Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 16

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Open English

Open English (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)

Completing nomination for User:70.208.21.233, whose edit-summary rationale was "wikiepdia is not for company bios and ads, this is not notable." I am neutral. Ansh666 02:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Offline 17:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 17:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this as
  WP:PROMOTIONAL while welcoming its eventual organic reconstitution BlueSalix (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak delete. The tone of the article doesn't strike me as particularly problematic, but as far as I can tell, all many of the sources come from the company or its advertisements or business profiles. Notability is not established. Cnilep (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Maybe in five years. There is little substance in this article, and no indication of cultural relevance. It reads like the "History" or "About us" page on a corporate website. The advertisements section seems like a weird PR thing. Ringbang (talk) 01:53, 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 keep. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YoYo Games

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

(Find video game sources: "YoYo Games" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Article lacks reliable secondary and third party sources and fails WP:Notability BlitzGreg (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Venture BeatMSDN BlogGamesIndustry.bizPocketGamerMashableInsideMobileGames. Plenty of source I would say. You guys should at least attempt a cursory look using Google. Tsk tsk.
   Talk  07:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Fairly notable company, decent amount of refs, but could use more (like most articles). Fairly balanced discussion of company. Don't see compelling reason to delete. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as passing
  WP:V material. Article may lack these sources, but notability is about existence of such sources and not article quality, and finding such did not pose much trouble. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:49, 25 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) 00:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Overmars

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

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

Article was recreated after previous discussion to delete the article for failing

• Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination that occurred after the subject's very clear pass of
  WP:PROF#C1 (highly cited publications on Google scholar) was explained at length to the nominator on the article's talk page. The claim that "all links are dead" is also false. A couple of the links were dead (likely due to the subject recently leaving employment with Utrecht U.) but recoverable through the internet archive, other links (the ams genealogy and distance calculator one) are and were live (but paywalled in the case of the distance calculator) and the nominator also insisted on deleting a citation to a published journal article with the excuse that the courtesy preprint url given in it (now removed) was dead. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not insist on deleting that one citation that was not dead, that was a mistake, and I even admitted so. The issue is not only regarding that, but the very fact, that not only were the sources unreliable, they also fail to establish why the person is notable in the first place per "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." the policy in question. BlitzGreg (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to fail to understand the difference between a large number of works, and a large number of citations, a difference that is critical to understand

WP:PROF#C1 and that was clearly explained to you prior to the nomination. Nobody has been arguing that Overmars warrants an article because of the fact that he has many publications (although that fact is mentioned in the article). The reason he warrants an article is because some of his publications have had a very high impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

And you don't seem to understand the difference between a large number of citations and a large number of sources. Those Google results are not enough to go on alone for verifiability, and independent secondary or tertiary sources. And upon further investigation it appears this article was only recreated after a former discussion to delete said article where the exact same content was given as justification for not deleting, but the resolution was still to delete the article see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Overmars.

That discussion is from the early days of WP and would now be considered archaic, for example because it conflates another person of the same name. Large numbers of citations conclusively establish notability and this individual seems to have many fold more than what have been considered the minimum to pass

WP:PROF in quite literally hundreds of AfDs. Agricola44 (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep on basis of stunning GS citations. This nomination is a candidate for worst ever nomination in the
  WP:Prof domain. A trout for the nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC).[reply
  ]

Unverified citations mind you, the Google scholar results may be well over 2000, but they are actually well over 2000 unrelated results. This becomes apparent around page 10 of the scholar citations David is refuting where Overmars is not actually being cited, the results just have similar titles to the keywords searched for. BlitzGreg (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may have inaccuracies, but for computer science Google Scholar is the preferred choice because the other alternatives are even less accurate. See for instance the final bullet of

WP:PROF and the source cited there. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Thousands of citations apiece for several works definitively shows significance through high impact works and thus notability according to
  Wikipedia:PROF#C1. --Mark viking (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  G4 (in 2005) but it's in fine shape now. Also, I find it amusing that the article featured an image of the footballer Kostadin Markov which wasn't removed for almost 5 years. Ivanvector (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Snow Keep. Citations well past numbers req'd in
  WP:PROF c1 are conclusive. Agricola44 (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Snow keep Nom is advised to listen to experienced people like David instead of wasting the community's time here. --Randykitty (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, David is most likely the one who recreated the article since he is the only one with a record of editing the article that long ago. He only cleaned up the article after my nomination to delete it. BlitzGreg (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, AfDs often result in an article being improved while the discussion is ongoing, such that the original concerns for deletion are addressed and the article is saved. Ivanvector (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Actually, if I look in the article history it was not David who created the article and actually if I look on the talk page he already explained everything that needed to be explained before you nominated this for deletion. I strongly suggest that you withdraw this nomination. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I second the motion for nom to withdraw. This is starting to consume valuable time that is best spent elsewhere. Incidentally, WoS citation numbers are comparable to GS, i.e. quite high: h-index 23 and cumulative cites >2000. This evidence is conclusive proof of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment. The
  WP:Prof guidelines seem to have become one of Wikipedia's pontes asinorum. Some pass over, some do not. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC).[reply
  ]

