Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 1

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Ironholds (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian civil war detailed map

Syrian civil war detailed map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not an article at all; it's a page consisting entirely of an embedded map. Ironholds (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This page is fantastically useful for people following the conflict. Who cares if it's an 'embedded map', its a incredible piece of work. Keep updating, don't delete. Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.164.117.225 (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though perhaps move to wherever an image should be located. This was developed in Template space, and was just moved to article space, then promptly nominated for deletion. I think it needs to be moved to wherever detailed maps / images are kept. Certainly it could exist over in Wikimedia commons. I believe there also are photos and maps and other images in some Wikipedia area, though those are often moved to Commons then deleted from here. It is not appropriate to AFD this, at all. There is just confusion from someone having done an inappropriate move. Note, i see it is linked from articles like
  Syrian Civil War, though in that article I don't see where it appears (perhaps it is linked from a navigation template there). It's an awesome-looking map, obviously useful, needs to be just relocated appropriately, not deleted. --doncram 00:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Seems reasonable; investigating the history I see the same thing. Why on earth was it moved into article space? User:Barcaxx1980? Ironholds (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  This is indeed a template and not an article. User:Barcaxx1980 (new to wikipedia) suddenly and without consulting with anyone moved the template to an article, which is a completely ridiculous move! I have now moved it back to a template. Can we now close this discussion before wasting more of people's time as the article is now only a redirect (which can be deleted)? Tradedia^talk 01:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Totally :).

• Keep. Since I'm not sure if this is the correct page for the discussion, I paste here what I wrote in the other one: "The map is a very good tool to understand the details of the war in all the Syrian territory."--Andres arg (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to
  Syrian Civil War. Although I concur that the map is useful, it doesn't seem to meet the standards for a stand alone article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. The map is very good, and gives important information that is not in anywhere else. I am with keeping the map. I moved it to an article because some users requested that to avoid deletion. Now, Tradedia moved it back to a template which is ok. The important thing is to keep the map, no matter if as a template or an article. --Barcaxx1980 (talk) 10:00, 2 March 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. Renaming and/or restructuring as a list can be discussed on the article talk page. JohnCD (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Computational packages for Cosmologists

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

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

)

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

Not sure if this article is needed. It appears that most of these software packages already have their own articles. Safiel (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If most of these software packages already have their own articles, then they are presumably notable, and this can become a WP:LIST. -- 101.119.14.237 (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC) — 101.119.14.237 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep It provides a list of software which are notable in the community and are used by many cosmologists. The page can be linked to the cosmology page.128.101.170.117 (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC) — 128.101.170.117 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. I have created this article to provide a lists of software which are most frequently used by the cosmologists. In wikipedia, there are articles on
  WMAP, Planck etc. but there were no article where the software used in cosmology are listed. Similar article exist for other part of physics. Also as mentioned by others many of the software listed in the article have their own articles on wiki and they are notable in the cosmology research community. Unatnas1986 (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. We have
  List of numerical analysis software, List of computer simulation software, and other similar lists. Nonetheless, for consistency, the article should be renamed to List of cosmological computation software, or something to that effect. -Anagogist (talk) 16:31, 6 March 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, czar 

♔ 22:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A perfectly legitimate list, though I occasionally share the nominator's confusion as to why we have so many lists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was no consensus. kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kancho

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

)

