and marketing literature as well as elsewhere. See for instance [65], [66], [67], [68], [69] and [70]. M Pinck (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll have to agree on the meaning of "coverage" of a concept. Please do integrate any relevant refs into the article. I would do it myself but I am not sure what the links you offer support. Please note that we are not debating whether the phenomenon exists or not, but whether it deserves its own Wikipedia article, when a section in Acronym would do. 220.246.157.1 (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, this article is being proposed for deletion for not being notable. From what I read from the notability page, "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The references listed, along with the references in the article itself, particularly the Slate article ([71]) seem to fulfill the criteria. M Pinck (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Slate article, yeah, we discussed that above. I was talking about your links. "SOAP, now an empty acronym, used to be the Simple Object Access Protocol, and sometimes is expanded as Service-Oriented Access Protocol". Is this an example of what you consider "significant coverage"? Also I cannot see anything relevant in some other links you offer ([72] [73]), sorry if I missed it. 220.246.157.1 (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mikindani Center of HOPE

Mikindani Center of HOPE (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
WP:verifiable sources. No GNews hits for either Mikindani Center of Hope or Hope Worldwide Kenya. 3 GBook hits, all sourced by Wikipedia (either Wikipedia Books LLC or VDM), no GHits of reliable sources. Article was tagged as dead end in 2010, no significant editing since. GregJackP Boomer! 01:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 4 January 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, -- Cheers,
ey 00:26, 11 January 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, Courcelles 00:34, 18 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suad Hota

Suad Hota (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 about an amateur race driver. Article states that he is a three times National Champion in
WP:NSPORTS? Researches don't give him enough hits for meeting GNG. This is a Wiedergänger, deleted per CSD in November. Ben Ben (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:01, 5 January 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, -- Cheers,
ey 00:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Doesn't meet
WP:NSPORTS in my opinion. I can't find any information on the series he's supposed to be a three time champion of. It would appear the significance of this article is limited to Bosnia. If you Google him the best I can find are a bunch of links to YouTube and another article claiming he holds a "track record." The track isn't signigant either though by Wikipedia standards. I say the article should be deleted. Sabre ball^{t c} 13:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The significance of lots of things may be limited to a certain area, but notability is notability.
WP:ITSLOCAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment If this article is kept, two things have to be cleared:

The article currently uses an infobox that is designed for Formula One drivers. This causes links directing onto pages that are F1-related but lack any relation to Bosnian hill climbing championship.

What is Bosnian hill climbing championship in general and what is this category H15/E1+2000? What are the rules and how many competitors are participating there? To me this category name sounds very specific. Maybe he is so successful because he is the only competitor. ;) 217.227.119.114 (talk) 20:28, 14 January 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, Courcelles 00:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This driver may be notable, as a multiple-time champion - it depends on if the H15/E1+2000 category is fully professional or not, in which case he'd meet
verifiability is an issue here; I can't find anything to prove or disprove notability, and with the overall lack of sources, 'default to keep' founders on V. So probably deleting is necessary now, but without prejudice to recreation if Bosnian sources can be found later. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:50, 26 January 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
The E.N.D. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The E.N.D. Summer 2010 Canadian Invasion Tour: Remix Collection

The E.N.D. Summer 2010 Canadian Invasion Tour: Remix Collection (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 release by The Black Eyed Peas.
WP:HAMMER... very little information beyond a track listing. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:47, 4 January 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, -- Cheers,
ey 00:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

DELETE. - Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability guidlines. Does not cite sufficient and verifiable references Colinwhitehouse (talk) 12:01, 12 January 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, Courcelles 00:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with
The E.N.D (album). — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:29, 20 January 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Bullnese

