Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 13

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 12 January 14 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Adams (political author speaker)

Nick Adams (political author speaker) (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 author: 2 self published books, on iuniverse, which worldcat shows is almost no library. Appearance at country dinners of a political party is not notability , and that they would even be mentioned here shows the lack of substantial accomplishments. Writing for a website and appearing on talk shows can in rare cases be notable even if its someone's major activity, but it takes more evidence than routine announcements or citations to the shows.

This is essentially advertising, and that it was accepted at AfC is a little surprising, even given current standards there. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails
    WP:LINKFARM (with all the links to his articles and YouTube stuff) but these aren't grounds for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bipolar Advantage

Bipolar Advantage (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 appears to be non-notable. Three articles were created in close succession: Tom Wootton, Bipolar Advantage and The Bipolar Advantage that have questionable notability. EagerToddler39 (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 23:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 23:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE: "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources...The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform." Was this done? Igottheconch (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Wootton

Tom Wootton (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 appears to be non-notable. Three articles were created in close succession: Tom Wootton, Bipolar Advantage and The Bipolar Advantage that have questionable notability. EagerToddler39 (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE: "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources...The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform." Was this done? Igottheconch (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - "Psych Central - the internet’s largest and oldest independent mental health social network"??? I've read that article that you've also recently created with the three I PRODed earlier. There are no sources that attest to the claims about Psych Central. Pscyh Central cannot, therefore, be used to support a notability claim. In addition Psych Central and The Bipolar Advantage seem to have some connection according to one of your sources: "The Biploar Advantage blog is hosted by PsychCentral". From the searches I've done for reliable sources I have not being able to find adequate references that attest to Wootton's notability. If you are contesting this nomination then I recommend you improve the article with the required sources. Right now the article depends on primary sources which are not enough to establish notability. EagerToddler39 (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also 37 Google scholar results for Wooton. Igottheconch (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at the first 20 out of the 37:
  • 3 are by Tom Wootton.
  • 8 are about geology, so I'm assuming that a different person named Tom Wootton is involved.
  • 1 is about fox terriers, so ....
  • 2 are about proceedings of the Lutin Borough Council, so ....
  • 1 is about a patent for soldering irons, so ....
  • 1 leads to a bibliographic record for J.R.R. Tolkien that actually has no mention of anyone named Wootton.
  • 1 is a list of the books possessed by some library.
  • 2 are self-published, one of which is by someone who identifies himself as a friend of Tom Wootten, who does no more than list his books and plug his website.
  • Finally, just 1 is a citation of something Wootton wrote in a work associated with a university—which doesn't qualify as significant coverage of Wootten. That work does say something about him: "This is the way I would look at what needs to be done, both in a person’s own self-understanding of what it means to have bipolar disorder, as Tom Wootton has recent written about ....", quoting him but not telling us anything about him.
Extrapolating from this data, I'm assuming the remaining 17 will yield similar results: a failure to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—He is the author of self-published books that have minimal coverage. Fails
    Davis Enterprise in 2008. These are both partly interviews, partly book reviews, and partly press releases. Both articles were timed to promote upcoming lectures. This doesn't meet the minimal standard of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete.
    useful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He has written self-published books. He writes columns for the Huffington Post. But those things do not give him notability. What would give him notability is other, independent sources writing ABOUT him, and as far as I could find that has not happened, so he does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2014 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Hills Church

Pine Hills Church (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 makes no verifiable claims of notability. Richfife (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It may exist, but existing isn't good enough to satisfy
    WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - fails
    unique about this church. I found out online that it hosts a polling place, a food bank, and funerals, and ... nothing else. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- looks like an ADVERT for a rather typical local church. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Choose Your Battles

Choose Your Battles (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 is not notable per