My second concern here is that once you hit about page 10 of the Google scholar results, the quality of results significantly decreases to where none of the actual results are citing Overmars at all, actually about page 5 it starts doing that towards the bottom. This is the equivalent of using Google search results as as justification for WP:Notability. BlitzGreg (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With a GS h-index of 48, who cares? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, more than sufficient evidence to pass
  WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Passes
  WP:PROF due to his widely used computational geometry text: "4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." - tucoxn\^talk 23:28, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of breweries, wineries, and distilleries in Utah

List of breweries, wineries, and distilleries in Utah (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)

Disputed

• Delete - per
  WP:GNG. The truly notable wineries can be included in referenced prose discussions on Utah wine and I see no reason why Brewing in Utah or Distilling in Utah articles couldn't be created that would include a link to any notable breweries or distilleries in the state. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - I'll note that
  talk) 15:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - But remove the external links and add references from reliable sources other than the company's website. With a little work references can be found; those with no references can be removed, the remaining should notable enough to leave (with a red-link for the eventual creation of individual articles). -- Zyxw (talk)

• Comment: Also see the related AFD discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Connecticut (which also includes AFDs for Idaho, Iowa, New Mexico, and Tennessee), plus the individual state AFDs listed below. -- Zyxw (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Massachusetts
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Mississippi
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in New Hampshire
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Nevada
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Oklahoma
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in South Carolina

• Keep I agree the links on this page need work, but it is not hard to find beer books and New York Times articles about breweries, they are one of the largest sectors of non-durable manufacturing growing in the United States - hence notable. Per
  WP:CSC does not demand citations on each line and states that a list may contain non-notable entries. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Speedy keep. This is a sub-article of
  WP:CSC. SpinningSpark 19:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per
  WP:CSC. Also, I agree with Zyxw that the external links should be removed and the list need to be updated with references. The problems with the list are fixable through cleanup and development. - tucoxn\^talk 21:03, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AirCut

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

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

Notability not established by reliable sources. Consider speedy deletion as recreation of deleted article ("Aircut"). Novangelis (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. Ad-spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources aside from the local paper coverage noted in the article. That is not sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:28, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable Transport Award

Sustainable Transport Award (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) 03:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to a short new section in Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article does indicate the topic's significance. For example, see the lead, where it states "The STA directs international attention to cities on the cutting edge of transportation policy. By highlighting successful completed programs and emphasizing transferability, the award helps disseminate new ideas and best practices, while encouraging cities worldwide to improve their own livability."

– Also keep as meeting

WP:GNG

. Many sources cover winners of the award; there's enough content in reliable sources to merit a standalone article.

– Source examples include: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:32, 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 // 22:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "No indication of significance" is part of
  WP:GNG here is clearly established by substantive coverage in multiple reliable sources, as listed by Northamerica1000. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:39, 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chennai Worlds 2014

Chennai Worlds 2014 (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)

Does not meet notability guidelines for an event Wieno (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as passing
  WP:GNG
  . Source examples include:

• Worlds 2014 in Chennai. The Hindu.
• Sizzling debates mark the ‘Worlds’. The Hindu.
• Harvard University Emerges Debating World Champion. Indian Express.
• Pakistan at Chennai Worlds. The News International.
• Duo wins “Worlds” debate competition. Harvard Gazette.

 – Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that WUDC as a whole is notable but I don't believe each individual tournament is notable enough to have its own page. Wouldn't it make more sense to redirect to or merge with World Universities Debating Championship? Note that no other WUDC tournament has its own page. Wieno (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, each WUDC tournament ought to have its own page. Given that there is a Debating Portal on WikiPedia. Maybe rather than delete this page a page for each WUDC tournament could be created? - Q — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.42.255 (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with WUDC article, by perhaps having a subsection on past tournaments. Someone should consider making a hall of fame for the three language categories on the WUDC page as well.