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

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

Delete Non-notable type of dog; the only secondary references I could find are in this gigantic list of mutt portmanteaus and a brief entry in this book. Google Scholar doesn't turn up any results. Most of the google results are directly related to Bullnese breeders or are on sites that probably scraped the name from Wikipedia. TKK ^{bark !} 19:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete My opinion would be that the secondary, published reference under 30 American Dog Breeds in this book would apply to notability and secondary source independent of the author or breeder. The appearance in a list present in another book would serve as a tertiary reference, albeit small, in another independent, published source. There are also multiple web references independent of breeders or web scrapers. These include the CKC registry, pethealthandcare.com, and dogster.com. A quick reading of the articles on those websites would exclude them from being simple site-scrapers. -On a side note, I was born and raised in Maine in the Bath/Brunswick area. Beautiful area up there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibbyJax (talk • contribs) 19:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC) — LibbyJax (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, fails
SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Do Not Delete On further review of the previous book source, another mention of the American Bullnese as the #2 dog out of 34 for couch potatoes along with the previous reference as one of 30 American dog breeds should contribute to the notability requirements. -On a side note, I do not feel the SPA tag applies. I am a first-time editor trying to publish an informative and neutral article about a dog breed I am passionate about. Since the beginning, I've felt marginalized by long-time editors or moderators and this entire process has left a bad enough taste in my mouth to discourage future contributions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LibbyJax (talk • contribs) 21:51, 4 January 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 00:27, 11 January 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, Courcelles 00:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per LibbyJax. Article looks good enough. Chipper2Lews (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The book cited as a secondary source above was written/published by authors without any notable dog expertise. Specifically, Sandra Choron appears to be a publisher of books of lists ^{List of Dog Breeds discussion page - perhaps there should be a separate page for Breeds In Development, which could also include the Labradoodle/Australian Labradoodle which also has official breed clubs a dedicated base of breeders working towards a breed standard. Opendestiny (talk) 20:03, 24 January 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 R. Stevie Moore discography. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invites Comparison

Invites Comparison (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 musical recording. Fails
t • c) 09:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect To
WP:NALBUMS fails me here a bit. This is a release by what can be considered a notable 'indie' artist, and it did not chart, but out of thousands of album articles on here, this one actually has an honest to god review from a reliable source. Still, the notability would be borderline at best, and there is no information here (other than the review link) that couldn't be added to the discography article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 5 January 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, -- Cheers,
ey 00:30, 11 January 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, Courcelles 00:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
talk) 15:56, 21 January 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
The Beginning (The Black Eyed Peas album). (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Light Up the Night (song)

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

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

Per
reliable sources. This has not received extensive coverage and the subject of it being released as part of an iTunes countdown is already covered on the album's page — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:NSONGS suggests for non-notable songs. Peaking at #99 on one chart, along with passing mentions of the song within reviews of the album, are not enough to warrant a separate article. Gong show 22:30, 4 January 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, -- Cheers,
ey 00:32, 11 January 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, Courcelles 00:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
The Beginning (The Black Eyed Peas album). — Statυs (talk, contribs) 13:47, 20 January 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. Tone 18:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Korea K-Pop Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2011

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Korea K-Pop Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2011

Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Korea K-Pop Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2011 (2nd nomination)

List of Billboard Korea K-Pop Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2011 (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)

List of Billboard Korea K-Pop Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Billboard Korea K-Pop Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All the information contained in these type of lists seems to fall under
List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (Korea) and the like as well, but there is both significance for and much more interest in songs which reached number one and coverage beyond the chart provider is not difficult to find. A top 10 seems a bit more arbritary (it could be top 20, top 40, or why not the entire hot 100). Lists of number twos have been deleted in the past, so why do we need entire top 10s. This also isn't even the main national chart in Korea, so this sets up top 10 for any and all published charts. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:01, 4 January 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, -- Cheers,
ey 00:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, indiscriminate info with arbitrary cutoff. Ten Pound Hammer • ⁽What did I screw up now?) 07:29, 11 January 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, Courcelles 00:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as nominated. Why this survived the first AFD is beyond me... — ξ ^xplicit 01:34, 20 January 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Safir English Language Academy

Safir English Language Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There aren't any reliable sources listed in the article, and I can't find any online, so I don't think the subject passes
WP:CORP. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments (no opinion yet, but the following may help in finding information):

The academy's usual name seem to be the "Safir Language Academy" (as it should be: they claim to teach other languages as well).

The name in Persian is موسسه سفير گفتمان

Their website is gosafir.com.

