Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 May	10 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 03:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PythonTurtle

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

Completing nomination on behalf of 121.75.246.79, who posted a request at WT:AFD. Their rationale is posted verbatim below. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PythonTurtle doesn't seem to meet any of the notability requirements. 121.75.246.79 (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm not seeing a lot of interest in this; mostly I find myself wading through various downloads for it. Mangoe (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, or perhaps it's so deeply hidden that one can't easily find it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Is there a difference between "pythonturtle" and "python turtle"? If there isn't, GNG seems trivial. However, demonstrating one way or the other seems oddly difficult. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be two different things meant by python turtle. The first is the LOGO-like programming environ mentioned in the article. The second is given by the turtle python/Tk module. This is a graphics module with no development environ associated with it, just an API. --Mark viking (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 23:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mkdw ^talk 01:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Gladden

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

College basketball player does not meet the WP notability standard for athletes - see WP:NBASKETBALL, which requires at least one game in a major professional sports league or a very high draft pick in the national league to establish notability. College basketball players' notability guidelines are at WP:NCOLLATH, and Gladden also fails here, as there is little to no national media attention as required by the guideline. (In fact, other than reports of her death, there is little media coverage at all). Wikipeterproject (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 78.53.135.178 (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. 78.53.135.178 (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The EuroCup Women, in which she has participated for several years, is such a competition. Please do at least a bit of research before nominating an article. You've already edited your rationale ~~five~~ four times after nominating the article, which is quite a hint you haven't done that. --78.53.135.178 (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. From what I can gather, the Eurocup is a second tier competition and participation therein would therefore would not generally meet WP notability standards. As far as exposure and national media coverage goes, I think a simple Google news search almost speaks for itself here. The amount of editing of my nomination is irrelevant, since this is a question of notability as per WP guidelines, not how well one can draft a nomination. Note also that I have not made changes to the nomination rationale after anyone commented on it. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment First, your nomination was solely based on her high school career, then on her college career. So you were still ignoring the teams listed in the infobox and the external links of the article. If you don't take into account the teams she had played for in recent years, that just is a poorly executed nomination. Second, yes it is a second tier competion, but on European level, in which only those teams can participate that have won their respective national championship or that have placed among the top teams of the best national leagues in Europe. Another supranational league Gladden (as a member of the Partizan squad) had participated in is the MŽRKL, which they won that year. Many of Gladden's former team mates play for their respective national teams, and some already are covered by Wikipedia articles. Also note that the EuroCup is played during the WNBA off season, and many WNBA players take part in it as well. Concerning news - well, if the level of competition she has played in is high enough, I don't see that as a problem, as long as there is the possibility for proper verification. --78.53.135.178 (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Observation: I can't find a single WP article for any player whose highest level of competition is the Eurocup Women. Wikipeterproject (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even at more than 4 million articles, there still are areas of interest that are largely uncovered by Wikipedia yet, so that in itself doesn't tell you anything. Expansion always has to start somewhere. If someone plays with and against national team members and WNBA players (i.e., those who play at the highest competition level possible in women's basketball) on a regular basis, I don't see the inherent difference between her and them concerning notability. A pan-European competition isn't comparable to high school or college basketball with its big spreads of skill levels. While being part of the country's biggest multi sports club (as in the case of Partizan Belgrade) certainly helps a bit, these teams aren't funded by major institutions like universities, so teams not performing at "major professional" levels usually couldn't even afford travelling through Europe for just one game each. --78.53.134.187 (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        You have valid points, but they aren't in line with the current policy. Even factoring in Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, in my personal opinion, her achievements aren't encyclopedically notable. Transcendence (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:NCOLLATH. Transcendence (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 23:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, the nominator is correct in pointing that the subject fails the letter of the NBASKETBALL guideline, but in my view EuroCup Women is an international competition even more important/significant than a national championship and still reflects the spirit of the guideline. Cavarrone (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 14:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Conigliaro (mixologist)

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

This article links to very few other articles and makes no attempt to establish notability. I move for its deletion. SteelMariner^Talk 00:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The current version of the article is dreadful, and I would suggest it be revered back to a non promotional version like this one from the history. Articles like [1], [2], [3] demonstrate that he is a notable bartender / mixologist. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Though the version you cited looks better, the point below still applies, which is that there is no notability here. It is a page about a bartender that lists several non-notable awards and makes several uncited claims to notability. SteelMariner^Talk 12:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see any way that he meets the notability criteria for WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE. Unless we can come up with some other criteria for establishing the notability of bartenders (something the Bartending Task Force never managed to develop), I don't think this passes muster. Ibadibam (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfies WP:NOTE, per Whpq (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please elaborate. Of those articles linked above, only the first and second are what we usually consider a reliable source, and by my reading of WP:NOTE, they don't really give him significant coverage in a way that demonstrates long-term notability. Is there something I'm missing? Ibadibam (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's wrong with the third source? Luxury lifestyle magazines may not be of interest to the average person, but that the site has an editorial board. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, my mistake. I didn't notice it was a magazine. My above comments still stand, though: could someone actually explain which notability criteria are met by this individual? Ibadibam (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The appropriate guideline is WP:GNG as established through significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I picked out three sources of the ones I found quickly. I feel these sources fit the guidelines. The third source is a full profile where he is the primary topic. The first and second sources do not feature him as the primary topic, but the coverage not a passing mention, and sufficient for me to say that it represents significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm going to say that notability per WP:GNG (via WP:BASIC) is arguable. There's not really any depth to any of these sources, and there's nothing that provides evidence of real notability. A lot of shopowners, chefs and bartenders get written up as part of lifestyle/dining guides, and there's been no consensus to date as to whether that's enough to establish notability. (If he had made an enduring contribution to mixology this would be a lot more clear-cut — cf. Victor Vaughn Morris.) Perhaps it would be safe to let the article stand, cut out all the fluff, and reassess it later per WP:NTEMP if enduring notability can't be established. In the meantime, I'll stick some article message templates on it to pinpoint some of the issues. Ibadibam (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After snorting through the multiple independent published sources cited above, it seems that this subject does pass GNG. Not a rousing pass, but a pass, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of Regular Show characters. Frank | talk 12:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pops Maellard

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

Non-notable recurring character. — Confession0791 ^talk 22:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Where do we even start here? No sources so it fails WP:V, no indication of why it's notable so it fails WP:GNG, it's written pretty crudely... I could go on and on, but the most important issue is the notability and verifiability. Nothing I see establishes it as being worth an article. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 23:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hugely strong delete – No attempt to establish notability, might even be some made-up character. ^King Jakob _C2 01:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Regular Show characters. There is no coverage about this fictional character to establish that a separate article is required. -- Whpq (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 16:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you against redirecting to the list article where there is an entry for this character? -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Whpq. I note that all the other delete !votes here are non-policy-based, because WP:ATD clearly prefers a relevant redirect to an outright deletion. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This article and List_of_Regular_Show_characters appear to contain copyvio from [4]. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can fix the copyvio on List of Regular Show characters, just redirect this article to there. — Confession0791 ^talk 03:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That Internet Movie Database link is user-submitted and very likely a {{Backwardscopy}}. Most of the entries read like Wikipedia leads, so I examined the histories of Homer Simpson and Bart Simpson. I spot-checked revisions prior to the list's creation on September 10, 2011, and found that the text had existed on Wikipedia for over a month. List of Regular Show characters was split from Regular Show by User:Temastok (removal, cross-page diff). The second expansion by 80.98.24.185 came from the Pops article on the Regular Show Wikia. The Wikia page and List of Regular Show characters have similarities – I suspect copying in at least one direction – so it's not obvious which is the true source of the first expansion. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unattributed and unusable content from Wikia and redirect. Please also semi-protect to prevent 80.98.24.185 from recreating by pasting from somewhere (twice on this article and once on Ice King). Wikia is compatibly licensed CC-By-SA, so the text theoretically could be used if desired, but any content appropriate for Wikipedia is already in List of Regular Show characters. There's nothing here to justify repairing the attribution. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventure Time main characters have enough information for stand alone articles, and I just recently improved the Ice King article. The main Regular Show characters do not – and certainly not a recurring character like Pops. — Confession0791 ^talk 13:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that 80.98.24.185 has a habit of pasting from unidentified sources, creating work in identifying them, attributing their authors, and potentially removing copyvio. I have no opinion on Ice King as a separate article. The text in Ice King appears to come from List of Adventure Time characters. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect any and all Regular Show characters to List of Regular Show characters. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Warden (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Scott (thief)

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

Scott fails to pass WP:CRIMINAL and WP:GNG. If anything this seems like a news bit best set for Wikinews. Albacore (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is this a serious nomination? He had his obituary published in the Daily Telegraph and The Guardian for starters! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep obituaries in 2 major national newspappers. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and also coverage of his death by New York magazine [5], and here's an article from The Independent in 1998 about his 1998 sentencing [6]. HighBeam has more (if only my subscription had not expired).[7] --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep and move on.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 03:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muaythai Federation of India

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

I found no significant independent coverage of this organization. All the coverage and links in the article are either to its own website or related organizations.Mdtemp (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only coverage I found for this organization was primary or insignificant. Astudent0 (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems like this should be a notable organization with its affiliations to larger MT groups. However, notability is not inherited and the lack of significant independent coverage is what dictated my vote. Papaursa (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two of the references are dead links and the rest are primary. Not to mention that this article has major issues with grammer and writing.MartialArtsLEO (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Darrell K Royal–Texas Memorial Stadium. L Faraone 03:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Godzillatron

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

No notable - Regardless of having the multitude of 2006 sources from local papers, which unsurprisingly touted its shiny, new, greatness; it's a simply a video scoreboard that no longer is notably large or clear.

Even worse is the article's title which is declared as a nickname is not referenced anywhere nor does it apply only to the video scoreboard at Texas Stadium. It is a generic term for this years' HUGE new scoreboard somewhere. KelleyCook (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, perhaps without a redirect, to Darrell K Royal–Texas Memorial Stadium, where this information, and its sources, appropriately belongs. Deletion would not be the right result: the scoreboard may not deserve a separate article but it's a significant component of the stadium. Some of the cited articles do appear to use the "Godzillatron" name, but I don't see any particular need for a redirect, as long as we take the necessary steps to maintain the article history for attribution purposes. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge without redirect per Arxiloxos, and per WP:UNDUE. The stadium article has a lot about its development and renovations, but not a lot about the screen, which the paper sources could probably help with - bearing in mind it should be stripped down so it doesn't give undue weight to that part of the article. I don't see a redirect being necessary, either; chances are the term "Godzillatron" is going to get passed around every few years or so. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 23:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge please. Shii (tock) 14:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jigo Tensin-Ryu Jujutsu

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

This is a supposedly a new martial arts style, but I can only find one school that teaches it. Everything seems to link back to one D.C. school run by the founder. I found no significant independent coverage. One of the article's sources mentions jujutsu, but doesn't specifically mention this style at all.Mdtemp (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This martial art is significant because it is being used by National Defense University and being taught to the U.S. Military there. It is part of the curriculum. There are no other schools who can claim this. And yes there is independent coverage in there and the founders bio is used because there is a lot of detail in there. Please make suggestions for improvement instead of flagging for deletion. 69.243.110.100 (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional secondary sources have been added to this article. Emery80 (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge into Dong Jin Kim The fact that courses in this art are taught does not show notability, regardless of where they're taught. The NDU is for military and civilians and is not concerned with preparing anyone for combat. The mere fact this course is taught does not show notability--note that it's part of an article that also discusses other new offerings at the gym such as a musical cardio class. T+here is nothing that shows this art meets WP:MANOTE or any other notability criteria to merit its own article. Astudent0 (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The NDU does prepare military for combat situations, further the Army Old Guard is there at Ft. McNair with them. NDU is a U.S. military university. Unlike other "offerings" students get academic credit for this. Being that my main interest is including a worthy art, the U.S. military, and the NDU, I don't terribly mind it being merged with Kim's, however my preference would be to keep both. Any suggestions on how they could be merged coherently? I think merging Kim into Jigo Tensin-Ryu would be the best if it had to be merged, but having seen comment on the other page some may argue it should be the other way around. Emery80 (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that I think there's little to show notability for this art. An art that appears to be taught by one instructor and lacks significant independent coverage doesn't seem notable by WP standards. As for my merging/redirect comment, I think it's much easier to make a case for Kim's notability than for this art which is why I voted the way I did on the two articles. According to the NDU website their mission is to be "focused on advanced joint education, leader development and scholarship", educate "members of the U.S. Armed Forces and select others in order to develop leaders that have the ability to operate and creatively think" and "foster and promote scholarly distinction in its work and its people". With a focus on getting a master's degree, it doesn't sound like hand to hand combat is an integral requirement and lots of schools offer martial arts classes as electives--it hardly shows notability. Astudent0 (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The secondary sources cited in the article either don't address Jigo Tensin-Ryu Jujutsu by name, discusses it in terms of an individual of a larger organization (specifically Mr. Stenson of the US Army as per the current #3 reference) or by the name of its inventor Dong Jin Kim (also up for AfD). The martial art itself doesn't appear to have been around very long (relatively speaking), been the subject of significant coverage, or practiced my multiple notable people and thus fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Prior to this !vote I spent time on the article removing possible copyright violations and cleaning up instances where information was incorrectly cited, both in this article and Dong Jin Kim which I have also !voted delete in its AfD. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TreyGeek there are a lot of significant people who practice this form of martial art...e.g. Scooter Libby, Tom Daschle, General Greg martin get s his Black Belt this month. BTW, thanks for erasing my pictures, that are NOT copy right infringements. Emery80 (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TreyGeek went into Wikicomkons and tagged every photo of mine and tagged it possible copyright. Even though I own the photos...including ones for my job (law enforcement)and of my father...wow thanks pal, thanks for the attack!Emery80 (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:MANOTE a martial art is notable enough for an article if it meets certain criteria. I don't see how the subject meets any of those criteria. You suggest it passed item 3 (multiple notable practitioners) however none of those practitioners are directly cited with independent, secondary sources. Your conflict of interest over the subject is perhaps making you unbias in this case.

