Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 16

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

)

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

Candidate for office who does not meet

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This candidate is challenging well known Texas Senator John Cornyn, just like Ted Cruz challenged David Dewhurst in the 2012 US Senate Race in Texas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvyoral (talk • contribs) 03:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC) — Lvyoral (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Not a valid reason to keep. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There ought to be some information, based on reliable sources, which suggests that Stovall is well known in Texas. There is no such information in the article right now. Ratemonth (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:POLOUTCOMES. Enos733 (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep It is important for this candidate to be publicized as Ted Cruz and David Dewhurst were during the 2012 election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WyattCS (talk • contribs) 01:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC) — WyattCS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Not a valid reason to keep. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In addition, the comparison is not apt, since
  WP:GNG before the election. Enos733 (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Yes, that too. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Candidate with no other notability. Publicising political candidates is not Wikipedia's remit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 22 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter Parents and the Media

Helicopter Parents and the Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be

This was A10 Speedy delete only hours before recreation by a different, new account. Talk page says it's a school project but I don't think WP is the place for this. --DHeyward (talk) 07:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete original research essay laden with opinion. Not appropriate even if sourced. -Nat Gertler (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete OR and NPOV issues abound. If they were addressed, we'd have an article that doesn't usefully expand on the existing helicopter parent article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 05:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR, NPOV, and NOT. Helicopter parent should be able to absorb any media related interactions. Nothing appears salvageable as a merge. There is a plea on the talk page that this is some sort of project and the only two contributors are new SPA (so far) accounts. --DHeyward (talk) 06:33, 18 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Engorgement

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

)

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

Unsourced dicdef, no sourcing found, just books that use the term in passing. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's far from being a great article but it has potential to be expanded. Even if not, it would need to remain as a disambig. violet/riga _^[talk] 23:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Potential to be expanded with what? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication that it is anything more than a dictdef, much less a full-blown biology term, as indicated by its total lack of references. Also not a dab page candidate, as there is no Engorgement (band), Engorgement (film), etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just a
  WP:DICDEF. Any potential content is covered already by the articles in the "see also." -- 101.119.15.13 (talk) 06:24, 17 November 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.

Don't spill the beans (idiom) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Unsourced dicdef, no sourcing found beyond information in the game of the same name, or just passing uses of the term. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the
  comprehension of this idiom is the subject of extensive academic analysis and commentary. For example, see Metaphor and Thought; Understanding Figurative Language; Idiomatic Creativity: A Cognitive-linguistic Model of Idiom-representation; The Mental Corpus: How Language is Represented in the Mind; Introduction to Psycholinguistics: Understanding Language; The Origins of Grammar: Language in the Light of Evolution, &c. Warden (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  List of idioms in the English language. I was going to suggest "transwiki", but Wiktionary already has an entry on this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect, as per NRP. - SchroCat (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doesn't go beyond what I would expect to find in a dictionary. --Michig (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Colonel Warden. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:59, 22 November 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.

Dana M. Haggard (album)

Dana M. Haggard (album) (edit | 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 am putting this up for AFD for the same reason TonyBallioni nominated 4 other Dana Haggard-related articles for deletion.

• Delete as utter garbage. --Michig (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I added this to the original nomination about two hours after I started it. I have been inactive for a while, so not sure if that is kosher, but I thought it would be fine given that it was so close to the beginning and that it was already a multiple nomination. In any case, if these stay as two separate entries, I am in favour of Deleting this article as well per my reasons in my Dana M. Haggard nomination TonyBallioni (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:38, 17 November 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 Alpha and Omega (film)#Sequels. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha and Omega 3

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Online 21:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect temporarily to
  TOO SOON. Allow return once prnciple filming is confirmed and this project receives more coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect per MichaelQSchmidt. Betty Logan (talk) 13:37, 20 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bells (EP)

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

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

Doesn't indicate notability. Launchballer 21:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, not released to a widespread audience, not likely to be searched by many people if anyone.

talk) 22:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:36, 17 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Friend

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

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

Nominating Lucy Friend AND Ben Loyd-Holmes.