WP:NSONGS (Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability.): its only sourcing—reviews, etc.—is as part of the album Prism, and the South Korean charting is likewise non-notable. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above reasons
talk) 15:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep: The song was specifically reviewed in the source materials separate from other cuts off the album. marginal call, but adequate for me. Korean charting worth noting, seems US-centric to say it's non-notable just because it isn't in the USA. Content extensive enough to be merged to main article if deletion favored, should not see all this person's work go to waste. Montanabw(talk) 16:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't so much of based on location as it is that particular chart not being one that makes headlines or anything. I'm sure the creator put in lots of effort, and such effort can definitely go onto Katy Perry Wikia. Merge is also a fine choice.
talk) 16:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Montanabw, can you please give me an example of sources where this song is "reviewed in the source materials separate from other cuts off the album"? I'm trying to figure out where you're putting the dividing line. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where the song is specifically discussed by name, even if within an overall album review. Seldom do you see much else, really, There were several sources within the article that clearly cited comments made about that specific song. To insist that a song must always be separately reviewed to be notable is rather absurd, almost all popular music reviews are of albums, and within the review, the author will note the particularly good/bad/interesting cuts off the album. You only get to individual songs being reviewed by themselves when they become grammy nominees or something, which is more than NSONGS requires. Montanabw(talk) 00:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since almost every song nowadays charts on the South Korean chart, I'm not going to make that the reason for keeping it. Instead I believe that nowadays almost every singer discusses each one of their songs in depth, revealing some information regarding their development and production process. This is best included in individual articles, and keeping them in the main album article will make it bloated. The fact that the song charted somewhere is just the icing on the cake and even more reason to make an individual article. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be better to include such information on sites like Katy Perry Wikia. The simple fact is that this is one of many songs that does not exactly have enough significance to be kept. It would definitely be excessive to have all that info in the album article, but it is also excessive to have articles for every song on an album. One must ask: How did it impact the artist's career? How did it impact society?? How did it impact the music industry??? In this case, the answer to all three of those questions is: it has had little to no impact. Just stick to having articles that have received significant attention/promotion (which generally is just singles and promotional singles).
talk) 17:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep – Plenty of information, certainly enough for a deluxe edition article. As long as there is enough information to make an reasonable length article, one can be created.--Giacobbe talk 22:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the whole point of notability guidelines is that "enough information" is not sufficient; the subject must be notable. Your argument goes against a fundamental guideline of Wikipedia. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the comments above. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't the amount of information available or article length. The problem is lack of significance. The song fails WP:NSONGS. It simply is too soon to have this as an article since it hasn't been released as a single or promotional single or received any significant attention. Merge is fine as well, but keeping would not be a wise decision in accordance with WP:NSONGS.
talk) 22:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
According to
WP:NSONGS: "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." "Choose Your Battles" has plenty of quality source information and has a reasonable length, which would follow and meet the guidelines.--Giacobbe talk 22:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
It does have a fair amount of information, but as @
talk) 22:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
And as it later states, notability aside, as long as there is enough information, and article can be created.--Giacobbe talk 22:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability level trumps over information amount available, though.
talk) 22:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
That would be
WP:OR, since nowhere in the guidelines does it say that. Either way, the guidelines state that an article can be created if either A)It has achieved notability OR B) There is enough information.--Giacobbe talk 22:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
To quote @
talk) 22:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
It seems to me that (CA)Giacobbe doesn't understand what what Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album means. What it's saying is that if the subject of an article is notable (in this case a song), it's only appropriate to write a standalone article when there's enough material to make it worthwhile. However, if the subject isn't notable, then it doesn't matter what kind of material is available. Indeed, that's the problem with all of the Keep arguments I've seen in this discussion: none of them properly address the fact that this song fails the basic tests of NSONG, and is therefore not notable. It doesn't matter how many sources you scrape up, if none of them (or even all of them combined) are adequate to establish notability. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The problem isn't the amount of information available or article length. The problem is lack of significance" has got to be the most contradictory statement here. Actually laughable. If it has enough information and is a good length, then significance is achieved.  — ₳aron 18:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not sure whether my nominating this is sufficient, or whether I should specify here, too. I note that none of the arguments raised by people wanting to Keep addresses notability or
    WP:NSONG directly (except possibly Montanabw's, and not very convincingly); indeed, some of them seem to be arguing that it's irrelevant as long as you can write a long enough article, which vitiates the very notion of notability. This article clearly fails to meet the notability guidelines for song articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It appears that the consensus here seems to be to keep the article.--Giacobbe talk 23:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. As it says on
WP:AFD, Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. NSONGS is a primary guideline for notability (and lack thereof in this case), and I haven't yet seen an effective marshaling of justification and evidence based on it to support a Keep argument. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Since when did evidence OR consensus have the least thing to do with decision-making on wikipedia? :-P As far as I can tell, it's whoever screams the loudest for the longest that gets their way! "Four legs good, two legs baaaaad!. Not saying anyone here is doing that but I imagine that to believe that we actually have either process operating is to indeed be a dreamer. Montanabw(talk) 00:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While four simple legs might hold more than two simple legs, there is also "one brick outweighs a pile of feathers". In this case, the bricks are "delete" and the feathers are "keep".
talk) 00:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It charted, it's received coverage. There's really nothing you can do as it charted. We inhabit a digital world now, which means non-singles regularly chart now and more emphasis is placed on non-singles. This isn't the 90s anymore. This is supposed to be encyclopaedia, it's about time it starting being treated as a proper one. Saying that album reviews which talk about non-singles are not good enough is redundant too, where else are you meant to get info from? Does it make a difference? No. It's still a critic giving their opinion, it shouldn't matter which form it comes in. We don't live in a singles only society anymore, this is the digital era. People allow non-singles to chart on the Hot 100 now, so it shouldn't be any different on here. Also, saying that the South Korea chart isn't notable enough it a load of bullshit. It's a countries national chart. We don't say that one chart is more important than the other. Believe it or not, the music industry does not purely revolve about the United States and Billboard. What on earth is Wikipedia coming to. There used to be such a great sense of community and now it's just a battle ground of people trying to denounce the hard works of others who are tying to make this site as encyclopaedic as possible.  — ₳aron 13:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was disappointed to see that this post was the result of
WP:NSONG in favor of the discredited "there's really nothing you can do as it charted" claim, which the 2013 revision to NSONG explicitly contradicts. As the notability guidelines make clear, only if other things about the song are true does the potential of charting come into it, and in the case of South Korea, the way the singles chart is structured means it should be used with care, since virtually every song from every popular album is going to show up on that chart the week it drops, which clearly makes the chart questionable when it comes to discerning between notable and non-notable tracks on such albums. Every song that an artist releases is not notable; that isn't how notability works on Wikipedia. A majority simply won't be—it's the nature of songs that this is so—which means the majority shouldn't be getting articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
How? Leona Lewis's "Lovebird" was a single but only charted in one country, South Korea.. Should that be deleted? And @BlueMoonset: my verdict would have been the same regardless. No one asked me to vote to keep, actually, so it's not canvassing. It's try, if a song charts, it's notable. Obviously, there needs to be a fair amount of info to go with it, and I believe this article has. Everyone song has the potential to chart in every country, as I said, we live in the digital era now. Where do you expect non-singles to be reviewed? It is an invalid argument to say that album reviews which talk about non-singles are not notable. It is also invalid to that say that South Korea chart is not notable.  — ₳aron 18:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, charting doesn't automatically equate notability. One chart alone isn't enough. It would need at least several significant chartings (regardless of location) to be notable.....
talk) 03:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
If that is the case then, "By the Grace of God" won't be deleted. It has charted in several charts; had coverage in various websites and magazines and was critically commented a lot. prism △ 11:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say anywhere that you need more than one chart. You are clutching at straws. You only need one chart.  — ₳aron 12:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk) 13:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
If you are so interested in applying this non-notability theory on songs, then I invite you to nominate an entire truck-load of song articles on Wikipedia. Almost every song nowadays, non-single or promo, is able to chart on some or the other chart, and Wikipedia is not concerned with just US Billboard charts. Like I said earlier, there is a lot people share about a song they have contributed to and stuffing that into an album article will take the focus off the album and more onto a song. (These are 1+1 articles in which there is some discussion regarding the song) Considering this, and the fact that the song has indeed charted, then what's wrong with having an article on it? Will Wikipedia collapse really? People really interested in knowing about this song and how it came about, including the really interesting fact that Perry took five months to write it, will really appreciate to read an article of it and learn different views regarding it, which may not be necessarily included the album article. Hence I rest my case --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk) 18:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I am so glad that you repeated the comment you're making everytime, that national charts don't matter and that the article is welcome at Katy Perry Wikia. I didn't understand the first time, I'm sure. I am grateful. Now please devote some time in editing and improving articles --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to have to say this, but it most certainly is not "fine" that this fails WP:NSONGS
talk) 06:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Can you please stop stalking every user's comment and spamming it with your opinion? This is a joined project where everybody can give its opinion! You give yours, Everyking his, so just stop the drama. — Tomíca(T2ME) 10:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It's like you come to Wikipedia just to comment on this page, try some editing too, maybe that's the main point of Wikipedia, I think. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry- I come to the site for more than just this page, and often edit other articles..... Also, I wasn't exactly "spamming" or "stalking".....
talk) 15:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Honestly, I have the feeling that you literally sleep on this page, commenting and spamming right after a user says "Keep". Oh, and you really want to talk about your edits? Should I show you how many wrong writer/producer infoboxes you changed and I have to come everytime to repair them? — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is not fully determined by charts, and just a quick glance at the article shows that there is plenty of information to supply its own article. WikiRedactor (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quick WikiRedactor! Be prepared! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or redirect to
    WP:NSONGS), and other than a couple of critics' comments taken from reviews of Prism and the like there isn't much coverage from other non-trivial published works present in the article. Holiday56 (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It doesn't matter if it charts at 1 or 100, on the Hot 100 or the Jazz Songs chart, a chart position is a chart position and a chart is a chart. So that point is irrelevant. And where do you expect critic info to come from apart from album reviews. So, I assume that album reviews which talk about a single can't be included in a single-released article then? Only singles reviews? People are bending to the rules to suit them. We don't distinguish between charts or sort them into "your opinion of importance." I'm pretty sure that people from South Korea would contest your argument.  — ₳aron 17:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not "bending to the rules" to suit my opinion. WP:NSONGS is an established community notability guideline, and one point clearly reads: "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." 7 of just 14 sources in this article originate from album reviews, 2 come from liner notes and the iTunes page for the album, and 3 more sources discuss the album's recording without mentioning the song itself. The Idolator source gives one short tidbit that Perry wrote the song in 5 months, and that itself is actually taken from one of her tweets, so that doesn't qualify as an independent source. Even if I hadn't factored the chart position it reached and the nature of the chart itself into my argument, nonetheless the point "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts." is clearly delineated as a factor that suggests "that a song or single may be notable (not "is notable"), though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria." I have no qualms with single articles containing sources from album reviews, but the notability of those articles is usually established by the presence of independent sources on other information (chart positions/certifications, commercial performance, music videos/promotion, accolades and awards, etc.) In this case, I feel that the article needs more of these independent, published sources to justify its notability. Holiday56 (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And all of what you just said is why WP:NSONGS is so flawed. Where else do you get critic reviews of songs from? Album reviews, which now in this era are usually track by track. If anything, track by track album reviews are basically individual song reviews. The quote about charting is also flawed, because South Korea is a country with a national chart. I think South Koreans would disagree with you if you said that their chart is not significant. If someone such as Idolator reports and comments on her Tweets about the song, which come form her official Twitter account, then yes that is a reliable source of information, as a reliable source is reporting on it. Please, your whole paragraph is non-sensical and flawed. As I said before, we live in the digital era and there is such a wealth of information that putting all this info into the album article would result in Prism being too long, and then people would complain about that, too.  — ₳aron 17:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether WP:NSONGS is flawed or not, one cannot just dismiss it like that. Also, the charting not being seen as notable has nothing to do with geographic location. Because it definitely would be excessive to add all of this track's info to the album page, it would be condensed and incorporated into the Prism article.
talk) 17:35, 21 January 2014 (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 Kept. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NON-ADMIN CLOSURE
Seems to be strong Keep consensus--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Stone of Losses