As for the images, if you really did take those photos, there is a procedure on Commons to verify you are the owner of those images. You are welcome to go through those procedures.

I'll also note that Emery has reverted my cleanup of the article. So there are specific web pages listed multiple times in the references section and references are being cited at the end of paragraphs which really don't backup the statements made in those paragraphs. With the merge of Jin Kim's article into this one (without proper attribution) it is a huge mess that I'm not going to attempt to clean up (again) until after the AfD is resolved. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TreyGeek, sorry for causing a mess. I was trying to get the photos back as I though they simple been deleted off the article. As for the photos in wikicommons, I do have the right to use them (that's what I meant by mine), however, I uploaded them inccorectly in terms of the permissions. I actually tried re upload them correctly today and put the right permissions on there, but the photos are now blocked. Sorry for accusing you of attack earlier. I was heated up because you erased a photo of my father earlier on wikicommons and it got me heated up. That being said, I appreciate your help in making this article better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emery80 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I see the side of Astudent0 and I have merged the two pages (Dong Jin Kim into Jigo Tensin Ryu). Thank you for the suggestions :)

Emery80 (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AfD discussions are not a vote per say but generally speaking there should be on vote per commenter. Emery - its not helpful to use words like attack instead of fixing the problem. Copyright is a big deal on Wikipedia for very obvious reasons. With respect to the merge in my opinion the art should be merged into the man (ie. the other way around) which is what Astudent0 originally suggested. As a single article (either way) I think there is enough to support a Keep.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, thank you for you comment, I understand on the issues and will work to resolve them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emery80 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's good - please also consider the changes TreyGeek made within the article vis a vis the references and such.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As I stated on the Dong Jin Kim article discussion. I agree with Peter Rehse. Emery, I do NOT agree with you that this article should absorb Dong Jin Kim. It needs to be the other way around. Kim is one of the top Kendoka in the US interms of his experiece and teaching but his martial art is still developing. I do not meen any disrespect by saying that, as I have a lot of respect for DJK and the sport, but uising my almost 30 years of experience in martial arts and although I feel comfortable saying that although Jigo Tensin Ryu has a lot of potential, it is not yet at the level that wiki needs it to be. Please consider merging JTR into DJK, and make a section for JTR.MartialArtsLEO (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emery, I also just cleaned up another article you worked on recently.MartialArtsLEO (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I am alright with merging them. Thank you for your input. I saw the other changes, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emery80 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Dong Jin Kim. There is no doubt that this martial art does not meet any WP notability criteria (as others have already noted), so it only makes sense to merge into the article on the more notable founder. I must admit I think even his notability is borderline, but one thing at a time. Papaursa (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm not sure that the notability concerns have been adequately met but since Jigo Tensin-Ryu Jujutsu has recently been merged into this page I don't want to delete it without an updated discussion. As such, if anyone feels that the subject is still not notable I have no issues with it being re-nominated. J04n(talk page) 14:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dong Jin Kim

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

Doesn't seem to meet any notability criteria. Almost all of sources are to his biography on his school's web site. As for claims of notability, teaching classes is not notable. Many instructors teach police and military. I don't think his kendo championship is enough to show notability on its own. Winning one national tournament for 50+ year olds doesn't seem enough to me, but others may disagree.Mdtemp (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This individual created a martial art that is used at the National Defense University and being taught to the U.S. Military there. It is part of the curriculum. He is not listed here because he "he teaches classes." He is listed because he has a National Championship. Kim has only been in the United States as a U.S. Citizen for a few years and his "50 years" should not be taken into consideration. Mdtemp, I know you are a MMA fan but Kendo is important to a lot of people. His winning a National Champion ship, plus the fact he founded a martial arts style is why he is here. Subsequently, the style, Jigo-Tensin-Ryu Jujutsu also has an article. 69.243.110.100 (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I study a different school of Kendo, Kim is considered one of the top practitioners and teachers of the sport here in the U.S. I would rather promote my school, but having this on here is good for the sport, especially here in the U.S. There are very few, if not any, practioners at his level here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.107.123 (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an encyclopedia, it's irrelevant whether or not an article is "good for the sport". I still don't think he quite meets the notability criteria, but he's much closer than his martial art.Mdtemp (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I argree you Mdtem. Please allow my to rephrase my comment as I think I misspoke. I believe he is of importance to the sport of kendo and therefore should be included as an article.MartialArtsLEO (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak Keep Technically, winning a U.S. championship (especially an age related one) may not strictly meet WP:MANOTE, but I can live with that. However, combined with the lack of independent sources this article does have some issues. I'd prefer to see some additional sources, but I don't really feel strongly about the article either way. Astudent0 (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Astudent0, I see your point. His students are some of my biggest competitors so I dont want to sound too supportive....lol Maybe Emery can find some more sources for his Kim article. As i said its good for the sport here in the US.

Delete I don't believe that being the winner of a senior's championship fulfills WP:MANOTE. I am unable to find ~~much, if any,~~ significant coverage on the subject thus appears to fail WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I went through the article and cleaned it up. A number of images uploaded to commons appears to be possible copyright violations from the subject's dojo's(?) website (or at the very least were given inaccurate attribution. So, I removed them and tagged them appropriately on Commons). It also seems a lot of the citations given to paragraphs didn't actually have the information being cited as far as I could tell, so those were removed. --TreyGeek (talk)

still keepTreygeek thank you for helping clean up, however being at NDU those are my images. Also its a National Championship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emery80 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~merge I merged this page into Jigo Tensin Ryu~~.
Keep As per the discussion in Jigo tensin Ryu, Jigo Tensin Ryu should be merged into this article and this article kept.Emery80 (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emery80 (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My related comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jigo Tensin-Ryu Jujutsu suggest the opposite merge since it appears the man is more significant than the martial art.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, thanks, I will work with it later today. Emery80 (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Emery, no disrespect, but I agree with Peter Rehse. Merge Jigo Tensin Ryu into Don Jin Kim. The man is more important than the art in terms of wiki. Kim is is one of the top kendōka in terms of his experience and training in the United States where as the martial art is still developing. Not to say it wont get there, but its not "there" yet for the level needed for these articles. As stated already by a few, I would suggest merging Jigo Tensin Ryu into DJK, putting JTR as a section and redirecting JTR to the DJK page. I also agree that the DJK page should be keep. I was not signed in when I made previos comments, but mine are unsigned under 69.243.107.123.

MartialArtsLEO (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emery, I also just cleaned up another article you worked on recently that is unrelated. Not picking on you, just went to your edit history and noticed something that needed some clean up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartialArtsLEO (talk • contribs) 17:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No offense take, thank you for your help. I will take all that into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emery80 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emery80, I would also suggest you not accuse people of vandalism and ask they be banned from Wikipedia, as you did with me, unless you have evidence besides the fact they disagree with you.Mdtemp (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mdtemp, please accept my apologies on that. I am new to this and didn't under stand what was going on. I appreciate your patience.Emery80 (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As soon as the AFD is complete I will start the merge process of Jigo Tenin Ryu into this articleEmery80 (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the Jigo Tensin Ryu article into this one as per the AfD on that article.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look good, thanks PeterEmery80 (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 03:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Together (song by The xx)

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

Does not pass notability threshold; please add information to the article for the soundtrack. Another Believer _(Talk) 19:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage to date seems limited to "Listen to the xx's new song from The Great Gatsby soundtrack" [8][9]. Not enough material for a standalone article; nor does it appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS at this time. Gong show 19:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per nominator's withdraw; see WP:SK#1. (Non-admin closure.) Erik (talk | contribs) 13:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Booked Out

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

Unfortunately, this film does not meet WP:GNG and also WP:MOVIE. There are no independent sources and the only WP:RS found [10] was about the director (see article talk page) and is only a passing mention of the movie. Just not enough to even come close to notability. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 19:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 19:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the film has been reviewed by The Guardian as seen here. It was also reviewed by the Evening Standard as seen here. The Scotsman reviewed it here. Screen Daily covered the film's distribution here. What do you think, FoolMeOnce2Times? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see the reviews. I am reluctant, as if we use reviews then just about every movie would qualify for an article. However, you seem to have more edits in this area. What does The Project say about using reviews as sources? Would be glad to withdraw if there has been a previous consensus about using reviews for movies. Let me know. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We want to determine a topic's notability through reliable sources per WP:GNG. In this case, we want to use reviews published by reliable sources, such as the ones I mentioned above. This film actually had a lot of reviews from sources that would not be considered reliable, as seen here. (Though that is where I found the review by The Guardian as part of my research.) Check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reboot (2012 film), for example. There were a few reviews of that film as seen here, but none of them were considered reliable. Hope that kind of threshold makes sense. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clear as mud. :) Let me make it simple (at least for me anyways)....would the project consider the sources you found good enough to meet the WP:RS guidelines for WP:GNG? --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe they would. We have The Guardian, the Evening Standard, The Scotsman, and Screen Daily (not a review but did provide coverage). We tend to count print sources and what they publish on the web to be reliable. Web-only sources are questioned a little more. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sorry, logged off before your last message. Hate to eat and sleep or something like that. Anyways, thanks for pointing this out to me. I am new and learning and now I know what the community thinks in regards to these references for movies. As such, I will withdraw the nomination. Sorry for the mistake. As far as the article, I came across it by trying to clean up tagged articles. I hate when people pull hit and runs with the ugly tags. and yes, I do understand that not everyone has the time to clean up articles and articles should not be punished for people not cleaning them up. It makes Wikipedia look like crap and makes it look unreliable. When I come across an article like this I like to clean it up if it is at all possible. That is why this was nominated as I could not locate the sources that I felt met the WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS guidelines. Anyways...I'm done venting. Thanks again for pointing out the error. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking beyond present state (Thank you Erik) we can see the topic meets WP:GNG and WP:Notability (films) through commentary, coverage, and analysis in multiple independent reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAW - Based on policy based reasoning pointed out above, I would like to withdraw the nomination for deletion. Sorry for the time waster. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 03:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Debajyoti Mukhopadhyay

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

There is not a single secondary reliable source for this article about a computer scientist. Added google scholar shows a maximum of 17 citations. [11] Solomon7968 (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actually claims 220 Scholar citations [here]. Per WP:ACADEMIC, falls short or at least WP:TOOSOON (given the many recently published papers claimed). Per WP:GNG, nothing noteworthy.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 19:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 19:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable. In addition, he would currently fail BLPPROD imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep-- borderline for WP:PROF

This is a good illustrations of a career which is notable by the standards of his own country but not necessarily internationally. He doesn't claim' 220 citations, he has them, but divided over a large number of articles with no one article getting more than 17. I'd extend him the courtesy of an article. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You are very wrong to say notable by the standards of his own country. India has produced computer scientists like Raj Reddy, Rajeev Motwani, Manindra Agrawal, Ravi Sethi and numerous others. In total 1 Turing Award, 6 Godel Prize and numerous others who fuel the US economy. Solomon7968 (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In my book Scholar citations are claims until verified. There are ways to double-count working papers and proceedings (thus a big issue for a computer scientist like this subject), such that the exact count needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Even if accurate, though, the count is too low to override WP:ACADEMIC in my reading; all the more since, as DGG, points out, no single piece stands out.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have examined the GS list, and checked the most cited: only a few of the citations are by his group, but most are by outsiders. That's the usual potential problem. What other problem do you suggest? The list has the usual mix of papers and conferences for the subject. I consider GS valid unless there's something to contest--a number of peer-reviewed papers, (COI: a few but not most of them are by one of my former students), have shown the equal validity of its results with Scopus & WoS, tho GS are usually higher due to its wider scope of inclusion. Anyway, anybody can check them & see if the citations are noticeably affected by some of the non-scholarly work GS does include. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- You'd "extend him the courtesy of an article"? Have you asked this man whether he wants an article about himself here (never mind that asking him would be inappropriate)? Do you realize that this is an encyclopedia and not a kind of hall of fame or Who's Who? Have you considered that an encyclopedia article on a wiki may potentially develop negative information about its subject or information that a living person would generally not otherwise want to appear? 2604:2000:FFC0:61:21FD:BEA1:28E:AE4C (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His citation record is far below the level needed for WP:PROF#C1 (especially in CS, which is a relatively high-citation field) and I see no other signs of notability here. And as Solomon7968 says, India has both individuals and universities that rank among the best in the world in this subject, so I don't think arguments for applying lower standards to counter systemic bias hold any water in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable person. It should be deleted quickly. Jussychoulex (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete India is a significant part of the international scientific community, and the subject does not meet the standards for notability we apply to researchers generally, under WP:PROF. Ray^Talk 19:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colmar Brunton