Articles seem to possible vanity creations of User:Sarah Gallienne (the articles claim that Friend and Loyd-Holmes are partners). Friend is a make-up artist for a variety of UK-based films/TV shows article reads like a CV and there's nothing to establish notability. Loyd-Holmes's principal acting credit is Band of Brothers but seems to be one of those credits on imdb where the actor/agent has credited themself, rather than that appear in the credits themselves. Article claims his film is notable, but I can't find any actual credible results for the awards it claims to have won. HornetMike (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both for now - Multiple searches including Google News found no third-party coverage not even for her magazine features or Skyfall. Obviously, this is another case of a behind the scenes person that doesn't get much attention. Nothing appropriate or significant to improve the article. As for Ben Holmes, I found some minor interviews and blogs (Blogspot, etc.) but nothing appropriate and significant. This brief mention also lists some of his other work but, again, minor at best. I couldn't find anything for the Film Festival award especially considering that current reference is dead and unretrievable. However, I did find this (brief mention in a screen listing) and another brief mention. Aside form that, he's had the usual TV appearances with small and minor roles, nothing noticeably big. There's also no possibility of a redirect for both Lucy or Ben. No prejudice towards a future article. SwisterTwister talk 22:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTPROMOTION. Betty Logan (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - lacks signifcant coverage in independent reliable sources. Lucy Friend can be confrmed to work on make-up and hair, but there's no coverage about that (I could not confirm the claimed coverage in Port Magazine), and there is no indication of peer recognition in the form of significant awards. Ben Loyd-Holmes is a working actor. No indication of notability from hi IMDB roles list, nor indication of significant awards. -- Whpq (talk) 18:41, 20 November 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 Skrillex discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skrillex Vinyl Box Set

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

)

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

Lacks notability. Doesn't add anything to Wikipedia as a whole and unlikely to be visited by many people. This is literally just a list of existing tracks compiled into a non-notable vinyl.

Serves no purpose to have it's own dedicated article.Idensai (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Skrillex discography which seems the best place for the details of a non-notable compilation album. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:02, 18 November 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.

List of Nike sponsorships

List of Nike sponsorships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced list consisting merely of countries and their flags. Lacks notability, context and fails

Nominated for CSD:G4 since this article was previously AfD deleted. - MrX 23:51, 16 November 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.

List Of Programs Broadcast By Sbx

List Of Programs Broadcast By Sbx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced list lacks encyclopedic value per

• Speedy delete, G3 applied Shows are part of network that doesn't exist, and all of the contributions of
  chatter) 23:41, 16 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closer Apart

Closer Apart (edit | 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 Wikipedia:Notability (books)  Tentinator  19:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails
  talk) 03:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I can't see any evidence of this book on the internet at all, so it looks to be a little too premature to add here. On a side note, I do think that there is a little bit of a COI here, as the name makes it seem as if they're editing on behalf of a publishing/publication company. I don't think that they came here with any ill will to promote, so while I've blocked them I don't have any problem with them userfying any of the data on the page if they so wished it.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No evidence given or found. Claimed in unblock request to be a test, so it mightn't exist at all anyway. Peridon (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable if it even exists. Lagrange613 07:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the coverage is not present to meet
  WP:NBOOK#Not yet published books. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:49, 24 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otauli

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

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

Orphaned BLP that has been unsourced since 2006. A Google search found little beyond Wikipedia. Michig (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An Uzbek writer, unable to find much online. --
  talk) 04:13, 17 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bhangu Aman

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

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

No indication of notability per

Trendy Beat Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ... discospinster _talk 19:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried search on Google and Bing both and clearly founded that first link is official facebook profile then youtube channel, afterwards we may see all the links are from online digital stores like iTunes, Amazon, Spotify. So it clearly shows that this is valid artist. An article is also avaliable at Times of India and local newspapers published many articles on Bhangu Aman. --Bhangu Aman 18:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhanguaman2 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Couldn't find significant coverage in independent sources. The supposed Times of India article used as a reference, looks very suspect and is a likely forgery. Abecedare (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was speedy delete as a hoax. PhilKnight (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Liaquat Kii Watt

Aamir Liaquat Kii Watt (edit | 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 not an actual movie. This is article is made against Aamir Liaquat Hussain. The title essentially means "Insult of Aamir Liaquat. This is derogatory as well as non-notable. There has not been a movie of this name. Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 17:36, 16 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tiwana