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

This is a barebones

• Comment - if this article has been kept four times before, I don't see how we'd get rid of it now. This seems more like a keep and improve. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  As I mentioned, our standards on inclusion have changed over the years.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  You may have asserted that, but with no support regarding ~how~ they have changed or how these changes would apply to keeping/deleting this article, which has been nominated for deletion four times already and consistently been kept. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Conceding that my opinion is a minority one based on previous AfDs, this doesn't seem to ring the notability bell. RS sourcing is thin at best. Only two sources are cited and the NY Times source provides only incidental mention. My take is that it lack both
  WP:V. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. I'm against keeping dictionary-like articles as a general rule, but kancho is pretty well-known nowadays (as attested to by there being Wikipedia articles for it in 11 different languages). We have an article for "wedgie", so I can't see a reason not to keep kancho. Nominated for deletion many times in the past and always kept. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The improvements made to this page have been turning it into the stub you're reading now. It is only known because of anime fans. Its existence as a cultural phenomenon of note is minimal within Japan. Just because there are a bunch of old AFDs that closed as keep 5 years ago and 4 years ago, and the mere existence of what appears to be equally as subpar articles on other language projects does not mean it's notable according to this project's guidelines anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I think "its existence as a cultural phenomenon of note is minimal within Japan" is debatable. FBOFW, I'd have to agree with Bueller 007 that Wedgie is a good comparison. Dekimasuよ! 01:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Existing as a common practice does not mean it's notable for coverage, particularly when its notability is only supported by its use in cartoons.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a silly comment. I've personally seen this schoolchildren do this to each other and had this done to me by schoolchildren in Japan. It's not used only in cartoons, and even if it were, that wouldn't be any reason to delete it. Everyone in Japan knows what this term means, and as I said above, there are Wikipedia pages in 11 other languages for カンチョー. This act is widely known. If it somehow differs from wedgie (other than its country of origin), explain how or else I think you should also nominate wedgie for deletion and see how that goes. In addition, there are plenty of non-cartoon Google Image hits in Japanese [1], so claiming that "Its existence as a cultural phenomenon of note is minimal within Japan" is quite questionable. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  How are we to know that their articles on this subject are not as poorly writen as our own? And just because it is a Japanese word does not mean we cover it here. Thats Wiktionary's job. There's no cultural context here. It exists but is not something that can adequately be covered unless you go "it shows up in this cartoon".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The term is not a term just for anime fans. It is a general term, known by all Japanese, used in TV comedy, anime, manga, and children's (and even adult) play. I checked the
  Asahi Shinbun database, and it, for instance, has an article on 2008.5.31 on children still using the term. There's another article on 2012.9.14 on an IBM employee charged with sexual harassment doing "kancho" on female employees. There's also another article on "kancho" on 1992.7.17. A search of the Oya Soichi database finds 13 articles since 1998 in the weekly tabloids with "kancho" in the title (in the meaning given in the article), including a number on how Kazuhiro Kiyohara liked to do it a lot. There are plenty of RS in the mainstream media in Japan that show this is not just a popular term, but a popular phenomenon. Michitaro (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Per nominator, and for reasons of
  talk) 17:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. This seems similar to the
  UFIA. Could be combined with that to form a slightly larger stub. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per the 2nd AfD discussion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Why should a 5 year old AFD still have meaning here?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Its not the age, its just the most substantive discussion prior to this one for meeting notability. Its notability is similar to Wedgie although some sources are not in english.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:09, 12 March 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.

Paradise Tour

Paradise Tour (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 tour was never officially called Paradise Tour. Only three references listed mention that title. Del Rey did tour during 2013 to promote

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 14 February 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, buffbills7701 15:42, 21 February 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, czar 

♔ 22:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge and Redirect to
  Paradise (Lana Del Rey album). I think there is more than concert dates that are worth salvaging. But yeah it seems like it would be a better fit in the main article for the EP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge with
  talk) 18:03, 4 March 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. j⚛e decker^talk 22:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Triangle

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

)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Simonm223 (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete To my considerable surprise a Google turned up a ton of hits on this subject. But almost without exception (at least on the first four pages) they were from sources that massively failed
  WP:V. That's three strikes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Yeah, Jim Butcher actually mined a little bit of the "Lake Michigan eats boats" mythology for a few of his recent novels, however without RSes it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only citations given do not support the claim of the article. Fails
  WP:V Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails
  talk) 18:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No reliable sources support this concept. It was originated by a single individual in an obscure Sheboygan newspaper story that's been subsequently reprinted in fringy places around the web. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Having flown across Lake Michigan in scheduled commercial airliners many times, I am well aware of the total lack of credibility for this extraordinary claim, as evidence by all the mainstream sources on commercial aviation saying nothing whatever about any special danger in traveling that heavily traveled route. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Found this [[2]] which discusses coverage by Dwight_Boyer in one of his books, which I do not have access to. Most likely not enough to qualify as notable coverage. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:43, 8 March 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. j⚛e decker^talk 22:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mound Marked C

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

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

Seems to fail

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 18:45, 20 February 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, czar 

♔ 22:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete No claim for
  WP:N is advanced in the article and no sources are cited. In a sane world this would have been an A-7 CSD, but places are not covered by that. Being old can in some cases help establish N if there is more to it. Inhabited places have largely gained a presumption of N. Such is not the case here though. As the article stands right now, it doesn't come close to passing GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete. No claim for notability, nor any sources provided. I guess it would only qualify as a PROD though since A7 doesn't seem to apply here. I'm confused why it's called a mound in the article but tagged as an archaeological monument.
  talk) 18:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was Speedy keep: The nominator withdrew the nomination and no one else voted for deletion. Chmarkine (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CCTV (disambiguation)