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 only substantial references I can find to this phrase in scholarly literature are to a book of poetry by one T. Carmi who apparently does not have an article here. If I exclude the title of the book I get no GBook hits. I would expect some hits in either if this were a real thing. I would contemplate redirecting to the poet but lacking an article that isn't possible. Mangoe (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: this is a (probably) bad translation of the Hebrew name (which I have forgotten, but should be able to find) of a well-known feature of the Temple Mount. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Found: the Hebrew name has two variants, אבן הטועים‎ Even haTo'im and אבן הטוען‎ Even haTo'en. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about English sources? Mangoe (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found any yet; I'm not sure what the standard translation is. The first variant roughly translates as "the Stone of the Lost"; I can't make sense out of the second variant.
As for Hebrew sources, metaphorical use of the Hebrew phrase as "a place (or book or service) to found something lost (or information, etc.)" greatly complicates searching, but that in itself should give an idea of how notable the topic probably is.
Also, here is a short chapter summarizing what is known about the Stone from traditional Jewish sources (originally published as הגאוגרפיה במשנה‎ [Geography in the
LCCN 79-952217). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
English variants found so far: (translating Even haTo'im) "Stone of Losses", "Stone of the Lost", "Stone of the Strayers", "Strayers' Stone"; (translating Even haTo'en) "Claimant's Stone", "Stone of the Claimant", "Announcing Stone". הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Carmi seems to be the only source for this variant. According to what I can extrapolate from this snippet-view book it seems that this variant was invented by the translator of Carmi's works from Hebrew to English. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and make the proper corrections to render it into correct current English, since User הסרפד (talk · contribs) seems to be lining up good scholarly sources for the term, although let's wait to see how he actually votes. IZAK (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete, but I'm not sure what should be done. The stone in question is mentioned only twice in the Talmud, and once only in passing. In later literature it is referred to many times, but again only in passing. The only in-depth source I could find is Segal. I think a merge would be more appropriate, but to which page? Also, I cannot find any standard English translation of the term. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 14:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I suggest to post it on the Judaism notice board to get more visibility instead of rushing to merge. --Shuki (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Strictly speaking,
    WP:DELJEW's existence. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. WilyD 10:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jaid Barrymore

Jaid Barrymore (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:NOTINHERITED. She married into a famous family but hasn't done anything on her own. PrairieKid (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything I could find always link Jaid to her daughter Drew. Unless she does something noteworthy that would warrant an article of her own, delete. Alexius08 (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2014 (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 consensus is to delete all three articles PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptobank

Cryptobank (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 with no sourcing and seemingly was created by a SPA to help promote his own cryptobank,

WP:GNG
, etc. However, I would not be opposed to moving Cryptobank into the Article Incubator or even userspace (personally, I would be happy to work on it from time to time).

Here are the companion articles:

Coinkite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bitcoiniacs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Citation Needed | Talk 22:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 23:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree there's a burst of recent media coverage, including from the Reuters and UPI, but to me it falls short of the "significant coverage" standard in
WP:N. While there are stories that focus on the company itself, many of the articles are more interested in the "first Bitcoin ATM", which is built by a different company, Robocoins. Bitcoiniacs was the first customer, and did receive coverage as a result, but it's a little bit incidental, and may have been fleeting. ––Agyle (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for clarifying. I hadn't read the articles closely enough. I've changed my "vote" to delete.Chris Arnesen 19:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@
Jinkinson: If I'm not mistaken, this one page is being used to discuss the potential deletion of three different related articles, Cryptobank and the two articles that link to that article, Coinkite and Bitcoiniacs. My vote is to keep Bitcoiniacs but delete both Cryptobank and Coinkite delete all three.Chris Arnesen 09:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Disagree, please sign this! --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 14:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I only signed first delete; have signed all three now. ––Agyle (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bitcoinacs. Not notable. ––Agyle (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, please sign this! --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 14:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I only signed first delete; have signed all three now. ––Agyle (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I suggest breaking Bitcoinacs out to a seperate afd. It was created by a different user, is a business with a physical product, and as Chris Arnesen notes above, has had a different level of coverage from the other two subjects.Dialectric (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coinkite and Bitcoiniacs, enough notable. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 14:23, 19 January 2014 (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

(｡◕‿◕｡) 04:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Hey Arnold!: The Jungle Movie

Hey Arnold!: The Jungle Movie (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)

Poorly sourced article rife with

original research and rumors involving a planned second Hey Arnold! film. If any of this content even deserves to survive, it should be merged into Hey Arnold! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 23:14, 13 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Brandeburg

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

Non-notable person. A string of false and questionable citations (see this version) take the wind out of the sails of this biography. When verifiable sources are used, he appears to be a prolific but not terrible notable author of financial planning guides. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While Brandeburg is credited as a "contributing writer" at the IMDb site for Your Life, Your Money, he is not credited at the show's official website, which I would consider a much more reliable source. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:44, 20 January 2014 (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 Kept.. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Labour Party Rule Book

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

I'm not convinced that there is anything that can be encyclopaedically said about the rule book of a politcal party beyond the lead of this article (which is better with context in the main Labour Party article). Everything else is a list of the chapter headings taken directly from [1] (which afaict has no explicitly copyright status, but I don't know if this can be copyrighted?). The only part here with any encyclpoaedic coverage is Clause IV, which has its own article already. Thryduulf (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of UK-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 31 December 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Labour Party Rule Book is notable, and not just for Clause IV. So far as I can tell, the British Labour Party has allowed far more importance to its Rule Book than most political parties (certainly than the British Conservative Party), and internal disputes about the organisation of the Labour Party - about selection of parliamentary candidates, election of the Party leader, the relative size of trade union and individual membership representation at Party Conference, the existence of pressure groups within the Party, and so on - have almost always beeen framed around proposed changes to the Rule Book. And a number of these disputes have been discussed almost as widely outside the Labour Party, when they occurred and afterwards, as the ones about Clause IV. Several internal party groupings (the one that comes most to mind is the probably notable Campaign for Labour Party Democracy) have, indeed, focussed on proposing or opposing changes to Party rules almost to the exclusion of wider policy issues. Moreover, the argument that matters concerning Labour Party organisation and rules are adequately dealt with in

History of the Labour Party does not really stand up - these probably rightly put their primary focus on Labour's governmental and external political record or on disputes about policy rather than on disputes about Party organisation which, while influenced by outside events, have often had a dynamic of their own. However, the almost unsourced article under discussion doesn't cover these either, and apparently never has done so. Wikipedia could do with a good and well-sourced article on this or a closely related topic but, at least currently, this isn't it. PWilkinson (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Touch! Generations Soundtrack

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

This article fails

wp:GNG. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Ancienne Belgique 19.11.07

Live at Ancienne Belgique 19.11.07 (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 live album, hasn't received any significant coverage from third parties. hinnk (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2014 (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Becnel

Philip Becnel (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)

promote this subject. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - The original version of Philip Becnel's page was accurate, but the references that could be cited using available online sources left the page tagged with multiple "not in citation given" notations. Those tags marked "not in citation given" were well-deserved because the reference sources did not say verbatim what the preceding sentence claimed to be true. After recognizing this, and in an attempt to remedy the errors, the Wikipedia page was modified to match the citations provided. Now all the information on the page is verifiable using the reference that follows each sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pubwriter112 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The original version of the page was impressive, and if it had been borne out by the sources, would easily have met the criteria for inclusion. The rewritten page, pared down to the facts that are actually supported by the sources, is somewhat less impressive and rather
    run-of-the-mill. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

On the issue of whether Mr. Becnel is a “pioneer” or not in using behavioral analysis in vetting plaintiff for law firms, while the Washington Post article cited does not use that exact phrase it is clearly implied in the story where Mr. Becnel approached the attorney after he lost a sexual harassment suit. The absence of any publication anywhere that mentions this topic prior to this article should be sufficient to show that Mr. Becnel is a pioneer in this field. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/value-added-the-business-case-of-the-arlington-private-eye/2012/03/02/gIQA38DSrR_story.html