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

Attempted to find sources for this one but just ended up with a few hundred passing mentions about surveys that have conducted. The company fails WP:GNG as there is not WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS and there is also no WP:CORPDEPTH. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that finding sourcing would be difficult given the number of poll results that turn up, but this is a major market and social research and polling company. The extent to which its polls are considered newsworthy (especially in NZ from what I've seen) goes a long way to establishing the firm's notability IMO. Nick-D (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the comment. I do see that they are a rather large firm in the polling industry and believe that we can combine the multitude of passing mentions to potentially support notability. However, how do we support the content beyond them being who they are? The article is rather large for a company without any references to be found. I think beyond stating who they are with a simple sentence or two there is nothing to support the rest of the content. Thoughts? --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my personal knowledge of this firm (I've never worked for them and have no conflict of interest) all the material in the article appears correct, other than the claim that this is "Australia's largest independent market research agency" which is questionable. It's certainly among the largest. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they are probably one of the largest independent market research agencies and notable in the real world, but for Wikipedia, our personal knowledge cannot be used as a WP:RS. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs work, but from a few minutes on Google News I can see sources that go well beyond "Colmar Brunton poll says X". They include a scandal over tobacco polling, analysis of methods that suggest a right-wing bias, and reports on corporate deals and job cuts: New Zealand Herald[12], Stuff/Business Day[13], Stuff/Dominion Post[14], MRWeb[15], Voxy[16], Research (magazine of UK Market Research Society)[17] --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable for function, but the type is not one to push the news outside of their polls, as seen above they do get some coverage, but anything necessary about key organization matters needs to come from records and business work that is rather specialized at this point. Pew Research Center is similarly in this boat on Wikipedia, despite being equally well established. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per nominator withdrawal and no outstanding arguments for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Million Ways to Die in the West

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

~~Has not begun filming, fails WP:NFF~~. ~~Editor also moved already existent redirect to an unnecessary new location in order to create this. It has happened before~~ I'm gonna withdraw the AFD. I hope in the future Captain Assassin follows common practice the way I showed him on his talk page. Rusted AutoParts 17:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Filming has begun already and I'm going to add references and citations, so please wait. And other thing I moved because I'm starting the article, you just created the page and made redirection.-- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 17:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You create redirects in order to add content later, not move the redirect, thereby making another, unnecessary redirect. It also shows you to be sneaky and underhanded, since you did it as well with Transference.Rusted AutoParts 17:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendence not Transference, and I did yes I did, I added the contents to that too, but you snatched that from me by making loop of redirection.-- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 17:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You snatched it from me. I had that redirect created too. I had to have them deleted twice to revert your actions. It's called stealing in some places, but I'm claiming no ownership, just acknowledge what you're doing is wrong. Rusted AutoParts 17:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at least, as it is for now. Let me throw out a quote here from WP:NFF -"Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." As it stands, this article does not meet that guideline at the moment. Unless any sources are added that show the production is notable and can be well-supported in the article writing, I'll move to delete and just say wait until we get a little closer to release time. That being said, if User:Captain Assassin! can make it happen in the next couple of days before this AFD closes, I might be inclined to change my mind. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 21:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Phoenix , yes according to policies it doesn't meet the guideline at the moment but I can show you hundreds of other articles like this, there are many others which have articles during filming. Leave filming I can show you the articles which are not started filming yet, some are in pre-production and some in planned project. And you know that this guideline works sometimes, I will add reliable sources in a couple of hours and I hope you'll be satisfied then. And you can also see in the sources that the film was set to be shoot in May/Spring, and now it is filming.-- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 02:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide as source that informs that filming has already begun? All I have found is reports on casting being under weigh. If filming has begun, I could support a keep. If not, I would support an incubation of the article and a redirect of the title to its director. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well done, it seems that notability has been established after all. Though I'm sure the sourcing is a little shoddy right now, there's enough to meet WP:NFF at this point. Captain Assassin!, however, I'd like to point out something very briefly for you to keep in mind in the future when you have to defend against someone's point of view in an AFD. Make sure to read WP:OCE, because just because there are other articles that are similar doesn't mean that any one article should be protected. What defines my decision in this case with a concern of notability was how it matched the policy on notability for an unreleased film, and I would say that it did not at first, but the additional sources have established that notability. Any of the hundreds of articles that have not established notability in a similar situation, I would nominate for deletion for lack of notability, but not under the presumption that we would never have an article on the film. Sometimes it's simply too soon. Best of luck as you continue to shape up this article, and happy editing. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 02:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As required by WP:NFF we now have confirmation of filming. From May 2, we learn in Women's Wear Daily that Amanda Seyfried "has just left Gallup, N.M., in her rearview mirror as she heads to Santa Fe to film her newest project, a comedy with Seth MacFarlane dubbed A Million Ways to Die in the West" and that the project is expected to take six weeks to complete.[18] Just hours ago it was announced in Daily Mail "the Big Love actress just began filming Seth MacFarlane's new comedy, A Million Ways to Die in the West, in New Mexico." (my underscore) Also required by WP:NFF's stating "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." I find the shear wealth of sources about this production's planning and casting meet the primary notability guideline... IE: per guideline, the production is now determinable as notable enough for inclusion and, considering the principals involved, it will only gain more coverage. And yes, the article could benefit from expansion and use of the many available sources, yes... but (@Red Phoenix) as filming has commenced and the project-being-filmed has coverage enough to meet WP:GNG, that addressable issue is a reason to allow it remain and be improved overtime and through regular editing. In improving articles to serve the project and its readers, addressable issues are rarely cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the notability guidelines for future films. The threshold is the start of filming, and we have now verified that here. A stand-alone article is thus warranted. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schmidt. WP:NFF is indeed satisfied. Nymf _{talk to me} 18:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the notability guidelines for future films. As of today, A Million Ways to Die in the West has a release date in North America, May 30, 2014: Hollywood Reporter--Ahmad123987 (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahmad123987, for what it's worth, an announced release date is not a good indicator of whether or not a film will be made. A studio can announce a release date but fail to get the film into production. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted by others, principal photography is now underway, so that's not an issue. Does it meet general notability guidelines? Given the director and cast, it's pretty certain that it does. Even if it does not at present, it obviously will. Deletion, only to have it re-created in another few months, is an exercise in futility. If this does come out as "delete" I hope the originating editor will be offered a chance to WP:USERFY it so work already done is not lost, and to facilitate bringing it back as an article, which will inevitably be done. TJRC (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been fixed up, plus this a a notable film by now. Koala15 (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough "keep" comments for now, I think. AFD should be closed for now as it is filming now, thanks to all for participating.-- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 09:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs usually remain open for 7 days, and we do have one outstanding delete vote. However, it might be closed by an uninvolved person under WP:SNOW. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 03:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lives of the Saints (unreleased film)

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

The film is still in early development, probably in "development hell". The page states it started filming but the link it gives reference to only mentions the names of the people attached to it, nothing of it having started filming. Lady Lotus (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a sound example of a topic that does not meet the notability guidelines for future films. This from February 2011 mentions the director's desire to start filming Lives of the Saints later that month. There is no indication of actual production beyond that. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Topic currently fails WP:GNG and thus WP:NF. At best, this one is TOO SOON. If author wishes to continue work OUT of article space, fine. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - films in development hell are usually deleted here, sometimes citing WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Esoteric programming language#Piet. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Piet (programming language)

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered and all that I could find in my own search are either WP:PRIMARY or WP:UNRELIABLE wikis and personal blogs, all unsuitable for establishing notability. Previous AfD in 2006 consisted of three WP:JUSTAVOTEs and two WP:ITSINTERESTINGs. I don't believe this subject can stand as a separate article under our guidelines but I would not object to merging this material back into Esoteric programming language#Piet. Msnicki (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I also did a search for some references, and ended up finding nothing more than the creator's own site. Although it seems that it should be merged back into Esoteric programming language#Piet instead of being deleted. CharmlessCoin (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I've seen some interest in the language in the blogs, but have not found multiple in-dpeth independent reliable sources. That the language exists is verifiable, and as one of the few (only?) color-based programming languages, it seems reasonable to include in the list of examples in Esoteric programming language. --Mark viking (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 03:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rigby Raccon

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

Non-notable character, misspelled anyway. — Confession0791 ^talk 16:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Regular Show characters as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mordecai Blue jay. Would help to create a redirect under the correct name too. Ansh666 22:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I say delete completely. No known last name and "raccoon" misspelled. — Confession0791 ^talk 22:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but given someone made the page, it could conceivably be a valid search term? Let's see what others say. Ansh666 23:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no harm in keeping the redirect. Someone looking for "Ricky Raccon" will almost certainly be looking for the character anyway. Jafeluv (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and precedence. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 16:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but create a new page with the correct spelling as a redirect to List of Regular Show characters. I don't see any reason why this character should have its own article, but I'm guessing that fans of the show will still search for it, so we should point them to the right place. --Jpcase (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the redirect be Rigby raccoon per WP:TITLE, since he has no known last name. — Confession0791 ^talk 20:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I guess that would probably be a common search term, seeing as though the creator of this article decided to use it. I would suggest also doing one for Rigby (Regular Show). --Jpcase (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect already exists. [19] — Confession0791 ^talk 00:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Then yeah, I would just say delete this page and create Rigby Raccoon as a redirect. --Jpcase (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Regular Show characters. This lacks significant secondary source converage in independent sources. It doesn't have enough content to justify a standalone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no opinion on redirects. Rigby Raccon was split from List of Regular Show characters by User:Temastok (removal, cross-page diff). The split does not comply with WP:Splitting#How to properly split an article or WP:Copying within Wikipedia, and it must be repaired if not deleted. Since the text originates from the list (actually from Regular Show, prior to the split of the character list), there is nothing to merge back. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. If someone believes the subject to be notable and is willing to rework the article I will userfy it to them upon request. J04n(talk page) 14:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Jo McGrath

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

Possible copyvio? Reads like a press release, little indication of independent notability nothing in the way of a solid secondary source establishing it. Created wholesale by User:Chendrix in 2007, who has edited no other articles in any substantial way. Gamaliel (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - although she fails my tests for lawyers, she may pass WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE as an author. I found her books at Google Books, and several lengthy quotes in reliable news sources, so she appears to be legit. However, the article is a hot mess. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What an odd comment. Nothing you say justifies your vote, unless being "legit" is a valid keep criterion. If I'm ever the defendant in a jury trial, please remind me not to hire you. If AFD is truly not a vote, I expect the closing admin to read this a "delete." 66.108.176.187 (talk) 10:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at most borderline notable, and highly promotional -- almost a G11. An extensive article about someone of at borderline notability is almost also at attempt at promotion, and this seems a good example of that. The sources in Google News Archive are either merely mentioning her as being an attorney in a case, or consist of her own statements. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SuaVay Nova

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

Looks promotional to me since the only person that has ever edited it, is the creator of the page. Koala15 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 9. Snotbot t • c » 15:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage whatsoever in reliable, independent sources for this rapper. The first "reference" reports that his mixtape has had two, count 'em, two downloads. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Soft delete. Undeletion may be requested at WP:REFUND. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MC Funky J

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

Non notable musician. Koala15 (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 9. Snotbot t • c » 14:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 01:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calunod

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

Another one that ought to be speedied. But there is context, and it's not pure nonsense... Ignatz mice•talk 14:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - well, it's very nearly nonsense. Deb (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - No coherent structure, little context, seems to be written partly in Phillipino --Mathnerd 101 _{What I have done} ^{What have I done?} 22:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense, failing WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete - ~~no notability whatsoever. Tagged as A7. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 20:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)~~ The article as it is can't be salvaged. It's just unencyclopedic stuff. I wouldn't object to it being recreated as a disambiguation page about the surname, rather than being like this. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 20:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 03:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Alison

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

Long-term unsourced BLP. Mainly a promo piece/CV, not sure anything is notable and I wasn't able to verify any of it in reliable sources independent of the subject. J04n(talk page) 12:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I could not verify sources either. The article confuses ad awards (if they are real) with personal awards.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self promotional. possible WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As said above, this looks like an autobiography, even down to a "what I did on my holidays" section. No evidence of notability, unless it can be demonstrated that any of the (unreferenced) awards are more than routine. AllyD (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. The "awards" are mostly Finalist, Shortlist or Entry!--Nixie9✉ 22:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 03:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Digital dementia

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

Not encyclopaedic. Reads like a "how-to" guide and appears to contain original research. Deb (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a commonly-used term, sources don't indicate notability. There's some related articles we might redirect to, like Is Google Making Us Stupid? which are more in-depth and better sourced. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. Mcewan (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This may be a borderline WP:NEOLOGISM case but ultimately I find the sources underwhelming to show that this is both a widely used term as well as a notable one. Mkdw ^talk 01:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - nothing notable just some guy trying to promote himself. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loi Mistica

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

Hoax. Lacks notability. Full of made up shit. Claims lots of charting and certifications but Billboard comes up empty [20]. Claims albums released by Sony but there is no verification from anywhere but his own site. Everything is sourced to his own site. More fantasy on his other pages. Beautiful In My Eyes (Loi Mistica song) charted in 6 countries? UK [21]. Rubbish. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also including most of his other articles.