CCTV (disambiguation) (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)

• Withdrawn by nominator: I agree with Bkonrad. Since this disambiguation page has been expanded, I withdraw my nomination. Chmarkine (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I've added a couple of other uses that satisfy
  WP:DABMENTION. The hatnote should link to the dab page, though it may be worth keeping the link to China TV in the hatnote as by far the most likely second use. older ≠ wiser 14:33, 2 March 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.

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 non-notable album by a non-notable band. No references cited. PROD and maintenance tags were removed without explanation. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

moral♪♫ 01:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

moral♪♫ 01:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep No, it's not. It's a charting album released via one of the bigger labels of the genre (Napalm Records). I'm not a fan of such stubs, but that's a different story. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I'm not finding much, but a Sputnikmusic staff review [3] (considered reliable
  Deadlock (metal band)#Line up changes and sixth album (2011-) would be appropriate.  Gong show 20:09, 11 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:21, 20 February 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, czar 

♔ 22:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Don't think this qualifies under
  talk) 18:28, 4 March 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.

Tulsa Youth Symphony

Tulsa Youth Symphony (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)

youth symphonies are not normally notable. This one is no different; essentially all the sources are press releases. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 11 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - well established orchestra; it received some coverage for its 50th anniversary. It seems strange to say "youth symphonies are not normally notable" when Category:American youth orchestras has 68 articles. StAnselm (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this orchestra is notable for it's continuity, and alumni, note - there are many wiki entries on other Youth Symphonies around the US (over 50), even a wiki on Youth Orchestras in the US. [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.124.156 (talk) 23:48, 28 February 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, czar 

♔ 22:10, 1 March 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 Alpha and Omega (film)#Sequels. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha and Omega 3: The Great Wolf Games

Alpha and Omega 3: The Great Wolf Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

This is article's subject fails to meet Wikipedia's

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This subject has gone through AfD before; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha and Omega 3. The result of the previous discussion was redirect to Alpha and Omega (film)#Sequels. Mz7 (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't really have an opinion on the matter, but I always thought if a movie is confirmed for release, then that is all that is needed for an article about it be kept.--BarrettM82 Contact 17:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a film exists doesn't mean it is notable. Likewise, just because a film is scheduled for release doesn't automatically make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Mz7 (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete the page when the movie is being released next month and the rest of the information can be included on the page then? There's no reason not to - the page is incomplete because the movie isn't out but the movie is being released in 30 days - LITERALLY! Ktanaqui (Contact) — Preceding undated comment added 17:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is: there is no indication that there will be significant documentation of the movie in reliable sources even when it does come out. We aren't here to

notability when it does come out? As an alternative to deletion, I'm okay with redirecting the article to the first Alpha and Omega article's relevant "Sequels" section, or sending it to Wikipedia:Drafts. Mz7 (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Redirect to
  WP: NOTABILITY.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:59, 27 February 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, czar 

♔ 22:06, 1 March 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UrgentRx

UrgentRx (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)

While this company's yeomen efforts to improve the article about itself are appreciated, the product simply does not meet notability criteria. Although the article has changed since its first incarnation which was deleted in an AfD, its inherent problems remain: it is a promotional article about a non-notable product. They make low-dose aspirin as do many companies. Coretheapple (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weakish keep - I think it's supposed to be a fast acting aspirin rather than a low dose aspirin. Either way, the product seems to have received sufficient coverage to satisfy
  WP:GNG per the NYT, Forbes etc sources cited in the article. I agree that the article still needs work.--Mojo Hand (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 23 February 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, czar 

♔ 22:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep The product/company seems to have ample coverage from independent reliable sources. BTW it's not just aspirin; it is flavored, powdered versions of several different drugs, claimed to be faster acting than pills, and intended to be carried on the person for use in emergencies. At those prices ($1.39 per dose) it had better not be just an aspirin! I'll see if I can improve the article any. --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 4 March 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. j⚛e decker^talk 22:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel School of Music

Nathaniel School of Music (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)

Originally tagged by

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 20 February 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, czar 

