Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 November	18 November >

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aapka Kya Hoga

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

not notable thus fails WP:NSONG Greatuser (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable song which fails notability and also there is no references as well. Torreslfchero (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe song is very notable.can be redirected to the houseful wiki page.(Harishrawat11 (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate This film was originally from Lawaaris (1981 film), and the Housefull version is not much different. A disambiguation page with links to both the film won't cost much. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 09:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: No notability to either of the two songs (1981s as well as this 2010s). Just because someone has been bold enough to create it does not mean we need to be dumb enough to preserve it somehow by redirects or disambiguation. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: on the basis of WP:NSONG which states "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". My assessment is that this article may not grow beyond stub class. Perhaps extending original article would be appropriate. Arunram (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2012‎ (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Howard

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

Non notable minor league baseball player. PROD removed with no reason given. Spanneraol (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a reason that no reason was given for the removal of the PROD. There was probably no good reason to remove it. AutomaticStrikeout 01:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No majors experience. Fails WP:BASEBALL/N. Faustus37 (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I don't like the policy, it is clear. Unless you can cite this content and pass WP:GNG, this should be deleted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline There is some coverage of him out there. I'm not sure if this is sufficient to pass GNG, but I'm leaning towards yes. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thought about it a little more. There is some coverage, but I'll agree it doesn't satisfy GNG. Delete. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 18:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable minor league baseball player. Subject has never played in a MLB game and is therefore not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NBASEBALL, and I find no evidence that the subject satisfies the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dirtlawyer 1; unless you've played in the major leagues, you're probably not going to pass WP:BASEBALL/N...he's been in AAA for several years and never gotten a September callup, so I'm not liking his chances of making his debut at age 31+, thus he'll probably never satisfy WP:BASEBALL/N. Go Phightins! 19:26, 24 November 2012 (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tekkit

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

Fails the general notability guideline, with no notable outside sources whatsoever. See also the deletion discussion for the Technic Pack, the single-player version of this modpack, which closed with a unanimous delete. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 23:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. 23:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the article should stay if it is edited to make it of a higher quality Joshrubikscube21 (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as before with Technic Pack -- no multiple, reliable, independent sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it isn't really notable, nor will it ever be able to. Longbyte1 (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per notability. If this article is allowed, then we should have articles for every other modification out there for every game in the world, right? --GSK ● talk ● contribs 21:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many notable mods, and Minecraft being hugely popular, it wouldn't be a stretch this modpack would get GNG coverage. I was a little surprised they don't at all. Tekkit has like 10M Google hits. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:10, 20 November 2012 (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. first-round draft pick and subject meets the WP:GNG (non-admin closure) Odie5533 (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Garciaparra

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

Non notable former minor league baseball player. His brother is fairly famous, but he is not. Spanneraol (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While notability is not inherited, Michael has received coverage.[1][2][3][4][5] Nobody would've cared enough to write all those articles if not for his brother, but still the articles exist, and he did received some coverage as a first round draft pick. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Fails WP:BASEBALL/N strictly speaking, but being a first-round pick does count for something. Faustus37 (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I concur with Muboshgu and Faustus; being a first round pick is something and though he doesn't inherit notability, he has received some coverage being a first round draft choice. Go Phightins! 22:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was actually a supplemental 1st round pick.. which isnt quite as impressive. And most of those articles simply are about the fact that he has a famous brother. Spanneraol (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If "having a famous brother" is enough to get Billy Carter enough coverage to pass the GNG, there's no reason it shouldn't work the same way for Mr. Garciaparra. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I must admit that I've struggled with this AfD for several days. Coverage exists to justify GNG notability per Muboshgu's listed sources above, but I am absolutely convinced that none of it would have been forthcoming but for the existence of his far more famous brother. I would not be displeased if someone would, in a WP:BOLD move, redirect this article to a specific, somewhat expanded paragraph in the brother's article. Please remember that technical satisfaction of GNG is not a guarantee of inclusion in Wikipedia as a stand-alone article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2012 (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. Rlendog (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Glen

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

I'm not 100% sure on this one, but his main accomplishments seem to be with the Gary SouthShore RailCats, an independent league team. Only sources I have found, aside from brief mentions, are from the RailCats website and from a camp he is affiliated with. Spanneraol (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage that exists is not independent of the subject or substantial enough to meet GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. AutomaticStrikeout 02:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No majors experience. Fails WP:BASEBALL/N. Faustus37 (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable minor league baseball player who never played in a MLB game and is therefore not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NBASEBALL. Moreover, I find no depth of coverage that satisfies the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cattle Call (company)

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

Non-notable topic; fails WP:GNG. No "significant coverage" from Google, just unreliable sources. TBr and ley 23:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 08:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 08:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 08:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search in both English and Japanese fails to find enough reliable or non-independent sources. Creating a notable game is not an indication of notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources constitutes more than passing mentions of the company, so there is insufficient third-party coverage to justify a self-standing article like this. --DAJF (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2012 (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. 4 keep, 3 delete, 2 merge (non-admin closure) Vacation^nine 00:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Audubon Avenue (Manhattan)