(Right Here Waiting (Loi Mistica album) is already at afd. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that the author of Loi Mistica had attempted to blank the page. ... discospinster _talk 14:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all for failing WP:V. Notability claims cannot be supported by reliable sources. Searches get only user-generated content sites. This is an elaborate walled garden of unverifiable (and some outright false) information. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Nothing notable there just some guy trying to promote himself. Koala15 (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all speedily - Per CSD:G3, these are confirmed hoaxes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 03:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cliftonville Cricket Club Ground

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

This ground no longer exists as a cricket ground and is not used by Cliftonville Cricket Club: see: Cliftonville Cricket Club History Mooretwin (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The venue was used for a List A international which ensures its notability. WP has numerous articles about former sports venues so all that is needed is for the article to be updated. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has held List A cricket. Plenty of cricket grounds no longer exist, 140 plus major venues in England alone. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if it were to be retained, the article would need to be renamed as it is no longer the Cliftonville Cricket Club Ground and it is arguable if it ever went under that name in any case. Mooretwin (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jack. None of the article being out of date, the title being incorrect or the subject no longer existing are grounds for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is the name used by CricketArchive for the ground. Many grounds are imaginatively "named" after the club that plays there: East Gloucestershire Cricket Club Ground, Moreton-in-Marsh Cricket Club Ground, Hatherley and Reddings Cricket Club Ground, Boughton Hall Cricket Club Ground, to name a few! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely correct. And, if Mooretwin can provide from a recognised source the "true" name of the venue, he may of course use the MOVE facility to rename the article. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the previous reasons given. But, to be fair, User:Mooretwin has contributed significantly in the past to articles on cricket in Northern Ireland, and I do not doubt his good faith in this nomination. Johnlp (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 03:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ingate Systems

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

Not notable and no assertion of any notability. Unreferenced apart from own advert and press release. Fails WP:CORP Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:COMPANY. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article edit history shows significant editing by a succession of WP:SPA accounts associated with the company (one of which was blocked). That said, the current content is lacking in promotional overtones. But this just appears to be a firm going about its business; a Highbeam search turns up industry publication coverage of the firm's product announcements, but I am not finding evidence of particular notability. AllyD (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Vedic Mathematics (book). It seems like the consensus is that the article about the content of the book is not notable and should be redirected. Out of two options - redirecting to the book or to the author - the first one is clearly preferable. On the other hand, there is no consensus on whether the book itself is notable, and given it was never AfDed, I am not going to take any action on the article Vedic Mathematics (book).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vedic mathematics (book)

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

A random editor may find the book to be cited by secondary sources but a closer inspection reveals that there is only two secondary reliable sources by K.S. Shukla and B.B. Dutta. The rest of the sources added here are all by conflict of interest Hindu nationalists or by primary sources. It seems to me that this book surely falls under Wikipedia:No original research or a walled garden of Wikipedia:No original research. And I am personally very interested in Indian mathematics and I have made contribution on it in wikipedia. But this article in no sense belongs to Indian mathematics but rather a propaganda tool for Indian mathematics. Solomon7968 (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:It is interesting to note here that there is another article by the name Vedic Mathematics (book) implying the same book. If consensus emerges to delete this article it will be automatically extended to that article also. The edit history shows that article has got significant fewer edits. So I am reluctant to nominate that for deletion. Solomon7968 (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that should be deleted too, if we get consensus here. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There seems to be a confusion. My concern is not notability but WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. As I mentioned there are only three (I previously forgot S. G. Dani) reliable source. Solomon7968 (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will advise every advocate of a separate article to consider my suggestion of merging the content of the two articles on the book to the article on the author Bharati Krishna Tirthaji Maharaja. Solomon7968 (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, should be deleted. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This review suggests that the book might be notable. Problematic, yes, and that has to be part of the article, but notable. I'm not sure if notable enough though. — HHHIPPO 13:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but merge with Vedic Mathematics (book). Notability is established through the sources. A scan for OR would be appropriate, though. Qwertyus (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My concern is not notability but WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and the book fails both. And if you read the review by S. G. Dani (a Shanti Swaroop Bhatnagar Award winner and a neutral souce) it criticises rather praises the book and terms it a propaganda. Solomon7968 (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your point. The book is not NPOV, but it need not be to deserve an article. The article makes it quite clear that the book's content is not accepted by mathematicians and that is a forgery. That's interesting, encyclopedic information about a book like this. Qwertyus (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article don't makes it clear. Except the first paragraph the whole material is cited from the pages of the book. If the article has to survive Afd then we have to delete at least 90% of the article. Instead I advise to merge the two articles on the book to the page of the author and make it a redirect. Solomon7968 (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic is notable, the article should stay. To write it from a neutral point of view and give criticism due weight is a matter of improving the article, which can be done. I don't see a reason for deletion there. — HHHIPPO 15:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is having Only three reliable secondary source all of which shows the article in a bad light is notability according to wikipedia standard? Solomon7968 (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG says Multiple sources are generally expected. It doesn't say more than three sources are required. I checked only one of the sources, so I can't say if the other two provide significant coverage or if they are reliable and independent, but the number of sources doesn't seems to be a problem here. Neither is it a problem that the book is shown in a bad light. Our inclusion criterion is a topic's notability, not its quality. — HHHIPPO 16:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many valid stubs with only one reference or so, but in this case neither of the reference seems strong to me. Solomon7968 (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've already suggested this: Talk:Vedic_mathematics_(book)#Should_this_article_be_deleted? The article is a complete mess, and the content is not mathematics. Perhaps the book should be mentioned somewhere else? I cannot understand the suggestions (above) to "merge with Vedic Mathematics (book)... this is surely the page we are proposing to delete. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a mess, but I think some of the content can be saved, esp. the critical reviews. The fact that a book contains nonsense is no reason not to give it a Wikipedia page, as long as its contents are not presented as fact. I'm proposing to radically trim the article down. The "mathematical" part of the article should probably go.

As for the merge proposal, there are two articles about this book. They need to be merged, if both are kept. Qwertyus (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, crumbs! I had not seen that there is Vedic_mathematics_(book) and Vedic_Mathematics_(book) differing only in capitalisation! Certainly the two must be combined, if any of this is worth keeping, which I doubt. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest making both the two article on the book redirect to the article Bharati Krishna Tirthaji Maharaja who is the author of this book. If a separate article on the book is kept it is bound to be vandalised by COI editors. Solomon7968 (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to a redirect, but given the state of that article, I'm not sure if it would prevent vandalism. Qwertyus (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WorldCat seems to show only 21 copies held by institutions over all its 9 editions. Agricola44 (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. I've updated the article Bharati Krishna Tirthaji with information from the article being discussed to bring it closer to a neutral POV. I believe that requires the original page history to be kept, so please replace by a redirect instead of all-out deletion. Qwertyus (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the rationale laid out by Solomon7968. This article appears to be a case of heavy WP:OR. Mar4d (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned by Qwertyus, deleting the page history would be a copyright violation. So the choices are Keep or Redirect. — HHHIPPO 15:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by copyright violation. Afd means nomination for deleting the article all together not deleting the page history. Solomon7968 (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see any such claim from Qwertyus, and deleting the history along with the page would not violate any copyright. If you mean that he’s merged the article into another, then yes, the history should be preserved; but whether to merge or delete is what’s being discussed here. —Frungi (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I meant. I understood he did at least a partly merge. But you're right, that can be undone if the result is delete without redirect. — HHHIPPO 19:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Large portions of the article are not clear at all. For example, for the "Method 1: example: using multiplication to calculate 1/19" section, I'm at a complete loss to understand what the numeric manipulations are doing (and I have a degree in Math). Also, comments/asides such as "Run this on your favorite calculator and check the result!" make the article look unencyclopedic. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move back to the original title. This article is not about the book (which by the way, is also notable). It's about a system of calculation (there is a separate article on the book) The article was moved from Bharati Krishna Tirtha's Vedic mathematics to the current title by a user without any discussion. There are truckloads of books from the Vedic Math "experts" (e.g. [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] etc.) There are several reliable sources that discuss the system and the controversy surrounding it (e.g. [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] etc.) The claim of the system being "Vedic" is fraudulent and it's more of a collection of arithmetic techniques than anything else. But still, it's notable, if only as a fad or a controversy. utcursch | talk 17:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Having truckload of reference does not make anything suitable for wikipedia. My concern is secondary reliable source. And your point that it is not a book is wrong. The title clearly suggests that it is the article of the book. Again my concern is not notability but secondary reliable source. If this article by chance any how survives Afd I am going it to strip it off all its material which is of primary source. Solomon7968 (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The title clearly suggests that it is the article of the book" - please read my comment again - the article was originally titled Bharati Krishna Tirtha's Vedic mathematics - it was moved to current title without any discussion.

As for your deletion nom, like User:Qwertyus above, I don't understand the point that you're trying to make. Maybe you're trying to say one of these two things:

The book itself is not notable because it's based on fraudulent claim / original research
The article should be deleted because it contains unsourced/OR content

In either case, the article should not be deleted:

That's not the definition of notability. Truckload of reference means presence of secondary reliable sources: there are at least a dozen books whose sole purpose is to discuss this topic (linked above, ignoring the original book written by Tirthaji). There are hundreds of articles in reliable sources which discuss the topic (some of them are linked in my above comment). These qualify as secondary sources. For the same reason we have an article on The Weight-Loss Cure "They" Don't Want You to Know About - the claims in that book might be wrong, but the book is still notable.
AfD is not meant for discussing cleanup issues. If you belive an article is NPOV, tag it with {{npov}}. If you believe an article is OR, tag it with {{original research}}. utcursch | talk 18:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. Let the debate complete and if the article survives Afd then I will start work on it. Now I am busy with some other articles on wikipedia. To make it NPOV the article have to be stripped off for at least 90% of its total volume. Solomon7968 (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Again I see that you are from India. I am also from India. So please do not associate any nationalism with it. The long tradition of Indian mathematics will go down if this kind of non sense gets association of nationalism from Indians. Solomon7968 (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? My keep vote has nothing to do with "nationalism". I openly called the system fraudulent and a fad in my comment above. A concern about "the long tradition of Indian mathematics" going down due to "non sense" is not a good reason to insist on the deletion of an article. Both the book and the system are notable as shown by the links in my first comment, and that's why the article should be kept. The good and bad things about the system or the book should be discussed in the article. At worst, the two articles should be merged. utcursch | talk 18:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Like the person above who tried to struggle through one of the explanations ("Method 1") I have a degree in maths, and I can say with confidence that there is nothing here of mathematical interest. But I also see that like the slimming books, some things never go away. Of this page (the "lowercase" Vm), the first 10% is mention of the controversy (fair enough), the last 20% is references (good, I suppose), but the 70% in the middle is confused attempts to describe the meaning of the 19 items in the "List of 16 sutras". At the very least, if any of this is to stay, someone should volunteer to clean it up such that a person with mathematical expertise can confirm that the terminology is normal, all the sanskrit words are glossed properly, and so on, in other words so that the article makes sense. I think the "truckloads" argument is very feeble: a glance at the references given suggests that they are all vanity publications -- none of the reviews, where there are any, read like mathematically informed views. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, I agree that the so-called Vedic Maths is "more of a collection of arithmetic techniques" than mathematics. But that's not the point. The point is that the topic is notable - it doesn't matter if it's fraudulently called "Vedic" or "Maths". There are plenty of sources that are not vanity publications - some of the books are published by established houses such as Jaico and Motilal Banarsidass. A search for "Vedic maths" on Google Books/Scholar/News archives easily establishes notability of the topic (nearly all the results are about this system, not the mathematics in the Vedic period). Saying that this article should be deleted because it's not real mathematics is like saying that the article on Scientology should be deleted because Scientology is a scam. If an article contains NPOV/OR content, it should be cleaned-up, not deleted. That's not what AfDs are for. utcursch | talk 02:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is quite reasonable. But the point here is that the 70% of the page that is neither mention of the controversy (which could (better?) be in the other article on the book), nor references, consists of a total jumble: at the very least, a claim that there are 16 "sutras" ought to be followed by 16 items, not 19. So there really is no coherent description of the "system" (such as it is) at all. Therefore, deleting it would not lose anything of value, and if someone later managed to write a coherent description of the system the page could be created anew. Any bits of this page that seem to have any value could be simply merged into the other article about the book. After all, one of the references here is a protest by Indian mathematicians that this is neither "Vedic" nor "mathematics", so it really does not deserve to have a WP article by that name. It is basically just the content of the book. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion to merge the total content of this article to Vedic Mathematics (book) which is about the real book and make the book article a valid stub and deleting the article which is discussed here. Solomon7968 (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vedic Mathematics (book) now redirects to Vedic mathematics (book) J04n(talk page) 17:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reverted your edit because actually the two subjects are different. Surely it is confusing but Vedic Mathematics (book) is about the book and Vedic mathematics (book) is the real article with promotional content. Solomon7968 (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article's subject (barely) meets WP:NBOOK; the need for cleanup is separate from the need for deletion. Miniapolis 13:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you have probably not realised that there are TWO pages: "Vedic mathematics (book)" and "Vedic Mathematics (book)" (capital M). The capital M one is about the book; the lowercase m one is about the (notional) content of the book. This is not a good idea! Imaginatorium (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paweł Odrzywolski

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Oleola (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 10:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 10:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. czar · · 10:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. czar · · 11:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means the subject fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Cuatro Vientos crash

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

Fails WP:AIRCRASH. Not notable aviation accident.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 09:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ...William 09:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 09:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC) ...William 09:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. czar · · 10:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and redirect to List of air show accidents and incidents.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my original prod as just not notable (already mentioned on List of air show accidents and incidents so doenst really need a merge). MilborneOne (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the mention in List of air show accidents and incidents is sufficient. What else can be said about this? Jezhotwells (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The mention was insufficient, e.g. failing to mention secondary victims, but should be now.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hence, I now support Delete.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – agree with Jezhotwells. — Lfdder (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is non-notable at all. Agree with Jezhotwells too.L. Zheng Wei (talk) 6:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Delete I also agree with Jezhotwells. Not notable and has received no coverage across the world. Fails WP:AIRCRASH as well. Springyboy (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It had a large coverage in Spain. The pilot was a notable person and thousands of people saw the accident in the place. Some people were injured. After the accident, controversy rose about security planning in the airport. - Joxemai (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It had coverage across Europe and the pilot was experienced. There were lots of people who saw the accident and there were injuries. Jrmrbr (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jezhotwells →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pilot was not Wikinotable (being an unspecified assistant to the Minister is not notability); while a tragic accident, this does not rise to the level required for notability. WP:TOOSOON at best. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just For Fun

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

An IP attemoted to PROD the article, but on the talk page with no rationale given, so I have removed it. There is no evidence that this company is notable; being long-established and having a trademark is no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 10:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:COMPANY--Nixie9✉ 22:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tom_and_Jerry#Cartoon_Network_reboot_.282013.29. Mkdw ^talk 01:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Tom and Jerry Show (2013 TV series)