♔ 21:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. No claims of notability in the article, no secondary sources, and pretty much just
  talk) 18:32, 4 March 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. j⚛e decker^talk 16:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bau Xi Gallery

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

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

Promotional article for a photo print retailer of no particular notability. (I don't mean to slight the photographers whose prints it sells: offhand I don't know most of them, but I have a high opinion of one.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it's more of the same:

Bau-Xi Photo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Hoary (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:49, 20 February 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, czar 

♔ 21:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Fails
  talk) 18:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was no consensus. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Koimoi

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

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

Not notable. Promotional and may include COI editing. References are mostly press releases, quotes and internet stats. Little depth to the coverage. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 11 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I doubt any COI involvement in the article history with the main editors of article. Even if there was any, the current article is hardly promotional in tone. But i have a different question. Although the subject might lack

WP:RS? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:35, 21 February 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, czar 

♔ 21:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep A decent stubby article on a website which is an RS which serves its area. Current version not promotional in tone. Nom's assertion that it "may include COI editing" is unfounded. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can't remember now why I thought it might be COI, possibly due to other linked articles, but it is the lack of depth to the coverage that is the problem.

I have just been through the refs:

1 is internet stats

2 is not about the subject

3 also is not about the subject

4 looks like a press release

5 is some sort of internet stats/advertising site

6 is a blurb from one of their software suppliers about their customer

7 is the firm itself.

Not a single RS that discusses the firm itself in depth. This is advertising and fails CORPDEPTH and GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts as nominator. I maintain my "keep" and await input from Indian Wikipedians able to offer and evaluate non-English sources. As India has a population several times larger than all the West combined and not all sources will be online, I expect patience will out. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it is rather putting the cart before the horse to say that "lots of articles use it as a source and therefore it is notable". a reliable source is one with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and it is difficult to establish that such a reputation exists if there is no reputation at all demonstrated by other sources. [7] and it does not look like it has been vetted formally to be accepted as a
  WP:RS reliable source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It hasn't been vetted in our WP:RS system as it hasn't been challenged yet anytime on any article. This site is used as reference in the FA

Huma Qureshi (actress), Aashiqui 2 at the least. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:29, 11 March 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. j⚛e decker^talk 22:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Train of Thought Sketch Comedy

Train of Thought Sketch Comedy (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 local sketch comedy group from 2006; requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. None provided, nor found in Google News. No higher notability established since last AFD ended with no consensus eight years ago. --

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 11 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:46, 20 February 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, czar 

♔ 21:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Any of the coverage mentioned in the article seems to be strictly local, contrary to
  talk) 18:41, 4 March 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. j⚛e decker^talk 22:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ritika Ramtri

Ritika Ramtri (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)

Person is not notable. Person appears on social sites facebook, twitter, linkedin, blog pages, and one New Zealand article. Appears to be promotion. Jay (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. This fails GNG/PROMO - besides that, the first reference spammed my browser and the second is 404.► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 05:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 22 February 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, czar 

♔ 21:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom, fails
  talk) 18:45, 4 March 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seiklus

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

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

Delete: Article subject appears to be non-notable per

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 10 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:13, 19 February 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, czar 

♔ 21:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep I see coverage in all of the major RSes. Edge calls it a "minor masterpiece". Gamasutra calls it a "superstar of the modern indie scene." It's listed as #13 in 1up's "Definitive guide to the best new freeware games on the web". Quite a bit of coverage at indiegames.com... I'd recommend searching for ways this article can be improved per
  WP:BEFORE. -Thibbs (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Besides the above hits, there are more (e.g. [8]) in a custom
  WP:VG/RS Google search. I agree that the article needs to be improved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:58, 7 March 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. j⚛e decker^talk 16:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barstool Sports

Barstool Sports (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 website lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nearly all of the cited references seem to provide considerable non-trivial coverage of the subject in independent published reliable sources. Perhaps it's not sufficient coverage to establish notability, but I strongly disagree with the nominator that it doesn't exist. While the lede introduces the subject as being about the blog alone, I am conflating the company, its blog, and its non-blog activities as a single subject; some coverage is about the company's parties more than the blog. ––Agyle (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm undecided but there is a bit of coverage for the site. It's all coverage about the guys being asses, but it is coverage in reliable sources. What we need to decide is whether this shows a depth of coverage, since a lot of it is based predominantly in the Boston area. I'm leaning towards a keep offhand, but this will probably need some cleaning to make it flow a bit more. I'll see what I can do.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I've cleaned the article. Some portions of it seemed a little
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 11 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It is certainly not trivial and given its consistent mentions in major media outlets as well as the ongoing clean-up, I think it is a definite keep. Perhaps an expansion mentioning its video series/youtube channel would be beneficial - some have over 1 million views.TheWarOfArt (talk) 21:29, 19 February 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, czar 