Claiming that Becnel is a pioneer in this field based on your inability to find references to anyone preceding him in the field is the most egregious example of
synthesis I've seen at Wikipedia in qute some time. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete Need sources about Becnel that say something other than president of trade association (i.e. trivial mention). Fails
WP:NPERSON. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

KEEP – Note that this Fed Times article cites Becnel as an “expert in background checks”: http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20130707/ACQUISITION03/307070009/CBP-secret-deal-bury-investigator-s-past-misconduct-questioned and this one refers to him as a “widely sought expert on criminal matters”: http://www.ohio.com/news/local/experts-debate-terror-survival-and-stockholm-syndrome-in-cleveland-kidnappings-1.398845 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.54.75 (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Neither article is about Becnel; both use him as a source for background material on the story at hand, but that is not the same as coverage of him as a subject. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:59, 21 January 2014 (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zealong

Zealong (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 evidence of notability for this particular brand; the refs are basically PR, despite being published in newspapers. DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep Favoring keeping: WP:RFD#KEEP 1/ New Zealand tea is peculiar enough that some people in the tea world find it useful and interesting that there is more to tea than tea bag, Indian black, and supermarket brand. Same goes for Nepal tea, Malawi's exceptional white teas, or Taiwan's high mountain teas. Zealong also contributes to New Zealand's exports by adding to the usual milk powder and fine wines. 2/ The article does not advertise nor comment on the quality of the products. 3/ Many other tea brands have a wikipedia page, when they are far from being the sole representative of a country's industry: Mariage_Frères Upton_Tea_Imports Le_Palais_des_Thés Twinings Lipton Charleston_Tea_Plantation etc. (signed: User: Fogull)
  • delete with a nod to the quality of New Zealand tea, the matter at hand is the
    significant coverage in verifiable sources unconnected with the subject. A fine tea it may well be, but the subject does not meet notability requirements for an encyclopedia article. Dlohcierekim 22:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Noted as the first commercial tea plantation in New Zealand. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. SimonLyall (talk) 08:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SimonLyall (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as company has reasonable independent coverage in mainstream media. Needs work but should be easily able to meet notability guidelines.
    talk) 22:32, 22 January 2014 (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 by User:RHaworth per CSD G3, "Blatant hoax". (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 01:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piglet Meets Max's Electric Company

Piglet Meets Max's Electric Company (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 movie does not exist. Google goves 0 hits. [2] Vanjagenije (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2014 (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bit-perfect

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

No references for a few years now Львівське (говорити) 20:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Audio and video interfaces and connectors, depending on whether reliable sources can substantiate anything. Topic doesn't seem notable enough for its own article. Searching Google Books, it wasn't clear whether it was a real term, or a misunderstanding of a descriptive term; many things are called "bit-perfect" or "bit-to-bit perfect" copies, meaning a lossless copy of digital data, which could be one use for this so-called "bit-perfect" audio signal standard. However, doing a normal web search for "bit perfect audio output" turns up quite many occurrences in forums and other sources that wouldn't qualify as reliable, but do suggest it's being properly used. One case U found where it was used as described in the article is from a magazine called "Hi-fi news", in 2008:

“The iTransport, which is certified Made for iPod®, turns any currently available iPod player into a high-end media server by providing a bit-perfect digital audio output to an audio/ video system, bypassing the player's internal ...”

––Agyle (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2014 (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 Gordon Rush. The brand article has been renamed to Gordon Rush, and this will be redirected to that article, as per the consensus PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Rush (designer)

Gordon Rush (designer) (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)

Couldn't establish

WP:NOTABILITY. Might be worth a redirect to Gordon Rush (brand), but nothing worth merging. Boleyn (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move Gordon Rush (brand) to Gordon Rush which is currently set up as a pointless redirect page to both designer and brand pages. The brand page also needs cleaning up and work. Mabalu (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2014 (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. Peridon (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skeat Dogwoods

Skeat Dogwoods (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 performer. Sources present on the article are all non-independent sources, and I cannot find any independent reviews, interviews, or awards to support the

the general notability guidelines. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: This was also nominated for speedy deletion. Tried to cancel the AfD, but it still went through for some reason. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:26, 13 January 2014 (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

Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2014. In keeping with the usual custom, contributions from editors with few or no contributions on other topics have not been counted. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Jeff McCormick

Jeff McCormick (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)

Promotional article written about an independent candidate in an

only one event as the only sources in the article that are not from McCormick's business or campaign websites are about his announcement for Governor. Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POLITICIAN says: "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate." --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

This article is both fair and unbiased. Mr. McCormick is a very well known businessman and current gubernatorial candidate from Massachusetts. Mr McCormick has an extremely professional resume including his well known lacrosse and business career. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Running12345 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC) — Running12345 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@
subject's notability. Please see a summary of requirements at user:Dloh/i2 Dlohcierekim 00:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

This article seems to be well written and fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.27.3 (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC) — 24.63.27.3 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Savant Young

Savant Young (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 MMA fighter - only one top tier fight. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haian He

Haian He (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 appear to pass

WP:NACADEMICS. No reliable sources have been provided. Moreover, the article is likely to fail the GNG due to insufficient media coverage. Alex discussion ★ 19:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Smales

AfDs for this article:
Daniel Smales (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)

Mr Smales is not yet notable. One day, if he works hard, he will be. The sole reference that may hold water is in the Hull Daily Mail, but this is an article about him as a student being unable to afford his tuition fees. It's an appeal page, but not, absolutely not, an article that gives him any notability, except for the event of his needing to raise the money.

This article is the basis of a decent future article, and I have no objection to its re-creation once Mr Smales is notable. I'm afraid that is not yet the case. Fiddle Faddle 19:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete Frankly, qualifies under both A7 & G11, subject is entirely non notable and this article has been repeatedly recreated and thus is spam. However, let the AfD run to completion so this **** can be speedily deleted under G4 in the future. Safiel (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quite obviously non-notable. If it continues to be recreated, it may need to be salted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 19:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 19:39, 13 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First Cuban rafter

First Cuban rafter (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)

All individuals listed failed

WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 19:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . Concur with nominators assessment. Finnegas (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Picone

Gustavo Picone (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 MMA fighter Peter Rehse (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2014 (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 List_of_Internet_phenomena#Other_phenomena. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff the Killer

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

Farcical, obscure, contrived topic not worthy of recognition MichaelFatson (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unreferenced, non-notable "alias" of a real person. Unencyclopedic tone, appears to be
    original research. —Josh3580talk/hist 04:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per
    Tokyogirl79's well-considered and constructive proposal.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2014 (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So Fresh: Christmas Songs From Past to Present

So Fresh: Christmas Songs From Past to Present (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)
So Fresh: Songs for Christmas 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
So Fresh: Songs for Christmas 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
So Fresh: Songs for Christmas 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
So Fresh: Songs for Christmas 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
So Fresh: Songs for Christmas 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
So Fresh: Songs for Christmas 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Individual articles of Christmas editions from the

WP:NALBUMS. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Cookie cutter compilation albums such as this are rarely reviewed and receive virtually no serious coverage in reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LSM (Zeiss)

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

Not notable. LSM is the prefix used on many Zeiss products but I can't find a reference that it's actually the "name of a product line." The lsm file format is only a modified tif format. The article contains no references only external links mostly to tools that use the lsm format Mllyjn (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no reason for an independent article, and it has no references. If verifiable information can be found, merge it into a larger Zeiss article.I feel like a tourist (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no
    WP:V or redirect to Aeiss if sourcing found. Dlohcierekim 23:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2014 (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. A merge discussion might be a good way forward. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hildegard Trabant