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

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

Nothing has changed since the prior AfD. It still fails

• Comment - taking back to AFD two days after the last one was closed - really? GiantSnowman 16:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, really. There is no reason to keep it and there are quite a few admins who would have deleted it as basically being an expired PROD. If this gets no interest then I'll (neutrally) mention it at
  WT:INB. There are a host of similar crappy articles knocking about and they'll all be nominated in due course: the effort of keeping them in order is disproportionate. - Sitush (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Fair enough - though a potentially quicker/easier route would have been to ask the closing admin to re-consider their close. GiantSnowman 19:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• True. I'd tried that in another instance and got knocked back (different admin). I'll have to trawl through my recent AfD stuff to find that one and go through the motions again. I'm also considering raising the general issue at VPP, something along the lines of "should unsourced stubs remain in situations where an AfD produces no reason to keep". Some admins do seem to keep as "no consensus", others to delete and the inconsistency seems odd to me. There really are heaps of these Indian surname/clan articles about, usually generated by new-ish contributors or based on lists produced by a caste association that do in fact merely list - no discussion of origins/etymology etc, nada. - Sitush (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding your "unsourced stubs" comments - it might be worth proposing something similar to
  WP:BLPPROD (maybe WP:UNREFPROD?) whereby all articles without a reliable source are subject to deletion within 10 days - and unlike BLPPROD it would apply regardless to when the article was created. I'd fully support that. GiantSnowman 19:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That is an interesting thought, thanks. I'd give them a bit longer than the 10 days used for BLPs but the principle seems reasonable. I've notified
  SarahStierch that I've re-nominated this article, stressing that I'm not trying to single her out here. - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You're sweet
  SarahStierch (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per discussion at first AfD, which yielded no convincing arguments to keep. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - simply not a notable topic. GiantSnowman 19:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because I'm not even convinced it exists. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:49, 21 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rúnar Rúnarsson (footballer)

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - fails
  WP:FPL. Fenix down (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - promsing footballer that most likely will be notable in the future. But as of now, he hasn't represented his country at senior level or played in a
  talk) 11:30, 20 November 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.

VEGAS.com

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

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

This meets CSD A7 (in my opinion) but prior AFD makes it ineligble so I am restoring and bringing it here. SpinningSpark 13:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Longstanding highly prominent website. Examples of sources were provided in the last AfD. Another one is this 2003 New York Times article about the website and its business model. [1] The problem is that there's such a large volume of self-promotional material on the web that it drowns out the much smaller, but still substantial supply of bona fide RS sources. The same was true about the former, more detailed version of this page [2]--some substantial info and a lot of advertising content; unfortunately the useful info was cut out along with all the spam. This should get fixed, not deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Why is this here again? I suppose the failure of the last nomination to close as a keep like the first is the blame. Yes, this is a promotional web site for a resort destination. So that is going to affect the content. Does that mean it fails A7 of course not. Nominator really should read the facts presented in the last nominations that failed to see what this one should also fail. If you have a problem with the content then fix it! AfD is not intended for article cleanup. Is anyone trying to say that this site fails
  WP:GNG? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Clearly a notable website, as shown by the New York Times coverage linked to above. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't know about previous versions, I kind of assumed that the current version was the best version available, and the current version certainly has "no indication of importance" which is the A7 criterion. SpinningSpark 20:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Take a look at the version back in April, 2012, which was far longer and included many references to reliable sources. Yes, it was overly promotional, but instead of pruning judiciously, an editor chopped it to a stub. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The current article does not really make any effort to establish notability, but the site is notable. Besides the NYT article above, I was able to locate several other articles on Google News. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep - Meets
  WP:CORPDEPTH. For source examples, see those that I've added to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Well done, Northamerica1000. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:11, 17 November 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Goel

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

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

Mentions that I see about this writer are simply that, brief mentions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As a writer it falls under
  talk) 03:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - I've seen most of those and now read all of them. They are all brief - no more than a sentence, some just mentioning that he is an author or co-author. None of them actually discuss him. I don't see them as meeting the criteria "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." which I assume is what you are referring to.
  talk) 11:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The reviews of the movies are just like book reviews, they count as significant coverage of the author's work which is what

talk) 16:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

They aren't like book reviews - a film is a joint creative process involving a large number of people, a book is normally a one or maybe two person effort. Many books don't get reviews, most films do. Every BLP in other fields where I've seen AfDs has failed if there hasn't been some in depth discussion of the person.

talk) 06:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Most major films are reviewed this is true, and creative applies to multiple people in each film who play a significant role.. director, lead actors etc.. so we end up with a lot of film related articles. But, for every film produced in the world there are probably 100+ books, so there are probably more book articles on Wikipedia than film in aggregate. Previous AfD failures are probably because participants are not familiar or comfortable with how CREATIVE works and tend to stick with the generic GNG/BASIC and not venture into the special notability guidelines. Each case is unique of course, if this person only had a few films I would have probably voted Delete but this is a late career writer with dozens of accomplishments. --

talk) 16:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per meeting
  praising his works to be primarily about the man himself. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