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

Sockpuppet fodder. An alleged upcoming 2013 cartoon series with zero references? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to Tom_and_Jerry#Cartoon_Network_reboot_.282013.29. According to this link there are plans for a show to air in 2013. However, there has been no in-depth coverage of this show. There are supposedly press releases out there, but the only two places I've found them are on slightly dubious sources. ([34], [35]) This might be a viable enough redirect, although I'd really like to have more information about this before we add that much to the main article. By that I mean that I'd like to have at least one PR printed in a source that's a bit more reliable than a blog. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually wondering if this is dead in the water, considering that it's supposed to start this year and there is little to no coverage of this aside from a few brief mentions and some PR on a few nn blogs. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Tokyogirl79. Even if it is dead in the water, I'm sure the mention of the reboot will still be in the Tom and Jerry article. And, if nothing else, it can be recreated with actual sources and notability if it does come out. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 23:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - Sounds reasonable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 01:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erin O Wallace

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:WRITER Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 10 minutes from article creation to AfD, with no intermediate steps to improve or at least tag the article? WP:BEFORE is more than just a good idea. - Dravecky (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest? Notability can't be improved(on your own). I've already checked for the subject's notability and have not found it. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've found a couple of sources and am adding them to the article. I would suggest a Google search, a notability tag, a message to the creator in their talk page, then a PROD tag before taking an article to AfD. 10 minutes from creation to AfD with no intermediate steps and no clean-up efforts is just biting the newbie. - Dravecky (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as I've found a few sources, one more on point than the other, and added them to the article. While Wallace's latest book is from a notable publisher, she may better meet notability guidelines as a hotelier than as an author alone. More sources would be better. - Dravecky (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ ~~Not the strongest claim to notability I have ever seen, but enough to satisfy the relevant guidelines.~~ Safiel (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change to delete I may have been feeling overly charitable the other day. Very little on Google and the sources given indicate only local notability. Safiel (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I would love to vote keep as this seems like an interesting author, there are not enough WP:RS to support notability. She has 2 books, both of which are listed in Amazon, but nothing really talking about her or the books. The 2 source that are in the are in the article are local coverage so they would support content in the article, but not notability. Unfortunately, she falls short of WP:GNG unless there is significant coverage (which I cannot locate). --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The two sources cited are local news stories that mention Wallace's role in a ghost hunt and the restoration of a hotel, but they don't show the in depth coverage required by WP:GNG and particularly by WP:AUTHOR. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of her two books is self-published using "Bookstand Publishing", a vanity press. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only coverage is from a small local newspaper, does not meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 21:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book from History Press is in 4 libraries total on worldcat. this + a selfpublished book about what a local society, with references only to local papers, is not notability . DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mkdw ^talk 01:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Lorraine Gales

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

Seriously, does not meet WP:GNG, all the refs contain just mentions of her name, if that (unless I'm missing some obscure sports notability for ten-pin bowlers that is). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 01:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails WP:GNG. I have found only listings of this individual's name in world ranking tournaments -- but no significant coverage. Although ten-pin bowling is not an obscure sport, WP does not appear to have any specific notability guidelines built by consensus, as do most other major sports. Therefore, Gales' best finish of 9th in the 2009 world masters ranking is not an automatic qualifier for notability. I see that a previous version of this article as Lorraine Gales was prodded for the same WP:BLP issues in 2011 and this same SPA/COI creator eventually requested deletion. This new article does not improve on any of the old issues. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Carnival

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

Non-notable company; the article suffers original research and synthesis problems. It also suffers the company equivalent of WP:BLP1E: The three secondary sources that actually mention the company all report on the same accident; none of them provides significant coverage of the company itself. Huon (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find anything else specific to the subject, non-notable. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 02:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 19:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer art

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

Seems to be a non-notable neologism invented by Austrian artist Ruediger John and Klaus Heid. I can't see anything to convince me otherwise, in German or English. Sionk (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article text is a strange combination of uncited high claims ("finally leaving behind", "advancement") and mundane how to guide. No evidence found to establish any notability. AllyD (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day Shii (tock) 15:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep but~~ incubate. It's not a neologism; the phrase has been documented in English since at least 1992. It has been widely reported. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fix it up a bit per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one will dispute that the words 'transfer' and 'art' occasionally appear in the same sentence. But the use of the phrase by John and Heid is still a neologism with no place for it in Wikipedia. There are already articles on Decals and Brass rubbing to cover the isolated instances you've come across (above). To re-write the article about something(s) completely different negates the purpose of this AfD, doesn't it? Sionk (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've actually made the article worse. It looks like WP:SYNTH now. Shii (tock) 01:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I tried to fix it, anyway, per WP:BOLD. If the consensus is that my efforts made it worse, then go ahead and delete it. Bearian (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Google products#Discontinued products and services. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google X

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

Service which existed for literally one day, and got a tinyyyyy bit of press coverage. Not worth an article. L Faraone 04:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It also confuses readers because the page has basically the same name as the page for Google x. Jodayagi (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to Google Labs. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 13:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
or merge to List_of_Google_products#Discontinued_products_and_services. Ansh666 22:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list of Google products - non-notable test implementation that existed for only a day. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to List of Google products#Discontinued products and services per M0rphzone. Captain Conundrum (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Shii (tock) 15:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kuntal

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

Don't think a gotra of a caste is notable enough. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very improperly sourced; in fact, what exactly is being cited isn't clear. And I'm talking about the English text in the sources. No way this can pass WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From the current article - half in Hindi(?) and the rest very poorly translated - it's pretty much impossible to come to any judgement at all. And the Google results are all over the place - there's no way that more than a smallish minority of them are going to be relevant, but some just might be. However, I notice that, while the current article is very new (it was apparently created less than 12 hours before being brought to AfD), an article with this title (and, by the look of the discussion, on the same topic) was apparently kept at AfD in 2007 - but then PRODded in 2010, and deleted despite the rules about not PRODding articles previously sent to AfD. It would almost certainly be easier to make a judgement this time round if we could see that article and its history - while that article was probably not very good, it was almost certainly better than this one, and might give enough of a clue on what to look for in the GHits when trying to decide if there is the possibility of an article here. PWilkinson (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think we should undelete the previous revisions and evaluate them since the previous article was incorrectly deleted following the prod request. I've had a look at the old content from January 2010, and while it was much better intelligible than the current translation, it is about half as long and consists mainly of unexplained names of other sub-castes and ethnic groups or place names. The only reference mentioned there is "Digambar Singh Kuntal: Uttar Pradesh ke Madhyakalin Jatvans avam Rajya, Jat Samaj,Mathura". De728631 (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Cluster **** is the only description that remotely fits this so called "article." The subject matter MIGHT be notable, but this article is beyond any hope of redemption. Delete it and start again from scratch or undelete the prior article. Safiel (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix (record producer)

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

spam for producer. From talk page "credits my client, producer Phoenix,". Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Most of the sources in the article are not reliable sources. Has a few production credits on bonus tracks and non notable albums but falls short of WP:CREATIVE. Like blocked socks of Thesoundkillers creator has a lot of edits of producers based around The Soundkillers but missed that SPI by being stale. Editing of this article was continued by those socks after creator TSKREO went stale. TSKREO = The Soundkillers + REO (REO the founder of The Soundkillers)? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, lacks coverage in reliable sources. Koala15 (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG--Nixie9✉ 22:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 01:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Sanchis Cortés

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

Non-notable artists. Links provided indicate that Cortés is an artist who sells paintings; not much more. No better links can be found in any independent search. (It may or may not be germane to note that Cortés' article was deleted from the Spanish Wikipedia after an deletion discussion there.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Spanish deletion discussion is relevant, not because he was deleted there (for the seventh time) but because numerous editors there searched for sources and could find none of sufficient quality. I could do no better, only turning up mentions in passing like this one. There's nothing to suggest that the subject meets either WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Valenciano (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable artist, fails to meet notability guidelines. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete under A7 and G11. Non-admin procedural close. | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo B. Landers

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

Unsourced, highly slanted article about a non-notable person. Can't find any reliable sources on him. Dea db eef 04:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as promotional (G11) by User:Angelo B Landers. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bolain Kya Baat Hai

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

The subject is a TV program. It lacks sufficient notability and resources both. Ghorpaapi (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's an unsourced stub. Delete per WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.Thanks for giving the proper link MezzoMezzo . Helped me extend my knowledge regarding the deletion policies.Ghorpaapi (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hard to Swallow (album). L Faraone 05:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too Cold (Vanilla Ice song)

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

PRODded for: Non-notable musical release. No evidence of full-length professional reviews, charting or awards. Creator objected by removing PROD template ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the album article claims that "Too Cold became a radio hit in some markets." The source given doesn't come up, but still that, combined with the longstanding general precedent towards keeping all singles by notable artists, is just about enough to keep in my opinion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not think this article passes WP:GNG. Uberaccount (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hard to Swallow (album). I don't know of any precedent to keep ALL singles by notable artists (maybe all charting singles?) but this one doesn't appear to pass any type of notability requirement. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the parent album, as per WP:NSONG. I agree with the above--it may have been a single, but it fails all four notability criteria. Incidentally, the most recent (non-notable) single by my friend's (non-notable) band has more listens on last.fm than this.--Drasil (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Hyland

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

Article fails WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:GNG. Individual's total career [36] appears to be 3 minor roles between 2002 and 2007 (Last two were unnamed and the General Hospital episodes are unknown on IMDb.[37]) Google search finds no significant coverage and no other assertion of notability. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete Minor typecast authority figure extra with a touch of WP:WEASEL to puff up what are non-notable roles. Nothing really notable to be found here. Removing link to SAG's "iactor" profile; it's very clear looking at the front page of the service that it's for casting professional use only. Nate • (chatter) 23:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG--Nixie9✉ 22:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wrath

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

Non-notable musical release. No evidence of full-length professional reviews, charting or awards. Completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and no evidence of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a single released by Vanilla Ice. While not charting, it's still an important part of hip hop history. Since it was released - should it not be documented? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.239.214.170 (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mechelle Avey

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

Can find no coverage in independent media. Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. I found this paywalled book review but with a word count of 274, that does not appear to be signficant. My highbeam account has expired, but I did find this which has enough showing in the preview to ascertain that this is just one of many books listed as a recommendation with a single line summary being the totality of coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Largely passing mentions, nothing worth qualifying WP:RS, fails WP:AUTHOR. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 04:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason LeBlond

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

Non-notable art curator. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article has been orphaned for more than two years. If the person were notable, somebody would have inserted a link from another article. I may propose a deletion criterion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bad rule and not valid grounds for deletion. If you look in Category:Orphaned_articles you'll find plenty of notable articles. Often these reflect systemic balance. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Billings Gazette. Mkdw ^talk 19:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Minch

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

BLP with only one source. I'm not finding any indication that the writer passes WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR. ALH (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Came to this conclusion after some thought. While normally I'd agree that the subject has not achieved the level of notability that we like to see, I've found that there are a couple of articles on Wikipedia where he is a reference for that article--and by looking around, I believe that there is potential for more of the same. It then stands to reason (at least for me) that a stub article about the author is a "good" thing as it provides details about the sources of other articles. WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR are guidelines not policy (good ones at that) but I think there is a reason to ignore them in this case. I think it would be good for Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Billings Gazette unless a bit more is found, merging in a sentence or two at that article would address some of the issue Paul McDonald properly raises. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection, that is a good alternative with me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to the respective articles. L Faraone 05:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Cinematic Universe Official Tie-In Comics

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

The article does not appear to meet general notability guidelines. Perhaps the content should be merged to Marvel Cinematic Universe or the individual films that the comics tie-into. TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs a rewrite, but seems to be notable. Uberaccount (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While there are a few individual sources, there are none that speak to them as a group and as such no analytical comparisons can be made. Therefore there is no reason to group them together in a single standalone article. The content is much better suited in the individual film articles that the comic books tie-into (e.g. The Avengers (2012 film)#Tie-in comics).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 2. Snotbot t • c » 22:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by TriiipleThreat seems reasonable. If more sources are available later, it can always be restored and rebuilt. BOZ (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by TriiipleThreat. The only way I could see this surviving on its own is if it were turned into a list article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spidey104 (talk • contribs) 14:43, May 9, 2013 (UTC)

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. L Faraone 05:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dewa (cast)

Dewa (cast)

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

I... I'm not sure what to say. I don't think this can be speedied, but feel free to prove me wrong. Ignatz mice•talk 03:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Article has been moved to Dewa (cast). Safiel (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the subject MIGHT be notable, the article as written is an unsalvagable, unreferenced mess. Safiel (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. There needs to be a CSD category for this sort of thing. Has there been an RfC on that? Articles which are completely unencyclopedic/unsalvageable but don't fall under a specific CSD category? These things crop up all the time, and CSD starts to feel like red tape. Dea db eef 03:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

StudentFreelance

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

Not sure if this passes WP:WEBSITE Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 00:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 00:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it passes WP:WEBCRIT. It does seem to have multiple independent, reliable sources. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:WEBCRIT. --Klein zach 01:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment depends on whether you consider reviews in tech blogs [38] and student run publications [39][40] as reliable sources. The other sources in the article are not independent. Funny ^Pika! 07:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, as Pika notes above, the only good source so far is a short review on TechCrunch; the HuffPo article is written by the site's creator, and I don't think student newspapers qualify as WP:RS. That's all the WP:Secondary coverage I can find about the site online, though I might be searching for the wrong terms. Captain Conundrum (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The tone is promotional, withe such sentences a "connecting talented students to employers in need of specific skills." The "Mission" section is normally a place where we do of necessity allow promotional statements, but the "Innovation" section reveals the promotional nature of the content. Not surprising, because the sources are PR-infliuenced. If it becomes more notable , there will be better sources for an article. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one of the sources listed (The TechCrunch one) can be considered both reliable (I'm not sure what the policy is on student run newspapers but I'm assuming they're not reliable, if they are then I would change to Keep) and independent (some are written by the CEO of the company). My attempts to find more coverage resulted in no additional sources. Transcendence (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yawn. History2007 (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the arguments about WEBCRIT, I do not find the sources compelling enough to establish notability. For example one source is a primary source, the Huffinton Post references are actually the same one duplicated twice (one a search index, and the other the listed article). Some contain trivial mentions. Mkdw ^talk 19:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, most likely a hoax, and no notability has been demonstrated anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Séan Walsh (poet)