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

הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 23:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Not a single independent-looking reference, besides for uncounted directory listings. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Modified to neutral: I missed all the sources In fact found, but I await more input on whether any of these sources imply adequate notability. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 06:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an article about Safir English Language Academy pubilshed in Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. In fact 05:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is another link In fact 05:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the Cambridge ESOL exam centres in Iran. In fact 05:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The First International TESOL Persia Conference was held by Safir English Language Academy. In fact 05:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi In fact, and thanks for finding all these sources. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like we can use any of them to prove the notability of the school. The first two links you give point to the same paper, English Language Teachers’ Perceptions of Educational Supervision in Relation to Their Professional Development: A Case Study of Iran. If you look at the biographical details of the authors at the end, you can see that one of the authors is also a teacher at the school. This means that the paper is not independent of the school itself, and we require sources to be independent to show notability. The third and fourth links you posted are directory listings, and do not consist of significant coverage of the school, another thing which is required in order to prove notability. There is more information on what kind of sources we need to see at
WP:42. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mr. Stradivarius for the clarification. That case study has two authors. The main author has no relation with the Safir Academy. In fact 08:15, 1 January 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) 00:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources have been identified that are sufficient to meet
talk) 02:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi TerriersFan. I didn't think that the sources listed so far in this debate were enough to pass
WP:ORG slightly differently? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Per In fact links. ●Mehran ^Debate● 12:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Mehran. Sorry if this sounds a bit rude, but did you actually look at In fact's links? These two links[74][75] don't have significant coverage of the school, and these two links[76][77] point to the same study, jointly written by one of the teachers at the school, and are therefore not independent of the article's subject. In my understanding, none of these links are able to count towards
WP:GNG. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi Mr. Stradivarius, I call this independent, whether it has been written by one of the teachers at the school, it's independent because it has been published by an independent and notable university. You're right that it seems not to be notable, but regards to
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and also the significance of the school which has been mentioned here, overall I believe it could be notable. Sincerely ●Mehran ^Debate● 18:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
You're right that
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, but that usually applies to high schools and universities. As far as I can tell, Safir English Academy is a private language school that operates for profit, and we usually treat these kinds of schools as companies or organizations, with no automatic assumption of notability. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I didn't see the sentence "usually applies to high schools and universities" in
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Adversely it has been written in the first line that "... schools and other education institutions ..." and also regards to Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.. And Safir is an independently accredited degree-awarding institution which has been mentioned in several independent sources. ●Mehran ^Debate● 15:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Hmm, I didn't see any mention anywhere of them awarding degrees. If you mean
Cambridge ESOL, that's not a degree, but a certificate of English proficiency. Maybe you are talking about another qualification they award that I didn't spot? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
But this is adequate for keeping the article in my opinion. ●Mehran ^Debate● 20:20, 8 January 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 00:59, 11 January 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, Courcelles 00:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of independent sources discussing the school.
talk) 09:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Sorry, as a deletion argument that is invalid. ~~Experience shows that with enough local research high schools invariably can be made to meet~~
~~talk) 21:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply
]
Comment What do your comments about high schools have to do with this article? It's not a high school. And your argument seems to be "surely we can find some sources to show notability some time in the future, so we won't delete this argument." No, if we can't find sources now, we delete it and allow it to be recreated if and when sources are found.
talk) 21:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete : A chain of commercial high street language cram schools - not a notable mainstream high school which is what are meant in Outcomes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seem to be a high school... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:24, 27 January 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 Devorah Rose. MBisanz ^talk 17:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Social Life (magazine)

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

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

Article was speedy deleted under
talk) 05:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Related article by the same author:
talk) 17:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, doesn't appear to meet
WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia article is as important as the following Wikipedia articles that have already been accepted. I will work on adding additional links, but I firmly believe this article is worthy of being included on Wikipedia. Thank you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamptons_(magazine)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotham_(magazine) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seablue33 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your belief, as the article's author with an apparent conflict of interest (based on your contributions) doesn't have any grounding in Wikipedia policy.
talk) 22:21, 15 January 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, Courcelles 00:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
talk) 12:03, 21 January 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 Esben and the Witch (band). Tone 18:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia, at the Precipice

Lucia, at the Precipice (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. Article about a single from a
WP:NSONGS
. I am also nominating two other articles about singles off the same EP, which suffer from the same issue:

Warpath (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Chorea (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

§FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. "Lucia, at the Precipice" is not on Violet Cries, but the content here can easily be merged to Esben and the Witch (band). The other two are from the album and can be merged there. I don't know what EP you're referring to. --Michig (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 5 January 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, -- Cheers,
ey 00:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
t • c » 06:43, 11 January 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, Courcelles 00:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - does not meet
WP:NMUSIC and few references are available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldy Bill (talk • contribs) 13:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge (per Michig's comment above). I haven't found any better references to establish the notability of these songs independent of the band / album; a merge (maintaining the main details about release dates, videos, track-lists etc.) would make sense. --David Edgar (talk) 12:28, 21 January 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. There were two who argued for a keep, but consensus is fairly clear the events here are news stories lacking encyclopedic significance. (While murders are the most serious of crimes, they do not in general merit separate articles, nor do they lend notability to the location where they occur.) There are also claims that "Murder Kroger" is a common (probably slang) nickname for the location, but the claim has not been backed up by reliable sourcing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder Kroger