As I've said above, this seems very different to my experience where discussion of the person himself has been required. Looks like it is easier for a script writer to have an article than, say, a Yale professor.

talk) 06:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Apples and oranges, Doug. I understand your point, but if that Yale professor's works had wide acclaim, he might qualify under CREATIVE as well. Best, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per above discussion/sources. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination GreenCardamon has convinced me, but I will note that at the moment it has virtually no content showing notability, no sources, etc. What I did see in mentions was both praise and criticism, both belong in the article.
  talk) 18:56, 22 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BN Publishing

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

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

Lack of WP:Notability. I can't find any coverage. Each of the 324 Google hits either mentions it merely as the publisher of a book that's the focus, or else it's found in something like "$32bn publishing". —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Publisher with small back-catalog of cheap mostly PD reprints. --
  talk) 03:14, 17 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Clark

Justin Clark (edit | 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 looked him up on the Internet, but could not come up with any reliable sources to verify notability. The only external link in the article is to his own website. Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: No indication of importance. Meets
  CSD:A7. Kolbasz (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The article as it stands hardly rises above CSD A3: One sentence and his website link. But I am finding nothing beyond his website on multiple searches (Google, Questia, Highbeam, etc). Fails
  WP:ARTIST. AllyD (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. The article started out as a blatant advert and hasn't improved. --Michig (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The article in fact started out with a rather mundane life story, which was removed: the history refers to removing vandalism, but I suspect it was actually removing
  WP:OR or perhaps the whole creation was vandalism. The present stub provides no evidence of notability. Unless the article is improved during the AFD period, we should delete it. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It started out like this. It was vandalised by adding someone else's supposed life story. --Michig (talk) 19:07, 16 November 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. A7 Secret ^account 16:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Murdock

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

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

Barely notable designer. This is part of a suite of probably paid advocacy articles by the same self declared representative of

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Probably worthy of CSD#7 but since it is already here...JodyB _talk 16:03, 16 November 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.

UNIVERSITY Mandume YA Ndemufayo

UNIVERSITY Mandume YA Ndemufayo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unacceptable

• Delete Promotional and unencyclopedic in current form. 220 of ^Borg 08:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The place seems to exist, at least online, but only 7 hits on Google? Other than that this is one of the more most incomprehensible pages, esp. the lead, that I have seen in 4 years editing Wikipedia. I thought it might be a Google translation of website but http://www.umn-angola.org is still under construction. 220 of ^Borg 08:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:34, 16 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recharge (magazine)

Recharge (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)

Doesn't meet notability guidelines - ie link to main info is by the company paid to launch/promote in 2013 ie http://garciamedia.com/blog/articles/precharge_the_renewable_energy_journal_gets_renewed_p quote: It is the third project launch for Garcia Media in 2013.

Other links were from primary sources, or blogs of employees. Remainder are a non-notable industry awards, and an association with a former CEO of a notable organisation, European Wind Energy Association, plus mentions of publications (single issue?) made for trade fairs -( NB have remove all primary and associated sources except garcia media info)

I couldn't find anything to show this new magazine is notable, though a web search is complicated by its common name. Prof.Haddock (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:55, 1 November 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.Z-man 05:48, 9 November 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, Wifione ^Message 07:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Randykitty (talk) 13:20, 20 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hansel Munoz

Hansel Munoz (edit | 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 be self-promotion. Couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nor notable actor, per
  WP:NACTOR, also I couldn't find external sources whatsoever linked to the subject. Alex ^{discussion ★} 08:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now - I can't find an original print for the Miami Herald article but even without it, I can tell he is not notable. Multiple searches including Google News found nothing for the Menudo shows and being a finalist out of 15 to join Menudo is not really noteworthy for an encyclopedia. I haven't found anything on the web yet for his planned EP. Basically, he hasn't had a noticeable big break in the industry. As always, no prejudice towards a future article if the time comes. SwisterTwister talk 21:51, 19 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Russell (advisor)

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

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

Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and Gnews of substance. The references are for articles he has written and the film appears to be a vanity piece lacking independence. Appears to fail

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The book is unreviewed, nn author. The two TV show appearances are not enough to establish notability. --
  talk) 03:25, 17 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JxEE Lab

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

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

• Spam.
• Unreferenced.
• No references exist.
• Single-purpose account creator is User:Ioana.munteanu; a woman by the same name is "Business Analyst at JxEE Lab".
• Case closed? - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, no significance whatsoever
  WP:CSD#A7. Alex ^{discussion ★} 07:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No
  WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 10:25, 16 November 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.