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

No sources (not eligible for WP:PROD BLP because it was created earlier thant the deadline) and has needed a rewrite since 2007. Also, seems to fail WP:GNG Uberaccount (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:PROD BLP wouldn't be applicable anyway because the article isn't about a living person; he's been dead for over a century. The allegedly well known work by this artist, The Moorlands of Halifax, is similarly lacking in sources and should probably be deleted along with this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Uberaccount (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Assuming the content is true, we would seem to be dealing with a fairly minor person, but if he were to figure in the lives of the Brontes or something like that, it would be worth keeping. The significance seems to be that he painted a picture that was presented to their father. I think the answer may be to merge the article on the picture into this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A famous poet, the article needs to be re-written though. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm struggling to find sources. He's not in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. He's not in Grove Art Online. There's nowt in The Times. This smells very hoaxy, no sources and the name Sean doesn't really fit with the alleged date of birth (1802). There's nothing in the birth records in www.findmypast.co.uk (although this could be for various other reasons, including if he was born say in Ireland rather than Yorkshire, or they've transcribed his name wrong). There was however a Sean Michael Walsh born 1988 in Halifax, and another born 1989 in Keighley (Keith-lee, which is near Haworth, where the Bronte family lived), my gut feeling is it's one of those who's taken his name or his friend's name and wrote this. What's the record now for Wikipedia hoaxes? Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both this article and The Moorlands of Halifax. Possibly a hoax, but the important thing is that sources appear to be entirely lacking, so that the articles fail WP:V. An additional suspicious aspect is that the Dean Clough galleries in Halifax appear to collect only contemporary art; I can find no mention of any 19th-century works held there. Unless someone can come up with sourcing for the person or painting that isn't dependent on our articles, there's no recourse but to delete them. Deor (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a hoax to me, too, and I couldn't find any sources for anything. Dricherby (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ngo Hoang Thinh

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

Delete rationale from the previous afd remains valid. He has not played in a fully professional league or for the Vietnamese national team, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and there is no indication of significant coverage in reliable sources, thus failing WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? He has played for the national team. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is insignificant or unreliable about the coverage in Tin Thể Thao cited in the article? Phil Bridger (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. One article is not evidence "significant" coverage. Giant Snowman 18:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And where have you looked for further coverage? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 02:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - played for his country and plentiful title mentions (not just text, Ngô Hoàng Thịnh in headline) in VN newspaper articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment according to the soccerway link, he only sat on the bench twice and didn't actually play for the senior national team. Also his club league is not fully professional so he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. C 679 09:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.Simione001 (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are the third editor in this discussion to claim that the subject fails WP:GNG, and the third not to explain what evidence that opinion is based on. This seems to happen in all footballer deletion discussions, and is becoming very tiresome. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of significant coverage which is required by WP:GNG. True it is difficult to check, but the burden is on the editor adding or restoring the material. I know the user signing as Phil Bridger is interested in countering systemic bias, but if no editors in this discussion can see or verify notability, it is impossible to keep the article. Since no editor can verify that the player is notable, it must default to delete. C 679 13:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 05:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All Saints GAC

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

Delete: as plainly non-notable. Quis separabit? 00:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note The club is often also referred to as 'All Saints GAA' and 'All Saints Ballymena'.--A bit iffy (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. Nothing in the article itself suggests notability. I note there are no references. In Googling I can't find significant independent coverage — only passing mentions and the occasional brief match report. I've skimmed the club's own history but nothing leaps out to suggest notability. Tellingly, in video clips of All Saints matches, there are almost no spectators.--A bit iffy (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 02:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep although it plainly needs a bit of work and much better sourcing. This club is unusual in fielding teams in four Gaelic sports, and although a relatively young club it has provided inter-county players. Brocach (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten, reformatted and greatly expanded the article since its AfD nomination, to date relying mainly on GAA sources but on the lookout for additional refs. The account of its long wrangle with the hostile local council (greatly condensed and neutralised from that given in the club's website) should be enough on its own to establish notability. Brocach (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also strongly in favor of keeping this article. It clearly needs to be written better, but it deserves it place as well as any other GAA club. It's location in Ballymena is of interest, and as Brocach has mentioned the club has supplied players to the Antrim senior teams is noteworthy. Pmunited (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Brocach Finnegas (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Michael Thomas

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

The subject does not seem notable, the sources are all primary, and the article's early history is dominated by promotional-seeming SPA's. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 00:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember how I arrived at this article originally but I do remember thinking that his notability was questionable and I also suspected that this might be an article by Sean Michael Thomas himself which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Mike Hayes (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So are you voting Delete or just commenting? Thanks! Qworty (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable journeyman journalist who fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK and who apparently wrote his own article in violation of WP:AUTO. Let's get rid of this one. Qworty (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 02:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha's Seamount

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Buddha's Seamount

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

Unreferenced, COI, OR Bhny (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest? Did the sea mount itself write the article to attract tourists? Anyway, I'm having trouble finding any non-Wikipedia references to anything called this. --Oakshade (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "discoverer" and editor are likely related Bhny (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything substantial source-wise on this topic.--Oakshade (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 02:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS. Although the majority of participants favoured "redirect", I feel this one is "no consensus" for the following reasons. The Devil's Advocate highlighted a number of sources that might confer notability beyond WP:BLP1E. There might have been a clearer case for "keep" if some of these were in the article so that it is was clear what aspect of the subject's claimed notability could be verified. Sadly they are not, the only two references in the article outside the section on the hunting accident have titles that make it clear that they are actually about the hunting accident and other information is incidental. Counter-arguments to TDA's proffered sources concentrated mostly on the Washington Post article and I find that their arguments pretty much destroy the validity of this source as a means of establishing notability beyond BLP1E. Also TLD's claim that there is frequent state-wide coverage of the subject was not supported by providing any references. However, TLD did provide two book sources. The delete camp did not really counter these, concentrating on the Washington Post article, but it also has to be said that the keep camp did not make as much of them as they could either. The Trials of Eroy Brown has limited preview in gbooks, but Texas Tough: The Rise of America's Prison Empire does not. However, the latter book seems to have significantly more coverage than the first and is on a more directly relevant subject. Texas Tough is, however, previewable at Amazon. The contents of these two books, together with the failure of the delete camp to provide any credible counter-argument to them, has swung me round to "no consensus". Spinning Spark 19:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Whittington

AfDs for this article:

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

The last time around, people claimed that there was other coverage beyond his participation in a hunting accident. The article doesn't testify to this, but to the opposite: every citation, without exception, is to an article referring to the accident. My reading of the article text is that his accomplishments are routine and typical of civil servants whom we would not ordinarily consider notable. Therefore WP:BLP1E applies and he should only see mention in Dick Cheney hunting incident. Mangoe (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This particular accident was one of the wierd individual events which will remain sufficiently important to make the participant notable. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, so when someone puts up Dick Cheney hunting incident for deletion you can go an argue that. But that isn't a reason to keep this article. IRWolfie- (talk)

Redirect to Dick Cheney hunting incident. The subject of the article may have had some mention in sources for his legal activities, but his notability apparently comes from his involvement in the hunting incident. WP:BLP1E appears to apply. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ugh, I would have preferred that this not be restored with this version, because the guy actually was of some interest before the Vice President shot him in the face. There is some significant coverage pre-shooting, with the overwhelming majority being sources that are behind paywalls. Subsequent to the shooting there have been significant mentions in books that are not about the shooting incident and only one of them mentions it. Additionally, he did an in-depth interview with the Washington Post four years after the event with a large portion talking about him in general.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing this. The oldest version of the article says, in its entirety, "Harry Whittington is an Austin, Texas-based attorney who was accidentally shot by United States Vice-President Dick Cheney in a hunting accident on February 12, 2006." It was started, as anyone could have guessed, on February 12, 2006. My impression is that, while there is some coverage of him, it is largely local in impact and typical of what you might see for a high-but-not-top ranking layer/politico; it tends to read not "here's this interesting guy, who by the way got shot by Cheney," but rather "we would like people to think of this guy as something beyond the victim of an accident." And the way I see most people tending to read the article is "texas lawyer, political guy—oh yeah! He's that guy that Dick Cheney shot!" Mangoe (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frequent state-wide coverage is more than enough to establish notability independent of him being shot in the face. I would be sympathetic to the "only local coverage" comment if "local" meant a specific small community, maybe even a specific large city, but to suggest that coverage in multiple major news outlets across a state is "local" coverage insufficient to establish notability is absurd.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dick Cheney hunting incident, as per Kinu, WP:BLP1E appears to apply as his notability comes from his involvement in the hunting incident. LGA _talk^edits 07:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dick Cheney hunting incident. Not notable except for that incident....William 11:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on possible outcomes: This fellow is the third Harry Whittington we talk about (see Harry Whittington (disambiguation)) so I don't see redirection to the incident as an outcome. If the article is not kept, Harry Whittington will need to redirect to or be replaced by the current disambiguation page, which will then link to the hunting accident article. If it is kept, I think there is still a strong argument for moving him to Harry Whittington (politician) and moving the current disambiguation page to the unqualified name. Even if he's the best known of the three, I would argue that his level of accomplishment is comparable to if not exceeded by the others. Mangoe (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should remind people that BLP1E applies to low profile individuals. He did an interview with the Washington Post years after the incident, so clearly he is not maintaining a low-profile. Even if the one event aspect of BLP1E applied, which it really does not, that would still not be a valid rationale for deletion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And was the apparent interview about the Hunting accident? IRWolfie- (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep shoehorning this into Dick Cheney's hunting accident isn't the best idea I think. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect isn't merge. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there's enough notability and enough sources here to warrant having a biographical article separate from the "incident" article. Everyking (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dick Cheney hunting incident Falls afoul of WP:BLP1E. Notability purely from that one event, but it's not WP:INHERITED. IRWolfie- (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to your comment above, the interview blatantly disproves any notion that BLP1E applies, even if we somehow ignored all the pre-event coverage of him as a state official or post-event coverage that has nothing to do with the event. BLP1E only applies to low-profile individuals and choosing to do an interview with the Washington Post years after the event is most definitely not indicative of someone seeking to be low-profile. Pursuit of high-level state positions is also indicative of him not being a low-profile individual.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the degree I even buy into the way the guideline tries to make a distinction, it seems obvious to me that a "whatever happened to BLP1E subject" interview doesn't turn someone into a high-profile figure. At any rate most of the article is about the accident and his recovery from it; a fairly small section is devoted to the property condemnation case, but surely such condemnation struggles are commonplace. The title suggests a certain wistfulness about not being a better known figure. Mangoe (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the reason the interview is there is because he was the guy who was shot. If someone else was shot they would have interviewed them. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the sources I provided and it is clear he is notable for more than being shot in the face. See WP:POLITICIAN. However, the reason BLP1E talks about a low profile is because of a consideration that someone who is not seeking out the attention given to him or her by reliable sources doesn't wish to be notable and thus should not be considered notable just for a connection to a single event. Doing an interview with a major national press outlet four years after the event, during a new administration, is hardly consistent with someone wishing to maintain a low profile. The simple reality is that BLP1E doesn't apply because he is notable for more than just one event given his prior career in government and hasn't maintained a low-profile given that he did an interview with a major national press outlet four years after the event.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dick Cheney hunting incident, there is nothing that he has done that would warrant a page had he not been shot including being interviewed by the Washington Post. J04n(talk page) 00:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dick Cheney hunting incident, Whittington is quite probably the only person in history to be shot in the face by a sitting US Vice-President, but it's still WP:BLP1E. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Dick Cheney hunting incident, per WP:BLP1E; article's subject is low-profile, and all refs concern the shooting. Miniapolis 17:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - it's notable enough, based on the stength of the arguments, improvements to the article's sourcing and changed votes. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia–Philippines relations

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

Non-notable international relations article. WP:PROD declined by author (who appears to be a WP:SPA, suspiciously reminding me of User:Groubani) without a single word, and while at it they removed a paragraph (??). [41] There's no potential, because the two countries are separated by half the globe yet comparatively small - should something extraordinary actually appear in real life, an article can be created to describe it, but until then, a standalone article is pointless, as the topic is covered well enough by the existence of foreign relations articles of the two countries. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete 2 very minor agreements in 20 years of relations does not equate to a notable relationship. no significant trade, disputes, migration or state visits. LibStar (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article improved with significantly more sources. LibStar (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly significantly - it's just more coverage of the same trivial relationship. Subministerial meetings, platitudes about "[aiming] to pave the way for greater people-to-people exchanges" and a snotty Večernji list editoral about how people in Croatia are dismissive of those visits - talk about reliable sources... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Foreign relations of the Philippines; subject appears to have received some passing mention in reliable sources, but none of it appears to be significant, so it can be easily argued that the subject is not notable per WP:GNG. That being said this article can bee seen as a sub-article of, and clearly within the scope of Foreign relations of the Philippines; therefore a redirect to that article would be appropriate, also see WP:CHEAP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that both the Philstar and the Inquirer articles both satisfy WP:SIGCOV in that the foreign relationship is the main topic of both sources, and they have sufficient detail to put together a simple article covering most aspects of the relationship. I have mostly rewritten the article with a couple of extra sources. I think the length is now about right for the current extent of the relationship, but it seems too much to redirect into the meta-articles (since the Philippines one is already longer than is reader-friendly). Oh, and in reply to Libstar, the article now lists all 5 agreements, not 2. --99of9 (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PhilStar article is a single-page Xinhua report on a press release from the Philippine Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Inquirer article is a report to the home office by the Ambassador at the Philippine Embassy in Vienna. Please read WP:GNG in full, not just the paragraph about the strict definition of 'significant coverage'. The affiliation of these sources with the subject is egregious. It's literally the foreign affairs people's job to make these kinds of reports. That the wire agencies and the local press relay them is hardly a stellar marker of notability.