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

WP:ONEEVENT. Any remarkable content-I cant see much if any- can be merged to List of deaths at the Berlin Wall TheLongTone (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I respectfully decline this logic. To include such information of the at least 138 victims of the
Peter Fechter; what makes Hildegard Trabant different from these three? Brewer Bob (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

in wikipedia jargon
WP:NOTMEMORIAL. History is full of victims. Of the three you link to the first is simply a name and a date &c plus a load of pictures. It's a clear candidate for deletion or redirectin/merging to the article I linked to above. The second is basically the same, but has a lengthy preamble on the Berlin Wall. The third is the only one which deserves a separate article, because there were events consequent on the incident. Most of the people in List of deaths at the Berlin Wall do not have individual articles. Hope this clarifies things.TheLongTone (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TheLongTone (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. TheLongTone (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - At least meets our notability guidelines for a biography. In addition to the sources in the article there are these: [3] [4] [5] [6]. According to
    WP:BASIC "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" This subject meets the criteria by having in depth coverage in two sources, and minor coverage in several independent sources.- MrX 18:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Even if she passes WP:BASIC she is still falls foul of
WP:ONEEVENT. I don't think there is much strength in the point of view the the one event is their being killed: surely the one event is Berlin Wall killings as a group. Otherwise, they are just a murder victim, and most murder victims are not notable. It's the context of the Wall that confers notability, & therefore WP:ONEEVENT applies.TheLongTone (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The way I see it,
WP:ONEEVENT is a portion of a larger guideline, and in this case, it's not absolutely clear what has to be done. What that leaves us with is editorial judgement, thus the value of these sorts of discussions.- MrX 20:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
As a rule of thumb, would there be enough for a supportable biography article leaving out the woman's death? Unless the third link given above contains something startling, (the other two are solely about Wall incidents) the answer is an unequivocal No. Hence, the article merits deletion.TheLongTone (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't noticed the fourth link, which mainly features the eponymous East German car-substitute, with one mention of the woman, again as a wll shooting victim. Hardly substantial in depth &c. All thes refs do is reinforce verifyability.TheLongTone (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Applying
    WP:ONEEVENT would be seriously going against the intent of the guideline which is weeding out practically non-notable content that we would deem notable by means of GNG because of a short burst of news reports. Death at the inner German border have been the subject of longterm reporting and study as well as courtcases after the unification. In this particular case the perpetrator was sentenced 34 years later, something our article es not even mention. Notable as a person of historical significance not a random victim of a tabloid shooting. Agathoclea (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That, if included, would be a reason to keep the article.TheLongTone (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis of NOT MEMORIAL. To justify a separate article, there needs to be good evidence that her fate was regarded as particularly symbolic, beyond that of the many others killed trying to escape East Germany. The technical meeting of the GNG is not a reason why we have to make an article. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Verbiage added attesting that her death was rather unique; 1) unlike most, her death was totally unnoticed in West Berlin; 2) when she was actually shot, she was no longer attempting to flee East Berlin, but merely trying to avoid arrest; and 3) out of at least 138 Berlin Wall victims, only eight were women.Brewer Bob (talk) 14:13, 1 Jauary 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.217.201 (talk)
Are you seriously arguing that because her death was little noticed , she is therefore the more notable? 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Needs citing.TheLongTone (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added a reference from the official Berlin Wall Memorial. But I'm reluctant to keeping the article and would rather merge it to List of deaths at the Berlin Wall. De728631 (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Despite a truly heroic effort by the page craetor to write it up, I still don't see this as anything more than a merge.TheLongTone (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- Like others, I see little notable in this bio. The only unusual feature seems to be that it was unknown in the West until after the fall of the Berlin Wall. On the other hand, merely redirecting to the list feels too drastic. Could we turn the list into a free-standing article that would allow room for some brief biographic details of all victims? Peterkingiron (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The List of Deaths...is in fact a substantial article: the list itself is a table within that article that has a field for additional details.TheLongTone (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:50, 13 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Coleman

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

Not notable. Refs don't satisfy GNG and can't find any better. Most of her claim to notability seems to stem from her membership of Dalla, so perhaps should be selectively merged there. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2014 (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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Side hug

Side hug (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)

Afd:Terminology is largely a neologism from a satirical rap song, does not appear in dictionaries, and no reliable sources suggest otherwise. TricksterWolf (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notability is fully attested by the reliable sources in the article. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:40, 29 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources are adequate enough to cover GNG concerns.LM2000 (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the nominator, and I can't understand how these sources here are reliable for "side-hug", as none of them are actually about "side-hugging". They're all references to a satirical YouTube rap video. If these are the sources, the page should be about the rap video, not about a neologism coined by the rap video.
  • Of the seven sources, three are missing any reference to side-hug (or are bad links); three are from a single feminist blog (or directly copied from it); and one is a newspaper article. Every source is about the YouTube rap video "Christian side hug", and every source is satirical. How does any of this validate a neologism? TricksterWolf (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no real existence. See the alleged sources. --Bejnar (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't believe types of hugs are really credible enough to need an encyclopaedia entry. The sources listed don't really establish credibility and most of them deal with an irrelevant rap song. Bailmoney27 talk 15:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hug. The article doesn't have enough information to warrant it's own article, but the topic is real and there is content worthy of a merge. --50.124.106.22 (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Tough more references are required but the page seems worth keeping, merge is also a viable option. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hug. Really not sure the youtube rap video worthy of mention in the article, but you could at least have a brief mention of "side hug" in the hug article. I am aware of this practice's prominence within the Evangelical abstinence movement, but if that's the reason we're keeping it, it could just as easily be merged to another related article. I feel like a tourist (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep Never heard it called a "side hug" before, but the topic seems to be rather notable.--Coin945 (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep Agree with Rafaelgriffin Jed 20012 (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2014 (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

Gobbledygook. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Bafflegab

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

We already have an article on the concept of unintelligible jargon:

Gobbledygook. This article would be better suited to a dictionary, as it has no encyclopedic content. Powers T 16:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the two or three sourced sentences to
    WP:NOTDIC, different names for the same thing are... wait for it... the same thing. Cnilep (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. As noted below, there is consensus that the nominator's complaint is really one about content (and no consensus to apply

WP:LISTN argument is without other support (and arguably rebutted by Arxiloxos). postdlf (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

List of National Basketball Association season minutes leaders

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 list is largely incorrect and therefore has to be remade from scratch. The minutes leaders in the NBA are and have always been determined by total minutes played, not by minutes per game average.

talk) 20:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep. (EC). The nomination provides no rationale for deletion. If revisions to the list are needed those are to be addressed at the article's Talk page. AFD is not a forum for cleanup. --doncram 20:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The proper forum for this discussion is at
    WP:WAWARD) 20:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Stat leaders are based on how they are discussed in reliable sources, which do not follow a general rule of always being an average or always a total. Nobody refers to average games played for games played leaders. The article sites both an average http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/mp_per_g_yearly.html and total from basketball-reference.com http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/mp_yearly.html, so even the RS doesnt tout one over another.—Bagumba (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was not my reason for deleting the article. The point is that the National Basketball Association does track "minutes leaders" and the official criteria has always been total minutes played, not minutes per game average. You can see the list of minutes leaders in any edition of the Official NBA Guide and it will show that it is total minutes. The most recent edition is available here on pages 130 and 131: [9]. This is what is meant by "leading the league in minutes". We can't have an article on Wikipedia that is titled "List of National Basketball Association season minutes leaders" that is half incorrect.

talk) 21:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

So
User:Hoops gza, are you arguing that the content of the article is incorrect, or that the article shouldn't exist? I'm unclear. Please help me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

The content of the article is incorrect. But since it basically has to be remade from scratch, I thought that it might be better to delete it. This was wrong and mininformed in hindsight.

talk) 22:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Okay, suggest this is snow closed as the original nomination is not correctly instigated. If content discussion needs to take place, it can take place on the talk page or at a Wikiproject or similar. AFD is not the place for the place for this. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neither this current article, or the proposed changed content to total minutes played, meets LISTN. Seems like we would be creating more work to procedurally close this on a technicality just to reopen another one, when we can simply continue with this already open AdD and discuss its notability.Bagumba (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the official list of minutes leaders; they are grouped by total not average. I do find it strange that NBA.com would use average, while the Official Guide would use total. Either way I have to say that the subject's notability is arguable.