♔ 21:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. My understanding is that it is a very well known website in the American sports world. Has built a reputation as a controversial and irreverent site. Examples of in-depth coverage of site include: [9], [10], [11] and so on. Meets
  talk) 18:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was no consensus. Defaulting to, I guess, "soft redirecting," as it seems like there's not consensus to delete (even according to the nom), but there does seem to be agreement to either eventually keep it outright (if the enough sources are found/valid/whatever) or leave it as a redirect until better sourcing can be found (thereby maintaining the page history). There doesn't look to be any prejudice against un-redirecting or otherwise reviving the article immediately. slakr^\ talk / 08:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opus-CBCS

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

)

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

There were many software packages for BBS/FidoNet back in the day. I found some independent coverage for one similarly purposed package called

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Online 16:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Also this article seems to suggest it was open source, but apparently that was not the case during the time when the product still might have mattered on the market [13]. Given the scarcity of reliable sources, the article is hard to fix. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of BBS software. Honestly, most of those software packages need to turn into redirects. They were fun back in the 1980s, but they're simply not notable by Wikipedia standards. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I think a
    WP:BLAR might a good solution for now, but keeping the page's history. This might actually be slightly notable. After reading the Maximus CBSC review I found above, I learned that the Maximus software was inspired by Opus. Assuming it might have been a little influential, I searched a little more; it's easier to find relevant citations if you search for "opus" (without "CBCS") and "wynn wagner" but exclude his later self-published books (which are unrelated to the software) [14]
    . That way I found two BBS software roundup books from the early 1990s that have 1-2 pages(s) coverage of Opus (can't tell exactly how much coverage because only snippets are visible for me in GS):
    • Dvorak's guide to desktop telecommunications pp. 276-277 [15]
    • The Essential Guide to Bulletin Board Systems pp. 59-60 [16]
  • With those two in mind, it might be justifiable to keep this page's history & rewrite it based on those secondary sources. Library holdings for these two books are pretty sparse (on
    Worldcat) so it might take a while for anyone to get them and fix the page. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• I dunno. If you feel it's enough, then I'll strike my vote, and we can speedily keep this. There's probably something out there that describes this software, as it was historically important (one of the earlier IBM PC-compatble BBS programs), but it was popular before the explosion of interest that happened in the late 80s and early 90s, and much of the coverage by reliable sources was for commercial software. There's mountains of BBS cruft out there. I still think most of these articles should be redirected or merged, but I'm willing to pick my battles. At the very least, someone is going to have to go through all these nostalgia-filled articles and remove all the original research. I haven't been able to bring myself to do it yet, but I'll probably get around to it, eventually. Many of these are very old articles, dating to the period before we even required reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The potential sourcing I found is pretty thin. It's not clear how much depth of coverage those two books have for Opus; I can see maybe three paragraphs in one book and one in the other via GB snippets. Stuff with far more depth of coverage but similarly weak in terms of number of sources has been deleted before. (I'm thinking of BP Logix.) The other thing clear from the table of contents of Dvorak's book is that there were a lot of similar BBS software packages. So let's see how other Wikipedia editors evaluate the potential sources. I'm not (yet) withdrawing my nomination. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:18, 6 February 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, slakr^\ talk / 11:44, 18 February 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, czar 

♔ 21:43, 1 March 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.

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

)

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

No sources on

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 22 February 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, czar 

♔ 21:42, 1 March 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.