The other stuff you added is just more fodder. That Jadranska vrata is now owned by a ICTSI is not a sign of bilateral relations in and of itself, it's just a sign of global capitalism. If for example there was an article somewhere that explained how the Croatian state expressly influenced Luka Rijeka (which it largely owns) to sell the cargo terminal to the Filipinos in order to improve bilateral relations, you'd have a case. Now you just have some improper synthesis.

And don't even get me started on the international trade of four million dollars. Seriously, that's more appropriate for a Dr. Evil joke than for an encyclopedic entry. If it even needs to be said, 4 million USD is something like 0.00005% of the Croatian GDP or 0.0003% of the Croatian state budget.

Overall, I need to stress that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mention of sigcov only was in direct response to RightCowLeftCoast, who brought it up as his specific rationale for failing GNG. I will have a look into the affiliations, but on the face of it they look secondary to me. Your GDP figures are wrong by two orders of magnitude, but that's not really the point, the point is that cited trade data is *always* an important part of bilateral relations articles, even if the figure was $0. I did not argue that the relationship was notable based on the size of their trade, I just included additional encyclopedic information in the article. If it is eventually merged, that data should go with it. Regarding requiring Government intervention in investment decisions, I do not think that "X-Y relations" is limited to "X-Y Governmental relations". In my opinion direct foreign investment in a country's biggest port operation is a bilateral interaction. --99of9 (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Philippine ambassador Lourdes Yparraguirre was present at the signing: "a major boost to enhancing bilateral relations between the vibrant economies". evidently she agrees with me. --99of9 (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess I forgot to multiply the result of that division by 100 to get percentages. The thing is, for all of these dubiously synthesized claims, an actual reliable secondary source would be necessary to make sure they're appropriate. Any ambassador is entirely partial to their country's foreign relations. Clearly there's some obvious relation between foreign policy and the port contract, but OTOH the ambassador had to fly in from another country for that photo-op. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't she lucky then that WP:GNG has no prohibition against air flight? WP:SYNTH is summarized by "do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C". Please can you show where you think that is done in the article, and I will amend it. I don't see a problem with secondary sources using press releases as their primary source, that is often how news is first obtained. Wire agencies employ their own independent writers and fact checkers. And anyway, it's a bit unfair to expect a secondary reporter to report on the contents of a private diplomatic meeting without using one or both of the attendees as one of their primary sources. --99of9 (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, a bland reprint of a press release, with a handful of sentences tacked on, does not constitute a reliable secondary source that should be cited by an encyclopedia, even on the specific matter about which the press release / article is reporting, let alone the more generic matter. Yes, I know this happened quite recently, and it's hard to expect a book to have been written that covers it. Which brings me to another obvious point: WP:NOT#NEWS. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before you switch to yet another policy, please can you answer my SYNTH question, and now an additional one: which point of NOT#NEWS do you feel this is violating? Obviously the topic "Croatia–Philippines relations" should not be sent to wikinews. --99of9 (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered your SYNTH question at length above. The article gives the impression that this assorted list of referenced factoids constitutes "Croatia-Philippines relations", and that the topic is worthy of a standalone article. Yet, this conclusion does not follow; it's original research; there are little or no sources attesting to that specific conclusion. And before you throw in another question, can I ask you if this is going to be another Croatia-Mongolia relations discussion ad nauseam? :( --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not present in that discussion. I am not the common factor. The job of these independent secondary sources is to write about the topic, not to write about whether it is worthy of a standalone article Wikipedia. They've done their job. My keep !vote stands. --99of9 (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be the same story: the sources had not done the job that the overly enthusiastic Wikipedia editors wanted them to have done. The two countries do not even have proper ambassadors or embassies, as the connections between them are largely superficial; the apparent hoarding of referenced trivia can't do much to change those basic facts. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Responding to joy, above, the individual events do constitute "Croatia-Philippines relations", They're not expected to be individually notable or we'd have articles about each, but they're the things that constitute the relations. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A weakish start of an article, but unquestionably an encyclopedic topic, no matter what one thinks about "X-Y Relations" articles. Information here springs from multiple independently published sources. The nominator additionally incorrectly describes this piece as "original research" elsewhere above. ALL writing appearing on Wikipedia is research, in that it features finite content which includes some facts but not others; and its ideas and physical content may not be directly lifted from other writers, so it is original. Wikipedia's ill-named prohibition of so-called "original research" is actually a ban on novel scientific theories and crackpot interpretive historical essays — not on finding an encyclopedic subject, selecting sources, arranging information, and writing about it coherently and originally. Carrite (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an old Jimmy Wales quote that explains the thinking behind the concept of NOR: "The phrase ['original research'] originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the web. The basic concept is as follows: it can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history..." — Jimmy Wales, WikiEN-l, December 3, 2004. /////// Carrite (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and essentially all we have is mainstream news agencies and newspapers parroting official press releases and commenting on them very briefly. We don't have any references to a reputable journal or a publisher on international relations about the relations. Do you see the problem now? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. The main thing is factual accuracy, not source worship. Is there anything wrong here? Carrite (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's factually accurate to say that a Filipino-originated multinational company bought a major port company in Croatia. It's even factually accurate to say that the Filipino and Croatian diplomacy had a few photo-ops about it. It's not factually accurate to claim that Croatia and the Philippines have notable bilateral relations based on that kind of a factoid. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 05:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tango Desktop Project

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

Project which lacks any sort of detailed coverage from reliable, third party publications. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 21. Snotbot t • c » 20:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its use in other applications indicates some amount of notability. Ignatz mice•talk 05:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind elaborating on this point please? What use specifically in what other applications indicates notability to you and how? I believe that ordinarily notability is determined based upon how much non-trivial coverage the subject has received in reliable third party publications. As of right now that number is zero, so I'm having difficulty accepting your supporting comment at face value. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RS mention of the project's announcement here. Substantial source with interviews with key project members here. Brief mention in better known source here. JulesH (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I won't take any sort of stand in the matter. I feel that it is worthy to point out that as a random passerby, I happen to know of the Tango project. Its not mentioned a lot in publications, but it is mentioned a ton in credits for software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zellfaze (talk • contribs) 12:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with freedesktop.org which hosts the project. This notable as a free software project, per the references both in the article and mentioned by JulesH, but it may not merit an article on its own. Steven Walling • talk 23:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG requests "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The latter of the the three is met with sources provided here, but they are not reliable. Also, most are not significant coverage. Fails GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Articles are generally only deleted for problems with content if they are unsalvageable, but there have been convincing arguments in this discussion that does not apply in this case. Issues with original research and neutrality problems can be solved through regular editing, and if editors object to the term "affiliates" that could be the subject of a requested move. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliates to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

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

Channel 4 ,British Tamils Forum.Global Tamil Forum ,Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam amongst others are legal organizations and the title implies they are affiliated to the LTTE which is a libelous accusation as the LTTE is banned organization.It also violates WP:Redflag. and was discussed here Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons listed above. — JJJ ^{(say hello)} 14:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator's chief objection to the piece rests upon not notability but rather factual accuracy, which is an editing matter. The LTTE is vaguely similar to the old Irish Republican Army, as I understand the situation, in that it is a paramilitary, nationalist, political separatist organization. As an underground organization, it unquestionably would have an "aboveground" arm, much in the way that Sinn Fein was the "legal" political arm of the underground IRA or the Workers Party of America was the "legal" political arm of the underground Communist Party of America in the early 1920s. This is, in short, an encyclopedic topic and a GNG pass, as demonstrated in the footnotes. Now, are there problems with the piece? Factual errors? I leave that to those with specialized understanding in Sri Lankan politics to suss out and sort out. But for our purposes here, this is an article that should be kept. Carrite (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It seems to me that this article has undergone some sort of vandalism by suspicious looking accounts දොන් අල්වින් රාජපක්ෂ and පාඨලී චම්පික රණවක. This needs to be corrected. But it is no reason for deleting the entire article. LTTE, a party to the Asia's longest spanned civil war, has had well documented affiliations with political parties, aid organizations, intelligence organizations and even states. While Channel 4 affiliation was added by the above mentioned users, BTF, GTF and TGTE affiliations are debatable—Sri Lankan government maintaing that they are LTTE affiliates and the groups trying to disassociate themselves from the LTTE. That's why these groups have been classified under the heading "Sri Lankan Government allegations". However, LTTE's past affiliates far outnumber those debated ones, and thus, this article needs to be kept. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
:My apologies If I was not clear.There are accusations made by Sri Lanka that Channel 4's documentaries Sri Lanka's Killing Fields,Sri Lanka's Killing Fields: War Crimes Unpunished which they insist are false ,paid for and made solely to tarnish the image of Sri Lanka this can be added in the Controversy section of the documentry pages or even to the Channel 4 page if consensus can be found.Similarly the Sri Lankan governments accusations against British Tamils Forum.Global Tamil Forum ,Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam can added to there respective pages but to club them all and say they are affiliated to the LTTE implies that are working together.Channel 4 is a British Public broadcaster to say they are affiliated to the LTTE is totally wrong libelous though I agree there was a controversy over the documentaries in Sri Lanka .This also may wrongly implies that these organizations are working together with the LTTE which is not the case and a clear violation of WP:Redflag this is a serious accusation which requires WP:RS sources to state that are affilated .These are merely the Sri Lankan government accusations they are legal organization based abroad facing no legal action they at best need to confined to the respective pages if consensus is found.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, these are content matters, not notability matters. Carrite (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments above. The title affiliates means [42] [43] subordinate, subsidiary, employee,branch , member or closely working together with the LTTE which is a banned organization. Not even one WP:RS source says they are affiliated to the LTTE it merely at best states the allegations or controversy with which they were associated it is WP:OR ,lacks WP:RS sources and WP:Redflag to club all of them together and say they are affiliates to the LTTE. M. Karunanidhi is an Indian politican and the LTTE issue is mentioned in the Controversy section of his article but for that to say he is affiliate or working with the LTTE as the title implies is a violation of WP:BLP as it a very serious allegation.Almost the subjects mentioned here have there own articles and at best they can mentioned in the LTTE page or in the respective pages.This has been discussed here in the RS board such serious allegations require WP:RS sources to say they are a affiliate to the LTTE. Sinn Féin is the Legal arm of the IRA it is mentioned in the Sinn Féin or IRA pages and same is the case with Workers Party of America and the Communist Party of America there is no third page Affiliates to the IRA and here association itself is in dispute and lacks WP:RS sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete This is complete propaganda and pov 50.100.240.21 (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An appropriate article to have, looks well sourced and on topic, however may be a target for vandalism.--Blackknight12 (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some of the Organizations mentioned are not affiliates of the LTTE in the dictionary sense. There is no reason this article should be in existence. Some of the facts mentioned could be merged with Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. This article qualifies WP:OR, WP:Redflag and WP:Synthesis. There are 4 sources - Asian Tribune, Lankaweb, Defence.lk and Sunday Observer which say they are front organizations of the LTTE, but none of them meet WP:RS. It is a very serious accusation to say one is affiliate in contrast to being called a Supporter. HudsonBreeze (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Relevant article on topic and sourced. Cossde (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how it becomes relevant when the sources don't meet WP:RS and the whole article is either or combination of WP:OR, WP:Redflag and WP:Synthesis.HudsonBreeze (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean. There are RS such news agencies in the article.Cossde (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are RS which talk about individuals' involvement with LTTE; that doesn't amount to have an article under this title. This article is built up by the facts based on sources which do not meet WP:RS and rest of the facts either under WP:Redflag or/and WP:Synthesis.HudsonBreeze (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case you should mark these for ref improvement not delete the article. Cossde (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, this article should be deleted and the meager facts should be merged with existing article on Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.HudsonBreeze (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Cossde's constant reverts of the War Crime section on Sri Lanka Armed Forces and his vote to "Keep" the article without much rationale prompted me to post this comment.

"Affiliates to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam" was created with the Sole Purpose of silencing those who raise charges on War Crime against the Sri Lankan State. This article is heavily built up by the questionable sources which are either belong to the Sri Lankan Government/Military directly or backed by them.

Please note "Rohan Gunaratna" is a Sinhalese national and his number of articles are published in the websites of Sri Lanka's Defense Ministry. Rohan Gunaratna's facts are quoted in three different places in the article.

Please note "Waduge, Shenali" also a Sinhalese national and her article is published on the Pro-Government media "Asia Tribune". Her facts are quoted in three different places in the article.

Please note again "Supporters are NOT Affiliates"; almost the entire Tamil Community was the Supporter of the Main Cause of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and indirectly the entire Tamil Community is the supporter of the LTTE. But they are not affiliates since they haven't endorsed or participated or get involved the tactics which LTTE used to achieve the common goal.

The existence of this article will only support Sri Lankan Government to easily manipulate against it charges on War Crime by pointing each and every one/institution that they are Affiliates of the LTTE when they raise their voice against the atrocities of the Sri Lankan Government.HudsonBreeze (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your own words, HudsonBreeze doesn't this comment seem to be WP:OR and WP:Synthesis ? Cossde (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 12:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Cossde.This is Talk Page not the concerned article to highly worry about WP:OR and WP:Synthesis.