Keep, as Chennai Worlds in particular was notable for its poor organization, possible financial mismanagement, and generally poor execution. Even if it's decided that each WUDC tournament doesn't deserve a page (which I would contest as well), future participants and organizers will be justifiably interested in particularly successful or unsuccessful events. They need to know what to emulate and what to avoid. As an analogy, every car model may not deserve it's own page, but some models are particularly notable for being highly successful (the Volkswagon Beetle) or unsuccessful (the Ford Edsel). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.215.226 (talk) 16:39, 10 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 // 22:52, 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.

2014 Norfolk helicopter crash

2014 Norfolk helicopter crash (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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 11:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions....William 11:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William 11:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions....William 11:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 11:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  2011 Chinook shootdown in Afghanistan was kept, but it was "the worst loss of U.S Military life in a single incident in the Afghanistan campaign" and hence important for the history of the war. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. Simple routine accident. -EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 11:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Too early to say. Until the accident investigation has reported, there is no way to know whether this incident is significant or not. Therefore judgements such as 'nothing notable about this one' and 'simple routine accident' are pure unsubstantiated speculation (as if any air accident could be ever be 'simple routine'). Some people are in such a rush to erase other people's efforts. 85.210.175.111 (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Too early to say. This may not be a notable accident for now but until the inquiry determinants the cause the accident the article should stay until recommendations are realest. I can give several examples like maybe flying near a nature reserves during low flying training would be changed or to pilot training or any mechanical failure and weather which may of let to the crash but we don't know as of yet because it's been less then 24 hours and new information about the accident will come and paint a better picture of the accident. But like I said keep until the inquest has ended and then vote for deletion. NorthHuanter (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The above account (the article creator) has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a community banned editor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was started by someone else; the sockpuppet account was one of several contributors (including me). —rybec 10:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The crash is generating quite a bit of news coverage in Britain at present, and it is rather unusual to have a crash involving an advanced US military helicopter, there could possibly be a few issues still to come out. PatGallacher (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment News coverage is
    WP:ROUTINE. The article deleted here[10] had lots of routine coverage too....William 15:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Please see
    Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Weak keep I see no real
  rush here. It's certainly not routine for an American asset to crash in the incredibly featureless Norfolk marshlands with four fatalities. So, like NorthHunter, it's a little to early to say. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment If not for
    Aviation Safety Network and many of them with much bigger death tolls than 4 but no article. The difference between those and this- It happened yesterday....William 16:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Well I think the point I'm making is that we don't regularly have USAF helicopters crash in East Anglia with four fatalities over the flattest part of the country. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • However that does not, in any way, establish
        notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Well of course it makes it
          WP:AIRCRASH claiming it to be some kind of holy text. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • No, geographic location does not make a crash any more or less notable. Unless you're claiming
            systemic bias is a good thing? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • Now that's where you're wrong. Are you suggesting that the helicopter that crashed in central London was not more notable than a helicopter that crashed in a field in Wales? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, review later Nothing we know about it so far makes this accident notable, but there's no hurry to make a decision. Wait until the investigation and inquest are completed. 86.5.176.168 (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, review later. While it was probably too soon to create the article, based on the limited information available, it is certainly too soon to delete the article - there is insufficient evidence to accurately determine its notability either way at this point. Thryduulf (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite the sad deaths of the crew and loss of the helicopter, military accidents are generally not notable in their own right!!--Petebutt (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not a notable accident.
  notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per WP:NOTTHENEWS. The collision between two RAF Grob Tutor light aircraft at Porthcawl in February 2009 had a lot of news coverage as two of the victims were schoolgirls who also happened to be cousins. This was reinforced when another tutor hit a glider a few months later killing another schoolchild. A well referenced article grew from these events but that has subsequently been deleted. I see no reason to expect that coverage of this event will be as extensive.--Charles (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CRYSTAL. My guess is that you are probably right, but it's far too early to know. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Who deleted Porthcawl mid air collision because I read the report same with the two Red Arrow accidents of 2011 and the changes that were made would make the accidents notable? This accident cause is still unknown and the article stay until the inquest in compete. It makes it more odd that the aircraft is one the safety helicopters used in the US Air Force and a military crashes are common are they more common then car crashes, NO! it crashed into featherless area with no high ground or other and to say military accident would occur more during war zones and training but in some cases unlike in a war zone changes can be made to make flying safer. One more thing I would like to stay is Aviation accidents are less common in some area then others which is good and some area are slowly getting better in aviation safety I.E Russia and Asia but it's odd when it happens. Accidents happen like this is odd, that a crash would happen is the first place but more odd is the circumstances of the accident. Which has led to many questions on what caused this accident. Keep until inquest is done to deiced notability. 13:59, 8 January 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.34.52 (talk)