Troy Worrell

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

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

Non-notable person, orphaned article, and has few reliable sources Epicgenius (talk) 13:21, 19 February 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) 17:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I just removed a gross BLP violation from the article. No vote, but the article's sources are low quality. I'm not finding reliable source coverage in searches. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment. In searching further, I found a local paper's news article and a DoJ press release naming the subject as one of two dozen people charged in a fraud scheme. Lots of additional low quality source coverage but falls way short of
  WP:CRIME. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 22 February 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, czar 

♔ 21:40, 1 March 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. j⚛e decker^talk 16:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raffi Gregorian

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

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

Unremarkable diplomat who as far as I can tell has not held any ambassadorial level positions to date. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not yet senior enough for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:31, 19 February 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, czar 

♔ 21:39, 1 March 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. j⚛e decker^talk 22:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lunawebs

Lunawebs (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)

1. No secondary sources fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 22 February 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, czar 

♔ 21:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Don't see any claim for notability, fails
  talk) 18:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails WP:CORP. --
  Wikipedical (talk) 06:38, 9 March 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. j⚛e decker^talk 22:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swati Kain

Swati Kain (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 India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 22 February 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, czar 

♔ 21:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• delete no significant coverage, fails
  WP:ENT-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, fails WP:ENT/WP:GNG, lacking significant coverage. --
  Wikipedical (talk) 06:39, 9 March 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.

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

)

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

This is a borderline A10 candidate as it is a small subset of the information already contained within

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Online 19:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 22 February 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, czar 

♔ 21:36, 1 March 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.

Amazon Instant Video German (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)

Amazon Instant Video German is supposed to be the German language version of

• Merge/Redirect to
  Wikipedical (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 2 March 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. j⚛e decker^talk 22:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Alexander

Sean Alexander (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 producer, no sourcing found. IPs have deprodded and

• Comment. Does
  WP:CREATIVE apply to producers? If so, then he might have a credible claim toward notability. My guess is that Korean reviewers are not going to mention an obscure American producer, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 18 February 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 22 February 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, Mz7 (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks like nobody thinks he falls under
  WP:CREATIVE. Article can be recreated later with reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:23, 1 March 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. j⚛e decker^talk 22:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Montana (actor)

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

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

Not a notable actor, only plays minor roles, most of these articles listed dont even mention him outside of a cast box. Beerest 2 talk 20:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an actor involved in minor roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:37, 20 February 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:55, 22 February 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, Mz7 (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems to fail
  WP:NACTOR with minor roles and no evidence of notability. Can be recreated with reliable sources, if they exist. I don't see anything usable on Google. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:26, 1 March 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. postdlf (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of the most remote substantially populated cities

List of the most remote substantially populated cities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article is

• Delete. An arbitrary list that fails
  WP:LISTN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. This is a new article and there appears to have been no tagging of problems at the article, and there is no discussion at its Talk page (Talk:List of the most remote substantially populated cities, currently a red-link since started by me). There is citation of Guiness book of world records in the article. All the information may be from there, and it may not be primary research at all. And, non-controversial facts don't all need to be supported by references, if they have not been challenged, and no distance given or any other fact in the article has been challenged. Sure, try to educate some about need for references, and add some tags. But, geez, people, help the newbies out a bit, and don't hit them with an AFD when not necessary! (I didn't check to see if the original contributor is a newbie, but whether they are or not, my view is pretty much the same, don't hassle imperfect contributors unnecessarily). --doncram 22:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sympathy for the newbies is no reason to keep an article, nor is an AfD a sign of hostility towards them. The list makes non-trivial claims (the Guinness book is almost certainly not the main source) and includes OR from start to finish. I can't verify the accuracy of the claims (and I shouldn't have to, that's why we have
    George or Stellenbosch?).--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Those cities have populations well below 1 million, the threshold stated clearly in the article. Stellenbosch's size is just 77,000! And, we'll have to agree to disagree, about an AFD being hostile or not. --doncram 13:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this arbitrary threshold of 1 million is to be taken seriously, then both Cape Town and Johannesburg would have to be removed from the list, given that the population of the cities (as opposed to the metropolitan areas) don't quite reach that figure. About AfDs being somehow 'hostile', there is nothing to discuss: they have been part of Wikipedia since the very beginning and no matter what you think of them they are a core part of the project.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Obviously the Guiness source of facts for this article uses the metropolitan area sizes, not the arbitrary city borders within the physical cities. And, yes, Wikipedia has long had this feature, which is necessary I suppose but in implementation is often/usually very unfriendly, particularly when
          wp:BEFORE is not carried out. Isn't all this sourced from Guinness book of world records? --doncram 14:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Follow your own suggestion and read
            WP:BEFORE, especially this part: "The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)". As I have already said, the Guinness book is almost certainly not the main source of the tables, you should be able to confirm that by just reading the article, so it counts as original research and should be deleted. Do you have any policy-based reason for wanting to keep it, other than deletion might offend someone's sensibility?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • The nomination is for stated reason "The article is original research and includes no inline references". I don't believe it is original research, it is referenced to Guinness (and no facts have been disputed, anyhow). And, so what about inline vs. end-of-article referencing. Sure, tag it to call for inline referencing. There is no policy-based reason for deleting it. It is interesting and useful and sourced and valid as a Wikipedia article. --doncram 17:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • The Guinness book is not the source of the article's data, which is therefore the product of original research. I challenge you to prove that this is not the case.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • For what it is worth, i went to a public library yesterday and checked its collection of Guinness books. It had several editions, including i think 2001, 2004, 2005, and the various editions differed in what they covered about cities. 2004 had a most remote-from-any-ocean city mentioned (some city in western china), the others before and after did not have that. Also it turns out that one can search online for various Guinness records at http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/. Although it is possible this material is covered in an edition that I did not find, I didn't find the material covered. I still like the material, think it is factual and interesting and useful, akin to List of enclaves and exclaves, but I must admit that it does not seem to be sourced where I thought it was sourced. --doncram 22:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above naysayers. It's pretty arbitrary, and includes a grab bag of other trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree about one section being not related, and removed it to Talk page. Does the argument against come down to assertion that Guiness does not provide the info? Can someone check that? --doncram 13:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is poorly sourced
  original research Secret ^account 18:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as
  WP:OR and arbitrary. The author credits Travelmath.com in the references, all but confirming the OR hypothesis. The distance from capital table is arbitrary; the choice of 1e6 population is arbitrary; and the inclusion of some cities which don't meet the population criteria is very arbitrary. Pburka (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  There are arbitrary cutoffs in many lists of largest, most significant, etc., objects. E.g. minimal size of objects are arbitrary in most/all lists within