BTW: Can you show me the term "AFFILIATE" and how many times they are used in the sources which meet WP:RS in the article?HudsonBreeze (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @HudsonBreeze. Again, the objection is based on the neutrality of content (or lack thereof) rather than the matter of notability of the subject at hand. I don't have any doubt either that this is a contentious matter or that there are problems with the piece the way that it currently stands. But this matter strikes me as being completely independent of the question of notability. Carrite (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Carrite. The Notability of the term "AFFILIATE" in connection with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, is created under WP:OR and WP:Synthesis in the concerned article. Can you show me the term "AFFILIATE" and how many times they are used in the sources which meet WP:RS in the article?HudsonBreeze (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 00:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete None of the groups were part or affiliated to the LTTE the Indian Army or Sri Lankan Army were never affiliated to the LTTE and it violates WP:libeland it is a Wikipedia policy to delete material is libelous or defamatory.Tamil National Alliance alone was the Proxy or political wing of the LTTE in Sri Lanka and even its candidates were selected on the LTTE recommendation and it is not mentioned in this article.I am say this as a Muslim originally from Trincomalee Trenchfighter (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article needs some constructive edits, but I don't think content issues make it a candidate for deletion. Nishadhi (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This artice clearly disparages the subject per WP:Libel It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified.It should noted here that Canadian Tamil Congress one of the those mentioned as a affiliate of the LTTE has filed a defamation case against Rohan Gunaratna author of some of the sources in this article for the alleged comment in a Lakbima News interview that LTTE is operating in Canada under the name of Canadian Tamil Congress, which is the main LTTE front Organization in Canada. Canadian Tamil Congress sues critic for libel:Toronto Star and Canadian Tamil Congress Statement and here Lawsuit alleges defamation of Canadian Tamil Congress by Rohan Gunaratna. This article also mentions that same that they affiliates of the LTTE.Shenali Waduge a freelancer who has written both in Lankaweb and Asian Tribune Ref 10 and 13 and has also written Channel 4 paid to tarnish Sri Lanka and other sources are Sri Lankan government newspapers.Please this article clearly needs to well sourced with Reliable Sources if one is say something as controversial as saying that a legal organization abroad is a affiliate or front of a banned organization when the issue gone to court and organizations concerned have denied it.This article clearly lacks WP:RS sources and disparages the subjects it needs to be deleted.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Nishadhi. Before you go for the constructive edits, can you show how many times the term "AFFILIATE" is used in the sources which meet WP:RS in the article?HudsonBreeze (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Soft delete. L Faraone 05:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elna Ernest

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

Article might not pass notability guidelines. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 11:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Notable husband, notable son, some biographical details can be found in the introduction to a festschrift honoring the son [44], but I found little in reliable sources about her work as a psychologist, or her 1962 cookbook, or her art. Her website lists some prizes she won as an artist but it's not apparent these are prizes that convey notability. She's done a variety of interesting things, and I'd be happy to reconsider if some substantial coverage turns up. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 12:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Street Houligans

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

I can't find evidence of the notability of this fan group. The references given are about the sports team's performance, and possibly mention the antics of the fan group in passing, but are not about the group (and some don't mention the group at all). Google search does not show significant discussion in multiple reliable sources. Proposed deletion was contested. ... discospinster _talk 18:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ged UK 12:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shahba Mall

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

Possibly non notable place. Bobherry talk 13:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sounds like a notable mall. The article just needs to be expanded. Dough 48 72 17:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 12:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Sabbagh

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

Nothing suggests any particular notability for this individual. Certainly not the sources now present: not facebook, not YouTube, not the tabloids Click! and Libertatea. Where reliable press outlets have spoken of him, it appears to be entirely in the context of routine mentions, like this one. As for the medal he reportedly won, even if we do contemplate citing a tabloid for that, nothing indicates it may have been one of the more noteworthy orders, decorations, and medals of Romania. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably notable, but definitely promotional.Deb (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 12:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jump Around (Vanilla Ice song)

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

Non-notable musical release. No evidence of full-length professional reviews, charting or awards. Completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and mention somewhere on the "Jump Around" page apart from the "see also". öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 12:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfaction (Vanilla Ice song)

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

Non-notable musical release. No evidence of full-length professional reviews, charting or awards. Completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication or evidence of notability. PK T(alk) 18:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 12:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Road to My Riches

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

Non-notable musical release. No evidence of full-length professional reviews, charting or awards. Only ref is a youtube video. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability. PK T(alk) 18:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ged UK 12:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tomono clan

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

See list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Historical people. The sole cited source is not reliable. A quick search of Google books shows no support. --Ansei (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- In contrast, please compare the growing number of article marked "done+cites added" at WP:WikiProject Japan/Historical people. --Ansei (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This may require more research. There is an entry on the Tomono clan in the Sekai hyakka daijiten published by Nichigai Associates, a major reference book publisher, a summary of which is available here. Instead of relying on internet sources to judge notability, a check of published reference sources may be in order. Michitaro (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: Does this have something to do with Wikipedia:Inherent notability? Is it reasonable to decide that all historical Japanese clans are good article subjects when we can point to one published source, any reliable source support? --Ansei (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally am not making an argument about inherent notability. I am merely saying that I did find a reference in a well-known and respected encyclopedia, which itself had to pick subjects on the basis of notability. That implies that the editors had other sources they used both as a guide to notability and a source of information. The problem with medieval topics is that good historical sources are not always to be found on the net. We might have to find those sources in paper printed publications, most likely Japanese one. Michitaro (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I have added as much information and as many sources as I could find for the article on the internet; I also agree with Michitaro's suggestion regarding checking published sources. ~~I'll leave it to others to decide whether to remove the page or not.~~ On second thoughts, given the lack of consensus on whether to delete the page (it's also been relisted), I may have to put in my own opinion at some point. Cliff12345 (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Is it helpful to move the discussion towards issues of WP:Inherent Notability? I wonder if there might be consensus support for this sentence:

All historical Japanese clans are good articles when there is any reliable source support?

If yes, I will have no difficulty accepting what the group decides. The issue is made black-and-white. If no, I don't think I understand the implied argument well enough.

In our discussion about this specific article, I wonder about a related issue. In the same way that we do not accept ja:Wikipedia as a reliable source, I think we cannot credit Samurai-Archives.com as valid without something more. Is this not the current consensus opinion? --Ansei (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an answer to the question posted here and above.

I was under the impression that (unlike ja:Wikipedia or the samurai archives wiki) the samurai archives is a website written by someone knowledgeable in the field, and so could count as a reliable source. Am I mistaken and is [45] actually just another unreliable wiki? Cliff12345 (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn't aware of WP:Inherent Notability until just now, it seems like an interesting idea, and seems like it might be applicable here, given that many other large groups of people, such as villages, have inherent notability. Cliff12345 (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Michitaro opines, the Sekai Hyakka Daijiten is a respected and reliable source, and can be used to establish notability. I would also support the idea that historically-established Japanese clans are just as inherently notable as Native American tribes (which are basically just clans by another name). While Samurai Archives makes itself out to be a reliable source, I wouldn't use it as a source to establish notability. Instead, it could be used as a good starting point if there are sources indicated in the articles there. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If (as Nihonjoe says) there are articles on old tribes in other countries, it makes sense that there should be articles for the "tribes" in Japan too. Cliff12345 (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would not support the claim that any historical Japanese clan is notable. They can greatly vary in terms of size, geographical scope, longevity, and influence. Some only existed for a century or two in a couple of villages. The comparison with Native American tribes is problematic because these are not ethnic or linguistic entities, which is often the case with tribes, but familial ones. Not every family gets a Wikipedia article. I think they should be taken case by case. Michitaro (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would not support that either, and that's not what I was saying. What I'm saying is that any historically established clan should be considered notable, but we would definitely need reliable sources showing that it was historically established. We always have to have at least a couple reliable sources showing any topic actually exists before we can have an article which will stay here without fear of being deleted. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to clarify what I was saying above, I meant that we would still need sources for any clan added to Wikipedia (we wouldn't even be able to prove to Wikipedia that the clan ever existed without some sort of source), once there are sources, I would consider the clan notable enough for Wikipedia. Cliff12345 (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I went to the library and found another reference, this from Heibonsha's Nihonshi daijiten. I have added it to the article. I believe this is sufficient to prove notability. Michitaro (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm going to go with keep for this article now, it seems like several reliable sources for this article have been found since it was nominated for deletion. Cliff12345 (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 01:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exeter International Airport Fire and Rescue Service

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews nor my search of BBC. I've looked at a lot of airport articles and there is never a dedicated article for their fire service. even the category it's listed in "Airport Fire and Rescue Services in the United Kingdom", this is the only real airport fire service listed, so not sure if the category is of much value either. LibStar (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obviously excessive for a routine department; the next step will be to delete the category. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge or delete. I am reluctant to delete any (verified, etc) article which has a good merge target. So, in principle, merge some of the contents (WP:SMERGE} to Exeter International Airport. However, there is maybe so little to be included it might be best written afresh. The title is not a likely search term. Thincat (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not really notable jsut a standard service at an airport, has no real content worthy of merging or even mentioning in airport article. We dont really need "This airport has a fire service" entry as they all have. MilborneOne (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 01:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CTeen

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

Too soon for this organization to have an article. There is no notability, no awards, no dedicated discussion in secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an advertisement only. If it isn't deleted, it should be blanked and rewritten from scratch with sources. For one thing, it is largely a copyvio from here. Zero^talk 04:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Not the right place to start anyway, if this grows.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you guide me as to why this should be deleted?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.147.50 (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far the argument is that the organization is not notable enough. The article also violates the organization's copyright (and no, it's not simple to transfer that copyright). Wikipedia is not a place to promote an organization, nor is it a place for plain description of its activities.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. See WP:42, which talks about notability. Dear article creator: May I suggest you focus on creating a good website for CTeen, and shouldn't write a Wikipedia article; instead, wait for someone unaffiliated with CTeen to write such article. All the best, —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ged UK 12:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of item numbers in Indian cinema

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

The page's notability is under question. Firstly, "item numbers" is not tightly defined anywhere. The list also cannot be exahustive since there can be various versions based on the definition. Secondly, it serves no purpose to the wikipedia community Vamsisv (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term "item number" is, in fact, defined in the article with a link to the term's Wiki page. It appears to be relatively prevalent and well-defined, lending an ability to have a well-defined accompanying list. Your second comment is invalid; just because the article is a list doesn't mean it doesn't belong on the site. Wikipedia has quite a lot of lists. Dea db eef 01:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "I don't like it" but don't think there is a WP policy against this list. BigJim707 (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to List of item numbers in Bollywood cinema, it mainly tells about Hindi cinema and other films! --Tito Dutta (contact) 22:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DownWorld

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

No notability established. Previous versions of this article were speedily deleted in June and August 2012. This version is a recreation complete with an old 2011 maintenance template and some vandalism. Binksternet (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 12:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greg watermann

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

Greg Watermann really is a photographer of rock and roll subjects. However, the biography fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (people). The depth of coverage about Watermann's life and career is not enough to merit an article. Binksternet (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this page was approved by the photographer himself, please explain how's "the depth of coverage about Watermann's life and career is not enough??Veryzak (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (people) then you'll see what I'm talking about. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read them, I don't see 'personally' what defy these guidelines in Greg Watermann's case, Please elaborate your concerns whether its about the subject "greg watermann" or the way his info was written/gathered?? giving me a specific example (for other photographers) would be helpful Veryzak (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable photographer lacking GHITS and Gnews of substance. References are primary in nature and article lacks secondary references. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding some trivial mentions, but not much in the way of in-depth coverage so far. Veryzak, the thing about shooting famous people is that while it's not necessarily something that everyone can do, notability isn't really inherited by him having photographed multiple famous people. He has to have some coverage outside of that, which I'm not really seeing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: Just to let everyone know, I've cleaned out all of the biographical info that can't be verified through RS. I left the lists of works, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's some reference for Greg's work:

Watermann's credits for some of his works (videos and covers):

http://www.allmusic.com/artist/greg-watermann-mn0001635519

TV Interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EfLi0NYBuv0#at=80

Linkin Park book:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kJXnZVwfEDI

Greg Watermann photos books, calendars on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_2?_encoding=UTF8&field-author=Greg%20Watermann&search-alias=books&sort=relevancerank

Greg on SNAP galleries:

http://www.snapgalleries.com/photographers/greg-watermann/

on Wikipedia itself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?:::search=greg+watermann&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 Veryzak (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greg's article covering his Photos exhibition:

http://blogs.laweekly.com/westcoastsound/2009/05/last_night_i_photograph_rock_s.php

Greg Watermann is featured on Photocine:Digital Filmmaking with DSLRs Book,

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1435457366/tag=infiniteblue-20

Greg Watermann on Photocine news:

photocinenews.com/2011/09/12/pit-bull-euphoria-and-the-anticipation-of-walking-to-the-stage-by-greg-watermann/

Watermann's books on Goodreads:

http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/135080.Greg_Watermann

Greg's with GRAMMY Awards camp, interview about his works:

http://grammycampblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/greg-watermann-mann-behind-lens-by-nick.html Veryzak (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veryzak, you should tell Watermann to arrange somehow to have an article written about his life and career, published in a big magazine such as Rolling Stone, or a news magazine, or a big newspaper. Rather than simply listing his works or saying he was present at a certain event, the article should describe his origins, the way he got into photography, who were his influences, who he influenced in turn; stuff like that. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately these do not meet the criteria for independent, verifiable, secondary, reliable sources. reddogsix (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - References are mostly Youtube and other user generated sources. Wikipedia:Notability

FidelityTree (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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