    • WP:CRYSTAL is about article content not talk page discussion.--Charles (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sad but military flying is dangerous and they crash often but that doesnt make them particularly notable unless they hit something notable or kill somebody notable, not the case here. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a well-written article. I think four deaths in any single helicopter crash in UK it notable. The fact that it was a USAF accident on UK soil seems to make it more notable. And although it's unlikely, it may be part of a larger picture, so I'd certainly keep until the investigation is completed. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment just to note that the USAF have been based in the UK for sixty years and accidents are not that rare with British-based aircraft like this helicopter. MilborneOne (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Is there any article that tells us how many and/or lists them? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Here at least I guess. Is it ok to link it there while this AfD runs? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Also note that being "well-written" is not a reason to keep, and the other reasons are
  weasel-worded: "seems to", "may be". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per
  WP:NOTNEWS. No indication of anything notable or of lasting consequence in the accident. We don't keep non-notable articles in case they one day become notable. - Ahunt (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I wouldn't advocate "one day", I'd suggest until report is published. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, we should consider our
  WP:NOTNEWS (and would probably crack a grin at the fact that we have a main page section called "In The News"....)], nor do they care. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That sounds a lot like
  WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It would be more profitable for you and the encyclopaedia if you actually wrote in English and not ESSAYS etc. Take a step back from all that and try to see the sense here. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please discuss the argument, not the (standardised by everyone else) use of Wiki abbreviations or
  on the arguer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per
  WP:NOTNEWS. There seems to be no reason to think that this sad accident will have any long-term ramifications or will receive prolonged coverage. Nick-D (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• See
  WP:RAPID, "Don't rush to delete articles". PatGallacher (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• See
  WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• See, pathetic really. There are two ways to cut this. So shall we now focus on the utility of the page rather than continually fling CAPITAL LETTERS at each other? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Again,
  please don't accuse editors who are using standard Wikipedia practice of being "pathetic". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. Fatal accident with serious damage to the aircraft. NickSt (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does this establish notability? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable crash. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete Non-notable accident: did not involve "the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia" and there is no indication that the accident will result "in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directive (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft)." Regarding the latter clause, the article may be restored following the official inquiry if the inquiry results in significant changes as outlined. Unless and until such changes occur, this remains a non-notable, albeit tragic, incident, which is suitably recorded at
  talk • contribs) 15:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Hasty, considering this aircraft "may have the best safety record of any helicopter that the United States military has ever owned." and it crashed in one of the most featureless parts of the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, it isn't necessary to respond to everyone else's comments/!votes here. See
      talk • contribs) 15:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • (Thanks for introducing yet ANOTHER set of capitals) I've only responded to your !vote. Other comments have been, well, comments. This is a discussion you know. And yes, there have been other crashes, but this is a peacetime crash with four fatalities, not comparable to those you've linked to. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perfectly comparable: crashes during operational flights which were not as a result of hostile actions. Two of the a/m crashes also involved loss of crews. Where's the difference?
          talk • contribs) 16:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • "Perfectly comparable"? If I have to explain why not, it's clearly going to be wasted! argh, bludgeoned to death by my own comment... argh! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Neither the fact the helicopter has a good safety record or the remoteness of its location provide notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • The whole "safety record" thing is misleading anyway. Is it the case that the authorities can boast about the machine's safety from a technical POV because many of the previous crashes were due to pilot error - like the 5 August 2013 Pave Hawk crash in
                talk • contribs) 09:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
                ]
• Delete I've checked the latest news about this and it looks like there is nothing particularly significant ever since. 2-4 deaths is (still, unfortunately) a relatively frequent death toll, similar to that of private aircraft. This is already commemorated in
  WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL (even though I generally believe in the zodiac astrology). Brandmeister^talk 10:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as is notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it notable? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Because of the above mainly per PatGallacher -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • But PatGallacher argues that the event is notable because "it is rather unusual to have a crash involving an advanced US military helicopter", which is demonstrably false, and because "[t]he crash is generating quite a bit of news coverage in Britain." In the latter case, Wikipedia is "not the news" and anyway, after a few days the UK news cycle moved on and this has barely received a mention since.
        talk • contribs) 09:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • That's rather a good point. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 10:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTNEWS. Also, there is no deadline; we can easily recreate this in the future. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:27, 16 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 // 22:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Draft so that this well-written article can continue to be developed and to give time for an informed assessment of whether the event is to have enduring significance. This is what draft space is for. Thincat (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or move to draft or userfy). Non-notable accident unless/until it has enduring significance. DexDor (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The unique circumstances in which this specific crash took place make it notable.Leptictidium (mt) 07:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Unique? In what way?--Charles (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - following the initial news, there seems to be no further coverage. That may be because we are in the waiting period between incident and report but for the moment it seems to have had no knock-on effect - helicopters have not been grounded, the site has been cleared and reopened to public. The text of this article could be put in the helicopter article and the title redirected. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Already included in
  WP:AIRCRASH unless it results in significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:29, 26 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 Cities (Anberlin album). Stifle (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Unwinding Cable Car