  exclaves, see List of enclaves and exclaves which I think is kind of similar. I rather believe all the information presented is accurate and factual. I would rather this was tagged for sources and revisited in 6 months time; your view may vary. There has been no tagging at all. --doncram 22:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  That's a false analogy. A list of tallest buildings might have a cut off where the list ends, but it's not trying to derive arbitrary relationships between those buildings. There's no evidence that 1e6 population is a widely accepted definition for "substantially populated". Pburka (talk) 14:29, 4 March 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. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bucks–Bulls rivalry

Bucks–Bulls rivalry (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 Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is not seen as a significant rivalry by anyone outside (maybe) Milwaukee. Rikster2 (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Don't think nearly enough has occurred for this article to ever be anything beyond
  talk) 21:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - there does not appear to be enough coverage on this rivalry to make a standalone article necessary.  Gong show 21:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per text "According to Bleacher Report, this is one of the seven weakest rivalries ever in the NBA." That explains it all. Secret ^account 16:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but weak - Seems like most rivalries would be hard to source because they are so dependent on subjective points of view and, therefore, probably not capable of being sufficiently and reliably sourced for stand-alone status. Maybe this could be kept as a stub or merged into a larger article, but I don't feel there is enough currently there for it to stand on it's own. See talk for more.- Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: Is there a pressing need for immediate deletion? A template requesting improvements and reliable sources was added on March 1, 2014. The article was then nominated for deletion on March 2, 2014. Isn't it possible to leave the article as is for a little while to see if somebody comes along and tries to improve it? If nobody does, then delete it. It seems a little unusual, at least to me, to request improvements one day and then nominate for deletion the next day, doesn't it? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also responded to your similar question earlier at

WP:USERFY, and there is no prejudice against re-creation if notability is later established. In the meantime, sources that establish GNG are needed.—Bagumba (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

No problem. I added more info to talk. Sorry if I posted the same question here by mistake. I wasn't sure if I needed to make it "official" by posting here too. Still learning how things work.- Marchjuly (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I added 4 more new sources to the page today, from the
  reliable sources, and they all use the term "rivalry" to refer to this series. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Thanks for the research. Unfortunately, the term "rivalry" is often liberally used in the media for any two teams in the same division. The ESPN source is speculative: "Rose vs. Jennings could be a memorable pairing for the next 10 years; the two lightning-quick scoring point guards will make this Central Division rivalry a little sexier to a national audience." The Journal Sentinel 2012 source says ""I don't even know if it's a rivalry when you get dominated like that." The 2013 source is

  WP:INDEPTH coverage that describes the rivalry in a historical context, not merely incorporating the word "rival".—Bagumba (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]