talk) 17:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. I couldn't find sources there that weren't just an almanac-like stats listing (
WP:LISTN). Minutes leaders in a given season are discussed but nothing in relation to winners from season-to-season. LISTN recommends: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."—Bagumba (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
This topic is a bear to search, especially now that Google News Archives are no longer useful to isolate reliable sources that aren't behind paywalls. But here is a 2011 piece from The New York Times discussing Monta Ellis's playing time and comparing him in that respect to Jordan, Iverson, and Chamberlain among others. [11] --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The outcome of this AfD will be useful to determine if sports stats lists need to demonstrate sources that satisfy
    WP:VERIFIABILITY and subjective criteria that a stat is notable. For example, can new list be created for all stats at http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/, e.g. Win Shares Per 48 Minutes?—Bagumba (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Cocaine

Honey Cocaine (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)

Was unable to find sufficient sourcing. Most sources in article are unreliable gossip sites, YouTube, and lyrics sites. Prod declined. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 16:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 16:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:BEFORE, before a nomination. STATic message me! 22:03, 22 January 2014 (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mobile Suit Gundam military units

List of Mobile Suit Gundam military units (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 an overly in-depth list of

notability for the topic, so this is something better suited to Wikia. TTN (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge list into
    WP:NNC. Most of the list is written using WP:Real world wording, but some parts do occasionally fall into in-universe perspective narrative and need a copy edit to put the wording into real world perspective. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. List does not satisfy
    WP:LISTN, and there's little to actually merge. There are no third-party citations, the information is overly detailed, and it would overwhelm the parent article to have anything more than the intro merged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2014 (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  16:45, 13 January 2014 (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 mobile weapons

List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 mobile weapons (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 an overly in-depth list of

notability for the topic, so this is something better suited to Wikia. TTN (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This does not satisfy
    WP:LISTN, and it is way too crufty. If someone wants to copy it over to Wikia, they might appreciate it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge list into
    WP:NNC. Most of the list is written using WP:Real world wording, but some parts do occasionally fall into in-universe perspective narrative and need a copy edit to put the wording into real world perspective. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2014 (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  16:45, 13 January 2014 (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. After a month of discussion here, ultimately there's no consensus at this time. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 00:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of concerts at Barclays Center

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

This list is clearly against

WP:FUTURE. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 19:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 19:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 23 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as promotional fluff. This belongs on the venue's web site, not in an encyclopedia. The future event listings can only be promotional, as they certainly cannot yet be notable. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This has no encyclopedic value, and it smells of promotional boasting. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Do not see any promotional boasting in merely listing events that took place.Zvonko (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, indiscriminate applies not to article contents, but to articles. If we wrote an article on each concert as a matter of course, that would be indiscriminate. The specific items listed in an article do not have to be notable, though a reasonable number of the ones listed here will be.. There have been had several discussions here on specific instanaces of this sort of article, and I think there have been varying results-- er really need a centralzed discussion somewhere. Meanwhile, the practical thing to do is to keep them. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, indiscriminate applies; it applies to the entire content. It says: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". OK, it does not specifically mention "list of events", but IMO, a record of every event ever held is still contrary this idea/principle. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my view, INDISCRIMINATE is a narrowly worded policy consisting of four or five specific situations and is not obviously applicable to this article. James500 (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is exactly the type of non-encyclopaedic list that the guidelines were drafted to avoid. --Bejnar (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#List of events by place. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment. IMO, if an AFD reaches the point of requiring a second relist, it is not likely to break away from a no-consensus state. Resolute 00:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very clearly an indiscriminate list in that its listing every concert that happened at a venue. That being said the topic itself isn't notable which is the main issue, there is no sources indicating concerts at the center are more notable than any other entertainment venue so fails GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very clearly a discriminate list, which lists every concert at this venue. Until wikidata becomes usable such lists are the only place to store useful information in a complete way (of course, I know that some think (me too) that information about lady gaga is useless...)
    talk) 00:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Multiple other pages of different venues on Wikipedia, such as
    talk) 19:03, 22 January 2014 (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. After around a month, no consensus has emerged here at this time. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 00:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of events held at Simon Bolivar Park

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 list is clearly against

WP:FUTURE. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 23 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as promotional fluff. This belongs on the venue's web site, not in an encyclopedia. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - More zealotry from
    WP:FUTURE. Some are not as well sourced and maintained as the others but that's not a reason to delete them.Zvonko (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
WP:ADHOM is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I have started a centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#List of events by place. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:44, 13 January 2014 (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. Closed with

talk) 02:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Gliese 638

Gliese 638 (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 seem to meet

t • c) 21:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 30 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now a suspected variable surely means that something has been written on the star...and its a K star and close. Unusual enough to warrant a page I think. I will try to look for sources later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: Less than you might think; I didn't find much of substance. There were a few hits on "HD 151288", but it was mostly in combined studies. Praemonitus (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2014 (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  16:43, 13 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.ip

.ip (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)

Fake TLD used in a single IRC server. No claim to notability. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2014 (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. Will userfy/move to draft upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merchant sharing

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

Article on "a new field of economics" first presented in a paper published in November [23]. GScholar shows that it is uncited by others. It may pan out but right now it's just

WP:TOOSOON for notability, not to mention that one has to guess from email addresses that the author of the paper is also the author of our article. Mangoe (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is true, it's a little too soon to have this article, but I will give three arguments to keep it or at least to leave it few weeks until we get more references from other people.
    1. Reviewing is currently in progress by several economists. Today, I received only positives returns and it sounds to be a foundation for Economics in digital age. Several French blogs have published papers on Merchant Sharing. But it takes time on the academic domain to publish papers (in English) that may cite the theory.
    2. Merchant Sharing opens new opportunities and does not conflict with other traditional topics or news. It is some way standalone and is just linked to 'intangible good'. For educational purpose, it is important that people on Internet, with basic Math background, may understand the democratic ideas behind Merchant sharing
    3. This is a very specific topic and may request an exception of Wikipedia rules. Merchant Sharing promotes an open-source, free, without paywall, P2P, secure payment system. This is really a system that advantage open-knowledge on the Net (Wikipedia model) and gives great potential incomes for artists. The more it is known and the speediest citizens get rewards from this. Pelinquin (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apart from some problems with... assumptions in the article text, the topic just doesn't seem to be
    notable. When others have discussed it in depth, then we can have an article - which reflects independent commentary. bobrayner (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Userfy or if policy/guidelines/newly-evolving practices allow for it, move to
    WP:TOOSOON but don't lose the content per 3 good arguments made by the primary author, Pelinquin, above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Draft policies, guidelines, and practices are still under active development. I would expect that such things would be strongly discouraged unless there was a reasonable hope that the item would become notable. The issue here with respect to moving Merchant sharing to Draft: is not the content but whether it will be "okay" to move a page from article-space to Draft: space as a result of a deletion discussion. I think the "okay-ness" of that is still in flux. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle, I think that the draft namespace is a good idea; but if it does not (yet) have rules for dealing with content that clearly fails core wikipedia principles, and if that lack of rules is even used as a reason for moving such problematic content to the safe-haven of Draft, then I would oppose that outcome for this AfD. bobrayner (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not sure if Merchant Sharing is in common usage. However, if this article is to be kept it needs references and possibly correcting. For example, the section 'Particular cases' says Pre industrially. Only one instance of a good can be produced. But something like a book has physical and information properties. Many bibles where copied by hand, so there was more than one instance of the information contained. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2014 (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.

talk) 11:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Luca Gasparotto

Luca Gasparotto (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 mistakenly removed the PROD tag thinking of "old" Rangers. Scottish League One and Scottish League Two are not Fully Pro Leagues, so this fails