The Unwinding Cable Car (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)

Does not meet

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the album Cities (Anberlin album). -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of breweries in South Carolina

List of breweries in South Carolina (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)

Disputed

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - But add references from reliable sources other than the company's website. With a little work references can be found; those with no references can be removed, the remaining should notable enough to leave (with a red-link for the eventual creation of individual articles). -- Zyxw (talk)

• Comment: Also see the related AFD discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Connecticut (which also includes AFDs for Idaho, Iowa, New Mexico, and Tennessee), plus the individual state AFDs listed below. -- Zyxw (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Massachusetts
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Mississippi
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in New Hampshire
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Nevada
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Oklahoma
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries, wineries, and distilleries in Utah (2nd nomination)

• Keep - Per
  WP:CSC does not demand citations on each line and states that a list may contain non-notable entries. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Speedy keep. This is a sub-article of
  WP:CSC. SpinningSpark 19:08, 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. Per consensus in the discussion below that any problems with the list are fixable through cleanup and development, on top of the nominator's withdrawal. postdlf (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of breweries in Nevada

List of breweries in Nevada (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)

Disputed

Withdraw nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see most of the per-state articles have been prodded (as lists of mostly non-notable places), but wouldn't it be better to create a central list of all the notable breweries (i.e. those with articles) at List of breweries in the United States, merging notable entries as necessary? --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see any problem with this idea. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As nominated the list was problematic: full of entries without their own articles, sourced only to the breweries' own web sites, and failing to distinguish breweries that are truly Nevadan from those that are merely branches of out-of-state chains. I have cleaned that up and I think there is now no reason to object to the list: it is much smaller, true, but still lists three locals and two chains, all notable enough for their own articles and reliably sourced. The current article is about equally split between a prose overview of beer in Nevada and a list of breweries, so I would have no objection to moving it to
  beer in Nevada. The existence of at least one published booklet on this topic [Moody, Eric N.; Nylen, Robert A. (1986), Brewed in Nevada: A History of the Silver State's Beers and Breweries, Nevada State Museum, 24pp] suggests that it is notable enough to support an article and not just a list. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep them all, subject to possible merging back of some of the shorter lists into List of breweries in the United States, per Colapeninsula's point above. Deleting (as opposed to winnowing) the existing state lists would be an unhelpful strategy for dealing with this. And as well, some (perhaps nearly all) of the state articles may prove amenable to editing into more substantive articles as David Eppstein has done here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the improvements to the article by
  WP:LISTPURP. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Also see the related AFD discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Connecticut (which also includes AFDs for Idaho, Iowa, New Mexico, and Tennessee), plus the individual state AFDs listed below. -- Zyxw (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Massachusetts
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Mississippi
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in New Hampshire
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Oklahoma
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in South Carolina
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries, wineries, and distilleries in Utah (2nd nomination)

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Stifle (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Moysey

Phillip Moysey (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)

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

This sounds like the story of an artist that never made it. He was mentored by a famous artist, who admitted in 1974 that noone wanted his paintings. He's evidently mentioned in Kokoschka's book but I can't find the faintest shred of anything else online, other than wiki mirrors. I don't think an association with a famous artist confers notability here, but maybe I'll be proved wrong. A painting by him sold for only £105 in 2006, which does not indicate he has a following of collectors. Sionk (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Have added some refs the which seem to me enough support notability as an artist. Have also moved the article to Philip Moysey (Philip with one "l"). (Msrasnw (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment on a source: The source that I found most convincing was the biographical entry in Buckman's Dictionary/Encyclopedia of post war British artists. Buckman, D. (2006). Artists in Britain since 1945. Bristol: Art Dictionaries Ltd. (see page p243). This is clearly a work for specialists given the number of biographies but it seemed enough for me - especially since

WP:BLP is not relevant. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)) PS: A small sketch by him of W B Yeats - seems to have gone at Whyte's Dublin for around $1800 in 2005 [11].[reply

]