Murder Kroger (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 sources are either unreliable (personal websites, YouTube, Facebook, MySpace), don't mention the Kroger (the book), don't use the term "Murder Kroger" (the AJC article), or are otherwise unreliable (Yelp). The only source that looks decent is this one. Everything else is just spam, personal websites, OR, and fancruft. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grudgingly Support - I was prepared to argue that we should seek out reliable sources before considering deletion, but I am unable to find any sources that are not
self-published via Google. --RDavi404 (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
Talkback) 22:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see how this is a neologism or how the fact that it is purely local is relevant. It is a notable place for reasons including: 1) its nickname (the nickname is in itself a meme, from which have sprung the song, etc. and this is a topic important enough for local media to cover), 2) two murders on the premises, 3) its renovation related to a high-profile citywide project, the BeltLine. Granted, the references are mostly self-published, but there seem to be two solid ones from Creative Loafing. Also the murders on the premises are referenced clearly in local media such as the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The fact that those articles don't use the term "Murder Kroger" is irrelevant because they are talking about the same place. One could rename the article "Kroger (Ponce de Leon Avenue, Atlanta)" but in light of the meme that would not be the most common term for the place, and we are supposed to title articles with the most commonly used name (even if that is not used in all sources). Keizers (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage from the AJC is
WP:ROUTINE. Lots of crimes happen at businesses in the big city. I saw no articles relating to its renovation. The Creative Loafing sources barely even mention the place, and only name-drop it in the context of something else. Mere name drops are not enough. Also, the fact that no reliable sources call it Murder Kroger would suggest a lack of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:35, 18 January 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, Courcelles 00:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Murder Kroger is not a neologism, it is already a commonly used phrase among Atlantans when referring to the Kroger on Ponce de Leon in Midtown Atlanta. That it is of local interest is not a relevant consideration under the deletion policy, and also is not necessarily true. The nickname may be of interest to individiuals researching Kroger stores or urban crime. It is not surprising that few official sources would refer to the store as "Murder Kroger," given the name may be libelous, but nonetheless it is an accepted part of the lexicon of many an Atlantan. The sheer number of "unofficial" sources cited in the article bears that out. avatar77 19:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jviscomi (talk • contribs) — Jviscomi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Where are the secondary sources? The "unofficial" sources are not the reliable kind of coverage needed for an article. You can't back an article with facebook pages, YouTube videos, and the like. It has to be reliable websites, newspapers, magazines, etc. (As an aside, the above is the user's first edit.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there were reputable local mainstream sources (AJC, TV/radio station websites, newspaper archives, etc.), even just a few of them, that would be enough in my opinion. As Ten Pound Hammer has pointed out, there are not enough credible sources to establish this article. Kamnet (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dlete.
WP:NOTNEO, no notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:41, 26 January 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. Delete (without prejudice to the inclusion of information like this into
Manitoba general election, 1903, as that information already apparently exists at Prohibition in Canada) j⚛e decker ^talk 19:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Prohibitionists in Manitoba (provincial candidates)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Prohibitionists in Manitoba (provincial candidates)

Articles for deletion/Prohibitionists in Manitoba (provincial candidates) (2nd nomination)

Prohibitionists in Manitoba (provincial candidates) (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)

Removed PROD per
WP:PROD (Previous AfD exists). Rationale in PROD was: None of these candidates have articles, the 'party' has no article, none of them were elected. I can find no coverage in sources, and no indication that this topic meets the notability criteria for inclusion Illia Connell (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

delete I've moved the info into Prohibition in Canada, albeit without citations. It seems more appropriate as a couple of sentences there than as an article. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 15:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
Talkback) 23:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 12 January 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, Courcelles 00:21, 18 January 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) 12:26, 25 January 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 Charles Seymour, 2nd Baron Seymour of Trowbridge. MBisanz ^talk 17:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Seymour

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

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

Delete: Complete lack of any notability. Quis separabit? 18:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This page is the main page for this name but has a dab target to a disambiguation page for people with the same name. Quis separabit? 18:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that as it stands, it shows no notability. However, it hadn't been tagged for refimprove, notability and orphan (I've added these now) and wasn't well-categorised. That means it had little chance of catching the attention of those who could improve it. Now it's better categorised and tagged, personally I'd recommend giving this a small amount of time to be improved, and deleted if that yields no results. Boleyn (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK: Do you want me to withdraw the AFD? Or the article could be merged with her father's page, but I am not sure. Quis separabit? 19:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the AfD is well-placed, and if it's not too hasty a close I think it's best to keep it going. I'll contact the relevant Wikiprojects for assistance, but I think it will turn out that she is non-notable. I'm not sure that there would be much to gain by merging to her father's article, but that would be a possibility. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Charles Seymour, 2nd Baron Seymour of Trowbridge. Doesn't look particularly notable to me, what little I'm seeing is just the fact that she existed. A redirect to her more notable parent would be better here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a Frances Seymour (disambiguation) page, which should be at the primary if this article is deleted (and should be at the primary either way). Boleyn (talk) 06:09, 15 January 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, Courcelles 00:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and rename Frances Seymour (disambiguation). Daughter of a peer notable only for being a peer (and therefore a member of a national legislature) and married to a knight who doesn't yet have an article of his own. No other apparent notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content to the article on her father; then use the space for the present dab article. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:36, 19 January 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarkis Antikajian