WP:NFOOTY JMHamo (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article fails
    WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as he has only played at the lowest (semi-professional) level of Scottish league football. I would have considered a
    temporary reprieve on the basis of his selection by Canada, but apparently they are only having a training camp (Rangers FC report) and are not playing a match (ie he won't be capped internationally soon). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moacir Oliveira

Moacir Oliveira (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 MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 16:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 16:11, 13 January 2014 (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. Deleted by

WP:G5 Mark Arsten (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Virgil Ianţu

Virgil Ianţu (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 a television personality, of course by a single-purpose account, who doesn't appear that notable based on the sources provided:

To be sure, not all the above should be summarily discarded; no one, for instance, would say Adevărul is not a serious source. However, the article as it exists appears to be a case of a lot of padding (in the form of invalid "sources") being added in order to make the subject appear more notable than he in fact is. As for the awards he's reportedly garnered, sourcing on those is weak, and we have no indication of their possible significance. - Biruitorul Talk 15:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete—block evasion by sockpuppet of User:Beleiutz. Like his other contributions, this one is a poorly sourced, copyright-infringing puff piece. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paris bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics

Paris bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics (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)

Three articles on 2024 Summer Olympic bids got deleted successfully after several days on Afd. This article should be deleted as well. Georgia guy (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2014 (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. Merge or renaming discussions can continue on the article's talk page. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 20:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Romance-speaking Europe

Romance-speaking Europe (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's no original content here, boils down to a dicdef, if that

Lfdder (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

The article has the potential for expansion. For example, the history subsection could be expanded to explain why all these countries speak Romance languages. Regardless, I don't think it's current composition it unsatisfactory. Rob (talk | contribs) 16:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
i.e. something that is already covered/could be covered in
Lfdder (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
If you believe that Romance-speaking Europe should be deleted, then please also include
Slavic World, and Celtic nations. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Events held at the Arena Zagreb

Events held at the Arena Zagreb (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 list is clearly against

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We don't need a record of every event held at this arena, especially since the more notable events are already listed that the parent article (Arena Zagreb). -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do we really need a dozen separate discussions? Neonchameleon (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bundling them together is technically allowed, but since some may be notable and others may not, I think this is the better approach. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 29 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all stadiums in the world hold events, it is not encyclopaedic to list every single event held. LibStar (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Another arbitrary and selective listing by P 1 9 9 from the Category:Lists of events by place. Granted this article is not as well sourced and maintained as some others but it can be improved.Zvonko (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ADHOM is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I have started a centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#List of events by place. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • In my view, INDISCRIMINATE is a narrowly worded policy consisting of four or five specific situations and is not obviously applicable to this article. James500 (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per
    WP:NOTPAPER. Indiscriminate doesn't apply, as the list is finite, relatively short and with a clear inclusion criterion, so it doesn't match in any way what INDISCRIMINATE is about. WP:INDISCRIMINATE was created to avoid the project become everything2 or DMOZ; but this is not a "list of all ISP providers in Indiana" or "list of health-related websites". Diego (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:33, 13 January 2014 (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:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger One ping only 01:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

List of bus routes in Tallinn

AfDs for this article:
List of bus routes in Tallinn (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 route list, Fails NOTTRAVEL & NOTDIR. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rei Zulu

Rei Zulu (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 MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lots of hearsay, but no supported claims of notability. Fails to meet
    WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radik Iboyan

Radik Iboyan (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 MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RCSU Science Challenge

RCSU Science Challenge (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 is about a contest that is sourced only to primary sources. I cannot find significant independent secondary coverage that would establish

notability. Whpq (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2014 (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Streaming Internet Radio toolbar

Streaming Internet Radio toolbar (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 find any sources to show that this toolbar is notable, and it relies entirely on a single source. It's also been tagged as being written like an advertisement for over 2 years. Tractor Tyres (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete looks to me to be something written by the company to promote it's self. A google search gave me no 3rd party sources to prove notability.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2014 (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:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger One ping only 01:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

La Veloz del Norte

La Veloz del Norte (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 bus company, Fails GNG -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 11:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This artical has no proof of nobility under
    wp:gng.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super Dominica

Super Dominica (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 declined this speedy on a technicality, as it was for

(｡◕‿◕｡) 11:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails
    COI certainly doesn't help either. --Drm310 (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2014 (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 by Bearian per G6/R3. (non-admin closure) Lugia2453 (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Handsworth Primary School in Waltham Forest London

Handsworth Primary School in Waltham Forest London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable in any way. PROD removed by author with no attempt to establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No indication of notabilty to meet WP:GNG.--Charles (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a very ordinary primary school. Please note: the article is now at Handsworth Primary School and the title at the top of this discussion is a redirect. Peridon (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2014 (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 adeletion 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. Closing early per

WP:SNOW Mark Arsten (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Union Bank of the Philippines

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

Notability not established per

WP:COMPANY. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Exactly where does it say that it's the seventh largest? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Publicly-listed company, significant coverage. -- The Anome (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A major economic player in the Philippines and subject of plenty of coverage. Article could use some cleanup but notability is established.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the other Philippines banks AFDed. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luciano Azevedo

Luciano Azevedo (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 MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Wiedenman

Jon Wiedenman (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 martial artist. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject appears non-notable, page creator stated is affiliated with the martial arts school's website that's mostly been used as a source. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage doesn't appear to be about him and he fails to meet
    WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rat Guard (for Brazilian Jiu Jitsu)

Rat Guard (for Brazilian Jiu Jitsu) (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 variation made up by a non-notable MMA artist. No indication of notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced article with nothing that shows notability.Mdtemp (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article has no sources and makes no claims of notability. Reads more like an ad. Papaursa (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2014 (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clay French

Clay French (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 MMA fighter Peter Rehse (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The article meets the minimum requirements of
    Pride FC). Poison Whiskey 13:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Avetisyan

Mikhail Avetisyan (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 BLP of a MMA fighter of no notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced BLP about an MMA fighter with no top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article has no references except for a link to his MMA results at Sherdog (which lists all his IAFC bouts). He does not meet
    WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Gracie

Cesar Gracie (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 martial artist. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2014 (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. Wizardman 17:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CodeBase (book)

CodeBase (book) (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 self-published book. No reliable sources to be found. Doesn't pass

WP:NBOOK. Prod was removed for unknown reasons Bgwhite (talk) 06:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, see

[majestic titan] 22:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Urban Bank

Urban Bank (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)

As per

WP:COMPANY, notability not established by secondary sources. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2014 (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Export and Industry Bank

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

Not notable as per

WP:COMPANY. Its only references are "trivial or incidental coverage." Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Easy Keep - as with other 20 plus Philippines banks, sorry but nominator does not know how to search in Google Books.
Trade Policy Review: The Philippines 1999 - Volume 67 - Page 55 "The private sector in the meantime set up the Export and Industry Bank in 1997 to service the financing needs of exporters. "
Country Finance: Philippines 2003 -- Page 94 "The Export Development Act also created the Export and Industry Bank of the Philippines (ExportBank), which offers trade-financing services-including letters of credit, collection of bills, issuance of bonds and guarantees, import advances ..."
Raykyogrou0, please add these sources to the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to add them yourself. But how deep is the subject of the article covered in these sources? Or are they simply mentioned a few times? (I wouldn't know, since you didn't show me any links) Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close.
    WP:COMPANY states that "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." It appears this was not met, if that has been done, they a 2nd nomination may be pursued. –HTD 12:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. I'm withdrawing the AfD on the basis of sources located. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Burgess's Treehouse