• Delete. The article still does not convince me of a pass of
  WP:ARTIST. Indeed, it explicitly makes the case that he is not notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:43, 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 // 22:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability is not inherited from Kokoschka, despite his positive words about the subject and his works. Nothing found to indicate that he meets
  WP:ARTIST. AllyD (talk) 21:06, 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. Stifle (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antrim Forum

Antrim Forum (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)

Disputed PROD. The only coverage I could find was non-independent and promotional, or passing and trivial (announcements of events at the venue). Does not appear to pass the

• Delete as nominator, unless significant independent reliable coverage is found and added to the article. DES ^(talk) 22:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a 2,000+ capacity hall, which was used extensively among Notable acts who toured through Northern Ireland is definitely notable. Evangp (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • notability is not inherited. Actual coverage is needed for this and any similar articles, in my view. DES ^(talk) 00:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • It is also home to the Antrim Hockey Club, which I've added to the article. You should just delete all concert halls and arenas according to you, since they wouldn't exist without tour artists and sports teams. Evangp (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course event venues require performers. But the point is that some of them, say for example
        Albert Hall, have been written about independently and in depth, and thus are notable, and others have not and so are not. If there is significant reliable independent coverage of Antrim Forum, fine, simply cite it and we are done here. If not, this venue is not notable by Wikipedia's current standards. DES ^(talk) 00:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Antrim Forum is a fitness and recreation centre, with outdoor sports faciities, the Paddy Marks Arena is the one where the hockey club play. Famous bands have played there, but it has garnered no independent coverage. Murry1975 (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Paddy Marks Arena is part of Antrim Forum. More reason to keep this article. Someone with better research skills just needs to dig a little deeper. I suck at finding references! Evangp (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found some coverage! look ----------> http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/olympics/18504359 Enough proof this is a notable venue?
      • More coverage ------> http://www.nitkd.com/?page_id=20 Evangp (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even more coverage ------> http://www.thenafl.co.uk/grounds/id/134 I think this settles the debate, we keep the article, it just needs a little touch up Evangp (talk) 20:55, 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 // 22:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• comment The bbc.com link above is merely another announcement of an event at the Forum, is says noting about the forum itself, and so contributes noting to notability. The nitkd.com links says a little about the Forum, but it is only a passing mention and does not, in my view, establish notability, although it coems clsoer than any othre source yet cited. Or it would, except that the thenafl.co.uk link above uses the exact same words which suggests that this is copied from a press release or official statement, and so is not truly independent and of no value in establishing notability. DES ^(talk) 22:24, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Robinson

Dominique Robinson (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) 21:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet
  WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 18:47, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Ribeiro (fighter)

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

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet
  WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 18:56, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Jones (fighter)

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

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet
  WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 18:55, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Todorchev

Georgi Todorchev (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) 21:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 21:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 21:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Unreferenced article about a retired MMA fighter with no top tier fights. Doesn't meet
  WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 18:54, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Tapusoa

Gary Tapusoa (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) 21:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant coverage to meet
  WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:46, 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. Stifle (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Tae-Hyun

Lee Tae-Hyun (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) 21:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment He doesn't meet
  WP:GNG. I don't speak Korean and my searches have been inconclusive. The article says he's a 3 time Cheonhajangsa Ssireum champion, but that doesn't seem to be the national championship and I don't know how significant it is. I also can't confirm his ssireum record. It would be nice if someone more knowledgeable about Korea could enlighten the rest of us. Papaursa (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Delete Not notable as an MMA fighter and no sources to support other claims of notability. Additional sources could change my mind and I don't object to the article being saved to someone's sandbox for improvement.Mdtemp (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy Not notable for MMA and needs support to satisfy
  WP:MANOTE. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:58, 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.

Robert Slade

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

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

Pure (self-)promotion/puff piece about an "information security consultant", almost exclusively referenced to the subject of the article himself. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If people delete the history of computing security you are asking for problems. Slade was active internationally before the US government had fancy jobs with fancy titles like "Homeland". In a discussion of his book Dictionary of Information Security, the article explains why Slade is an unusual person (quoted below, but I don't expect that Thomas will have any idea who these people are). I don't plan to argue with Thomas here or anywhere and won't be back (I'm on wikibreak).

"Virus Bulletin remarked about the unusual collection of five forewords, "that so many acknowledged experts are willing to contribute says something about the author's standing in the field"—the forewords were written by Fred Cohen, Jack Holleran, Peter G. Neumann, Harold Tipton and Gene Spafford."