Sarkis Antikajian (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)

Nominate for deletion Has been tagged as of doubtful notability for 6 years. Creator's response (see Talk:Sarkis Antikajian) doesn't convince me of notability. Tagged for speedy deletion in 2007 Boleyn (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 12 January 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, Courcelles 00:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. (My wife paints better and does not have a WP article. :-) Not enough reliable sources to make him/her (my wife) notable. Delete. --E4024 (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I was able to find some local newspaper results ([78] and [79] for example), but still fails all 5 applicable criteria of
WP:ARTIST. —Darkwind (talk) 19:54, 19 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruri Asano

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Ruri Asano

Articles for deletion/Ruri Asano (2nd nomination)

Ruri Asano (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)

Nominate for deletion Received no consensus in 2007 AfD. Doesn't seem to meet
WP:NOTABILITY. Has been tagged as of doubtful notability for 6 years. Boleyn (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - normally I would state that voice actors are notable per
csdnew 05:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep - She may have not been in many major roles in popular shows, but I think she was at least part of enough shows to be notable. Bensci54 (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Have sources been checked using the anime she has starred in as the search targets? If she has starred in multiple roles she could pass Notability based on the coverage. I noticed that the last AfD closed with sourcing as the problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:25, 13 January 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, Courcelles 00:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With sourcing consisting only of ANN and IMDB links, this does not constitute sufficient in-depth third-party coverage to establish notability or justify a self-standing biographical article like this. No indication of any notable or major roles. --DAJF (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know if any of the characters she did in a notable series were major characters or just bit parts, but she has done a lot of work in notable things. Is it a theme song she did for one series, or just a one time use song? God of War is a massively successful game which chose her to be the voice of one of the goddesses in the game for the Japanese version. Other video games have used her as well. They could afford to hire anyone, and they focus on quality these days for these sorts of things, so they must think well of her. Dream Focus 23:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Her role in Happy Lesson is one of the main characters, and it is in a notable work. Her other roles look like either minor roles in notable works, or major roles in works that may be non-notable (e.g. she plays the title character in Eien no Aseria, but I'm not sure that OAV is notable). Calathan (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In
WP:ENTERTAINER. Dream Focus 20:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I've been unable to find reliable, secondary sourcing which establishes the notability of this voice actor under
WP:GNG, and in 2011, I tried, as evidenced by the reference, now since scrubbed, I added to [80], which is a passing name-check, not in-depth coverage. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No reliable secondary sources to be found to support
WP:N. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:33, 25 January 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Majella Chambers

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

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

A quick Google search in News (inc. archive), Books, and generally brings up absolutely nothing to show notability for this British fashion designer. One local news article here and stuff about charity work, but otherwise, nothing - and with a name so distinctive, any existing reliable sources you'd think would be easier to find. Refs in article are the Kent local news article, a BBC photo, and a dead link. Mabalu (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
t • c » 19:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails
WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 12 January 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, Courcelles 00:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks notability.--Staberinde (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deelte - There is the one article in the local paper. Not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:59, 22 January 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. Tone 18:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hampton Roads Messenger

Hampton Roads Messenger (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)

Unexplained PROD removal. It's a small free once a month newspaper that caters to
WP:ORG. Mkdw ^talk 21:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 12 January 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, Courcelles 00:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the nominator got their population figues wrong, but I agree as to everything else. I looked for sources and couldn't find anything suggesting this paper is sufficiently notable.--
talk) 15:31, 24 January 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. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2419 Record Label

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/2419 Record Label

Articles for deletion/2419 Record Label (2nd nomination)

2419 Record Label (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)

Previous AfD lacked participation and not very compelling. I see no indication of notability. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 12 January 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, Courcelles 00:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete record label with exactly zero notable artists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete owing to a lack of
significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject per the general notability guideline. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:36, 20 January 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.

~~^ http://www.publishersmarketplace.com/members/MarchTenth/~~

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_January_18&oldid=1142632205"

[1] ttp://www.publishersmarketplace.com/members/MarchTenth/

Breeds In Development

Labradoodle

Australian Labradoodle

Opendestiny

talk

20:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

reply