Adithya Srinivasan

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

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

Appears to fail

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep but expand. The article is a stub currently but two of the references show what I would call significant coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, obviously notable per
  WP:MUSBIO as there's a significant independent media coverage, although pretty short but that's not a reason for deletion. Alex ^{discussion ★} 08:21, 16 November 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.

Dana M. Haggard

Dana M. Haggard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable artist that fails

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are non-notable songs/pages created by a non-notable artist

Dana M. Haggard discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Look Over Me (Dana M. Haggard song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Joyful Season (Dana M. Haggard song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TonyBallioni (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Only 26 Google results, many of which are on social media or are either this page or other pages created by TheDanaM. [10]
  talk to me 04:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note In interests of full disclosure there is a second article of "Look Over Me" that is identical to the one nominated here except without the period after the M. I nominated it for speedy deletion per CSD A10. ( See Look Over Me (Dana M Haggard song)) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominating Dana M Haggard (album) for deletion in addition to the ones above. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable, self promotion, no web coverage. Alex ^{discussion ★} 08:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all five per nom. Sam Sailor ^Sing 15:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & Alex. GregJackP Boomer! 00:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per
  WP:SOAP Unambiguous advertising or promotion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:34, 17 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DeKoven Street (Chicago)

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 is about a small, single block street that is used primarily used as a parking lot for the Chicago Firefighting Academy, the only structure on the street. Other than being the starting point of the

• Comment - I completed the nomination for the IP user, and am neutral. Ansh666 03:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There seems to be enough sourcing to justify an article. The fact that was the site of the start of the fire and is now obscure is interesting in itself. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITSINTERESTING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep - Next thing you know people are gonna be hauling off Mrs. O'Leary's Cow. The Great Chicago Fire is a legendary part of 19th Century American history and this street as the epicenter of the fire meets any reasonable standard of importance. Not accidentally, the street is now the site of the Chicago Firefighting Academy. In short: it's a tourist attraction. Carrite (talk) 07:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITSNOTABLE. We don't go by "importance" for this sort of subject, we go by "notability". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep - per Kitfoxxe and Carrite. Fitnr 18:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  Notability is not inherited from either the fire starting there or the academy being located there, and beyond "the fire started on..." and "the Academy is located on..." the notability of this street is neligible. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - per Carrite. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:NOTINHERITED since no one would know that this street even exists had the fire never happened. What is really so important about a a single-block parking lot? And I don't think it being the location of Firefighting Academy has anything to do with the fire. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - per User:Burnhamandroot Having written a paper about the Great Chicago Fire years ago when I was in school, I have points I’d like to make regarding this topic that I hope will be useful to this discussion: First of all, I believe that the article should be allowed to stand on its own because the City of Chicago itself finds the street notable. If you look at old maps of the area, you’ll see that DeKoven Street was at the time it was laid out six times longer than it is today, extending at that time all the way from Halsted St. to Stewart (itself having been vacated at this location). The only portion of the street that remains is this section of it, which, for obviously historical reasons, has been allowed to remain. As a matter of fact, the city designated the site a Chicago Landmark in 1971, honoring it with a brass plaque and a large sculpture as the site of the origin of the Great Chicago Fire. The Chicago Fire Academy sits on the site today, and “The address by design is the same as where legend has it that Mollie [actually Catherine] O’Leary’s cow kicked over the lantern that started the great Chicago fire of 1871.” ^[1]. Mrs. O’Leary’s address of 137 DeKoven Street was converted to the current 558 when addresses in Chicago were unified in 1906, and the location of Mrs. O’Leary’s cottage is marked in the academy’s lobby. It should be pointed out that the origin of the fire is certain according to contemporary accounts, although the legend of the cow is likely not accurate. Regarding the question of outside sources on the subject, the Tribune itself has made nearly 300 references to the street since the fire, and finding references to it in books devoted to the history of the city are numerous. In my view, conditions in 1871 on DeKoven Street played a significant role in the fire’s ability to get a running start, and this article would be a good place to explore that question. At the very least, a picture of Mrs. O’Leary’s house would help immensely to make the point.