-SusanLesch (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think
  WP:AGF. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. I think
  WP:AUTHOR The vast majority of the links on this article are from the authors own self promotion pages. Not to mention his 'claim to fame' is writing a couple of computer security books. That's it. Amazon is full of authors who have written far more books, books that are in multiple languages, used around the world. His biggest claim to fame is doing a lot of reviews for other books. If this article stays in, it is a sign that Wikipedia is just as biased as many people claim it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.206.194 (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Once again Susan Lesch, the creator of the article and an associate of the subject, is pushing to keep it. This is clearly a puff piece she created for someone she knows. And now she is trying to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.206.194 (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Comment. 173.64.206.194 is deluded in thinking I know Robert Slade. When I was in London I took a train a long way to meet David Harley, and would do that again if I ever had the chance. I've never met or corresponded with this subject except to secure OTRS rights for his photo. I resent your comments here and on the article talk page which are completely off topic. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Second comment from the same IP struck. Please only !vote once. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- multiple independent reviews of work are sufficient regardless of what notability guideline we're talking about. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:12, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donny Raines

Donny Raines (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 non-notable MMA fighter Peter Rehse (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No top tier fights so he doesn't meet
  WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 18:45, 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.

Then You Left Me

Then You Left Me (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)

Entirely unremarkable album track, fails

I am also proposing deletion of the following similarly unremarkable recordings.

Gilbert Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

I've Come Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One Minute Woman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

House of Lords (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

And the Children Laughing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)TheLongTone (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• weak deleteThe fact that these tracks are unremarkable should not play into whether or not they deserve a standalone article; however, I think it seems excessive to have standalone articles for songs unless they were singles or major hit or otherwise notable on their own aside from being performed by a notable band. Any good information could be merged into the album pages. I feel like a tourist (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 19:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Just how does not being remarkable "not play into whether or not they deserve a standalone article"?? TheLongTone (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that "unremarkable" (the way I took it) is simply your opinion of the song. For instance, I think that this entire band (let alone any individual albums or songs) is completely unremarkable, but there is no denying their notability and the fact that they deserve an article. Maybe I mistook your use of the work unremarkable, though...if what you meant was that the song itself has never received enough coverage/popularity/success to support a standalone article, then that makes sense, but then again, if the article contains content that is verifiable, an argument against deletion could possibly be made--but you won't be hearing it from me--I maintain my stance of 'weak delete'.I feel like a tourist (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By unremarkable I mean fails

WP:SONG: no critical attention (I'm sure the Bee Gees obsessive who created these articles would have found it), no chart success at all, not even one week at #97 on Ascension Island, &c &c. TheLongTone (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These all fail
  WP:SONG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:22, 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 redirect to Robotboy. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robotboy (character)

Robotboy (character) (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 comprised mostly of original research and personal interpretation, a la a typical Wikia.com article. The uncontroversial information that remains could easily be incorporated into the main article, Robotboy or List of Robotboy characters. Article also meanders and becomes in effect a duplicate list of characters. A unique article is not warranted for this character. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 21:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Redirect to back to Robotboy per previous AfD consensus. Semi/fully protect Redirect if needed.Martin451 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Robotboy. I concur that protection may be necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect I agree with the above. Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 01:35, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Miller (photographer)

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

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

seems like advertised page about the person, no sign of notability. unable to satisfy

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "No sign of notability"? None whatever? Hmm, he's one of just eight photographers whose work was part of Then and Now (Duke University show, published book), the others being David Goldblatt, George Hallett, Cedric Nunn, Guy Tillim, Paul Weinberg, Graeme Williams, and Gisèle Wulfsohn. That's pretty good company, for a start. He's in Panos; can many of your camera-toting friends say the same? Yes, the fate of the poor man's photos of "supergrannies" depended on the whims of Kickstarter customers; but then recourse to crowdfunding is common these days (as the traditional institutional buyers are less interested in real issues than in celebs and their non-issues). -- Hoary (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per hoary
  talk 17:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The article demonstrates, and its sources back up, the fact he took part in 2 exhibitions, both of which toured various noteworthy venues (1 of which he took part in equal measure as other photographers whose notability is beyond doubt, and that University of South Africa consider "A highly acclaimed photographic exhibition"); he has contributed extensively to various printed books; Duke University considers his "a highly personal form of expression". -Lopifalko (talk)
• Additional comment. Miller's photos appear on pp 102, 103, 105 of the notable book
  ISBN 978-3-7913-5280-0). (The latter book may for all I know have additional photos by Miller: though excellent in other respects, it lacks an index.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:37, 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.