Horace Burgess's Treehouse (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 conceivable notability for this structure, an "internet sensation" DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since 1993 it has been the world's largest tree-house. --Macha Panta (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the Cite for that fact is ... where ? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 06:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the name of both external links. --Macha Panta (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Many sources exist about this. Google and HighBeam searches for <"Horace Burgess" treehouse> quickly yields substantial coverage in
    Scripps Howard News Service [31]; and lots of local coverage. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment I'll withdraw it, if someone will add those sources. Do we have a usable picture ? DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are several good photos, but they are all so large that they cannot be used as is. I've had trouble shrinking them and maintaining clarity. A discussion on the article's talk page would be a good idea because we need to make sure we find a public domain image of it that will still be clear after it is shrunk to a more appropriate size. --Macha Panta (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added most of the above sources and re-wrote most of it. Article could be expanded but I don't think there is an issue with notability at this time. If you believe so I'm confident more sources could be found, but the current ones have yet to really be used except for one or two facts from each. --
    GreenC 21:05, 13 January 2014 (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. Closing early per

WP:SNOW Mark Arsten (talk) 07:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Philippine Savings Bank

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 evidence of notability per

WP:COMPANY. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2014 (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. Closing early per

WP:SNOW Mark Arsten (talk) 07:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Philippine Postal Savings Bank

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

Notability not established per

WP:COMPANY. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

It would be helpful if articles should not take an AfD to have references added to them if it has been tagged with {{unreferenced}} for over two years. To be entirely true, you added one and not a couple. Also, how does that one reference establish the bank's notability? It doesn't exactly verify the claims in the article. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added two sources, not one, and they are both substantive articles about this institution. The standards and procedures you seem to be following for your recent bank-related AfDs and PRODS seem to me to be out of line with the general consensus. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. It looked like one. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How could it "look like one"? - your contrib history shows only seconds between these bank Prods and Afds, no sources added. And yet when others look in Google Books and Google News they find sources, so how do you explain that "It looked like one"? if you did not check for sources yourself before nominating? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Do I really have to spell everything out for you?) It looked like one link to me when I clicked the diff from my watchlist which is why I added the {{onesource}} tag. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If so, how come you haven't added them? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're shifting the goalposts. We wouldn't be in this mess to begin with if you had taken the initiative to improve the article, rather than nominating it for deletion because you think otherwise. --Sky Harbor (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or, or. (and this is just me thinking out loud) You could have just created a properly-sourced article four years ago.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're imposing editing standards in a time when those editing standards were more lenient than they are today. The editing standards of 2010 are different from 2014, and as I mentioned in the Urban Bank nomination, I look forward to relying on the good will and community spirit of Wikipedia and individual Wikipedians to help out their fellow editors should they come across it. --Sky Harbor (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suppose editing standards were more lenient back then, (most other language wikipedias are still as lenient) but that still doesn't make this article's subject as notable as you think it was when it was created. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know that
stubs are.) --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Wikipedia was more lenient in 2006, not 2010. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly looks to be more lenient than 2014, apparently. --Sky Harbor (talk) 11:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per
    WP:NRVE. Topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, and is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles themselves. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Where are these available sources then? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close.
    WP:COMPANY states that "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." It appears this was not met, if that has been done, then a 2nd nomination may be pursued. –HTD 12:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
This company isn't even publicly traded. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The comments saying "speedy keep" or "close" are not actual
    speedy keep criterion. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:13, 16 January 2014 (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeside Leisure Complex

Lakeside Leisure Complex (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 resort; only asserted notability is

WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS violation. Orange Mike | Talk 04:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems to more commonly come up as Lakeside Country Club, Camberley; there are scads and scads of brief mentions (in addition to stand-up comedy it's also known for cabaret, as its own site states), so I believe it passes general notability, although the sad state of the online news archives is indicated by the fact I can't find a source on the fire. I've added a couple of additional references. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to
    WP:ORG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2014 (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. Consensus is against deletion. Redirect discussion can take place elsewhere.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winston McCall

Winston McCall (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 is nothing more than a single sentence, created by a fan of the subject's band. The subject likely meets notability, but with such an extreme stub a redirect may be more suitable. Prior PROD was removed. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect into band article. -- The Anome (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect unless a pile of content shows up - David Gerard (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Mild keep - it's just substantive enough to keep now - David Gerard (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject of numerous interviews, generally as spokesperson of main band, but enough to be notable.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to his band. Nothing significant independent of his band. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's Tree

AfDs for this article:
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 conceivable notability, but it passed AfC nonetheless. Of all the articles I've screened, this is perhaps the least justifiable. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to a previous AfD about the same topic. See also

User:Valoem/The Devil's Tree. —rybec 06:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As much as I despise articles of this type, the tree has been the subject of multiple reliable and verifiable sources that are indisputably about the tree. Alansohn (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2014 (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) 01:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pass Karado

Pass Karado (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 has been tagged as possibly not notable for a while. I had a look around, and while there are a couple of interviews on websites, I couldn't see anything that would pass the GNG, and there isn't evidence that there is a lot more out there. Based on the apparent status of the site, this seems unlikely to change any time soon. Bilby (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, no indications of notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza Amidi

Alireza Amidi (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)

Reads like a resume, no indication of

notability. I am unable to find significant discussion of this individual in reliable sources. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 02:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Fails at
    WP:SIGCOV. I didn't find much info about the subject in reliable sources to evaluate the notability. The institutions or organisations, where this person has worked or is associated with, are used as references. Not an encyclopedic article in its current state. Hitro talk 19:15, 23 January 2014 (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. Wizardman 17:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hasidic childbirth customs

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

Previously

WP:PRODded by me, and deprodded at User:IZAK
's request that this be brought to AfD for discussion.

This article is problematic on many counts, which is unfortunate, because it is well written and uses apparently reliable sources:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    much too broad, including subjects others than childbirth (e.g. social structure, community solidarity, health and illness), and reads like a personal essay. Yoninah (talk) 10:17, 13 January 2014 (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. Wizardman 17:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lorin roser

Lorin roser (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 significance Itsalleasy (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2014 (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. Wizardman 17:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Creek Band, Village of Indians

Mission Creek Band, Village of Indians (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 context, seems like an advertisement/looks like it was copy and pasted, no indication of notability. Tal Brenev (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if it is somehow notable in the slightest, it belongs on Wikisource, not here.
Pylon 01:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2014 (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 Judith Barsi. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

József Barsi

Related AfDs for this article:
József Barsi (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

AldezD (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Maria Barsi, article for this AFD subject's wife & mother of Judith,

AldezD (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Just a question not an opinion but doesn't the fact that he was her murderer as well as her father make him more interesting than your average Joe Sixpack? We have an article for Mark David Chapman and his only notability was his murder of John Lennon.
talk) 06:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The murder of Lennon was a bit more significant. Chapman is the subject of whole books, e.g. Jack Jones's Let Me Take You Down: Inside the Mind of Mark David Chapman, the Man Who Killed John Lennon. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrion

Hydrion (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 recent invention, mentioned nowhere but on Wikipedia and its mirrors, and the manufacturer's website. (Perhaps merge, if relevant, to

NAFION?) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:38, 13 January 2014 (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

Jin-pole.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Gin pole

Gin pole (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 have proposed the deletion of article Gin pole because it is a copy of the article

Jin-pole (except it does not mention the alternate spelling jin-pole). Gin pole is the more common spelling and perhaps it would be better to merge these articles keeping the more common gin pole as the title and making jin-pole a redirect to gin pole. Jim Derby (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one and use common sense to figure out the most common spelling and use that for the title of the surviving article, with the other spelling mentioned. But don't change the spelling in the sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • close AFD and deal with as merge/move discussion It's obvious that one or the other will be the redirect, and it's preferable to use
    jin-pole as the source of the move in order to preserve the edit history. With those considerations, this is the wrong venue for further discussion. Mangoe (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2014 (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, obviously no prejudice against recreation if he gets elected.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Warburton

David Warburton (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 subject - I can't find any source coverage about him specifically. FWIW the article was also largely created by the subject. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Candidate has fair a chance of becoming a Member of Parliament in May 2015, but right now I don't see grounds for notability.Flaming Ferrari (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -non notable local politician. Atlas-maker (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or redirect to the relevant race if we have an article for it. Not able to locate significant coverage. Dlohcierekim 23:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non notable politician. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:24, 14 January 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_January_13&oldid=1138778247"