Aerodynamic number

Aerodynamic number (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 notability shown. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• week keep I think i've heard of it however I don't prove notability.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No google books or google scholar hits for the meaning given in the article. Standard google hits have the phrase as part of the larger phrase "aerodynamic number size distributions" but I couldn't see any that related to this article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sing, Your way through life

Sing, Your way through life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Just-published book with no evidence of notability--fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) and attempts to inherit from notable organization and problems that authors are addressing but WP notability is not inheritable) DMacks (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom and failing
  Wp:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete A really ugly
  WP:PROMO attempt for a book released last week with no sign of notability (and now being used to hold an ugly attack on the rights of Wikipedia editors to boot.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Lads, calm down and please control ego's a little, please send me a way to mail you and I will happily send you a copy of the book, this book will save many people, it is being considered for national consumption by the NHS and is going on coast to coast radio in the USA, Yes you have power, yes you can delete it. but please think a little first. a little knowledge is dangerous, read the book and then you will know. perhaps you might even help me to make it more complient — Preceding Greg Woods comment added by Therapeia cic (talk • contribs) 19:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Therapeia cic (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Greg Woods[reply]

We don't appreciate or accept bribes (in part because you don't know where we live and in part because it doesn't help your case what-so-ever). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete If it makes it into use in the NHS we can reconsider.©Geni (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Someone please show me the results of a study (ideally a secondary source) that demonstrates the benefits of the approach discussed in this book. JFW | T@lk 07:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The accuracy of the content, in fact everything about the content, is irrelevant to the question of notability and thus whether it has an article. It was needless for the author to offer us copies for this discussion; it might be helpful for creating the content of the article, but it does no have any policy impact on whether the article gets saved. We have plenty of articles on lousy or inaccurate books, and there are many wonderful reads which have not gotten enough notice for us. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:48, 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.

Brad McKay (doctor)

Brad McKay (doctor) (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

Note: I have nominated this article for

WP:speedy deletion under criterion G12, unambiguous copyright infringement. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:02, 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. Stifle (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ChessWorld

ChessWorld (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 corresondence chess server with no coverage in reliable and independent sources, fails

• Delete per nominator. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails to meet notability (see
  WP:GNG) from what I've been able to find. If there were good reliable-source ([WP:RS]]) references, it's possible it could merged with Correspondence chess
  ; I did see a book say it was the best email-based correspondence chess service, and another listing it as among the ten best chess sites. It seems like a nicely written, informative article, which would be of interest to some readers; I just couldn't find much objective information about the service. Posting two super-brief "this exists" book mentions:

• David Brine Pritchard (3 January 2014). The Right Way to Play Chess. Constable & Robinson Limited.
  ISBN 978-0-7160-2332-6
  .
• Bruce Pandolfini (30 June 2008). Pandolfini's Ultimate Guide to Chess. Touchstone. p. 357.
  ISBN 978-0-7432-6098-5
  .

––Agyle (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:56, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arcane Battles

Arcane 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)

Does not meet

• Delete Inarguably fails to meet
  WP:GNG. smtchahal^talk 15:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  Wp:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrd10 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 16 January 2014‎ (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 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. Stifle (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Girlfriend in a Coma (TV series)

Girlfriend in a Coma (TV series) (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 drama is still in pilot stage and I haven't been able to find any references saying that it has been ordered to series. Babar Suhail (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Some sources of notability of the television show are there, like this and this. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's obviously some sources, but if it's not notable, the logical action would be a merge to Girlfriend in a Coma (novel), not deletion, since a major TV adaptation of a book obviously deserves coverage in the book's article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. per Rafaelgriffin. --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - with merge to Girlfriend in a Coma (novel) as per User:Colapeninsula --Fastester (talk) 11:54, 25 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 and revert to "Studio 23" version. —Darkwind (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs aired by ABS-CBN Sports+Action

List of programs aired by ABS-CBN Sports+Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The television channel is yet to be launched this Saturday. Studio 23 is a different channel, though it will occupy the same UHF channel. However, any television programs aired by Studio 23 are not shows aired by ABS-CBN Sports+Action. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 13:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that all its contents will be moved back to

List of programs aired by Studio 23 before deleting it.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 13:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Redirect instead to
  List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN Sports+Action as favor the motion. - Gabby
  09:57pm, 16 January 2014 (Phil. Standard Time)

No need for a redirect. Both channels are different so there is no need for a redirect.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 14:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore title to
  chatter) 03:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restore and keep per Nate. Tell admins to G6 the article and copy in the original article above. ApprenticeFan ^work 00:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and keep, per Nate & ApprenticeFan. --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]