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

Cannot find enough evidence of notability for this street. Being in Manhattan or named after a historical figure does not mean the street passes WP:GNG. Searching this street on Google does not come up anything significant about its history, meaning to the neighborhood, etc, just yellow pages and reviews for businesses and homes on the street. Searching it on Google Books also does not come up with anything notable, just travel guides or books that have a brief passing mention of it. The only source in the article is Yahoo Maps, which proves absolutely nothing and the parks website is outdated. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also about Manhattan streets that lack evidence of notability or have little to no sources:

Keep - I would think all Manhattan streets, particularly the older more historic Lower Manhattan streets like these, wouldn't have question of notability. Bank Street is written more than "passing mentions" in several books including these - [6] [7] and it was founding home and namesake to the iconic Bank Street College of Education. Beach Street and Audubon Avenue has an historic description in this book (non-viewable) [8] Further Beach Street and Audubon Avenue coverage in this book [9] and this book. --Oakshade (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Even in Manhattan, not all streets are notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions about other streets do not negate these topics having significant coverage and passing our guidelines like WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Streets do not appear to be notable. Dough 48 72 01:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel like I'm in Bizarro World with this one. Do you have any rationale that relates to our notability guidelines and why a source like this still make these "not appear to be notable"? --Oakshade (talk) 02:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all In my opinion the notability of these historic streets has been demonstrated. Rotten regard Softnow 20:50, 8 November 2012 (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 00:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Audubon Avenue to Washington Heights, Manhattan. Keep Bank Street. Merge Beach Street to Tribeca or Lower Manhattan. I can't find evidence of notability for either Audubon Avenue or Beach Street (I've viewed the Henry Moscow book and I don't think the coverage there is sufficient to impart notability to the individual streets), but there is a wee bit of information in both articles that could be beneficially incorporated into articles about the neighborhoods. Bank Street seems to be weakly notable, however, based on the sources cited in the article plus this one that Oakshade found. --Orlady (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bank Street as major historic street in lower manhattan. This is one of the fdifficulties of join nominations: Bank street is more notabler than the others, both by location and history; Beach street less important, but in an historic area. Audubon Avenue, despite what is implied above, is not a historic street in lower manhattan, but an important residential street in upper manhattan. Personally, I think they should both be kept also, and I think the consensus ought to be that all significant streets in major cities are notable, and all streets whatever in the historic and central districts, but this view has not been accepted. So for the other two, I'd say the best solution is merge DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC) .[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 14:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian dance, electronic, and techno artists

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

Article does not cite a single source or provide any proof of the subject's notability. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A Google search revealed results, primarily in print media, for Christian dance, Christian electronic/electronica, and Christian techno. Whether there is enough content for each of these styles to get their own Wikipedia article, I don't know. But the terms do exist. My point is, should we have a list of Christian artists who play certain styles of music, when those styles do not have their own articles on Wikipedia?--¿3family6 _contribs 15:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a list, not an article. --No unique names 00:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nouniquenames: I don't understand your argument. Lists are held to the same standards of notability as articles, aren't they?

3family6, if said print sources establish notability, either for the three individual genres or for Christian EDM in general, an article should indeed be made using those sources and the deletion of this list should probably be postponed until that has been carried out. So I guess I change my vote to a tentative keep? Perhaps you should link to these sources (if and where possible) so we can see how substantial they are.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The dance sources are mostly about The Katinas. There isn't much for Christian electronic, EDM, and techno except for passing references. There is some stuff in one book called Rapture Ready, but as a whole, not enough for articles to be created. However, this is just from a Google Book search, so there could well be more content.

But that is neither here nor there. What matters is whether the list is notable. Here is an excerpt from WP:LISTN: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." I am not sure exactly what this means, but the terms "Christian dance music" and "Christian electronic music" have been used in reliable sources, so that should justify the list.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The "above guidlines" that quote references include "significant coverage", specifically "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail" (WP:GNG). In order for the list to stay has to be notable, not just exist. Unless that requirement can be met, I think I'll change mine back to delete.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Christian music; as a standalone list it's hard to see the musical sub-genre as being sufficiently notable. If there were sources on Christian electronica, etc., and not just the bands themselves, I'd say keep it as a standalone list; but as it is, I think it'd be more useful to merge it with the main music article. OttawaAC (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:LISTPURP. Faustus37 (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- it is a harmless list. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These artists are notable, as the first sentence of the article says; and I agree with the last comment about it being a harmless list. This can help to improve the knowledge of those who wish to research or to gain knowledge of Christian electronic music, and the list helps to show the diversity of artists who can fit in this category. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list being "harmless" is irrelevant; of course its harmless, but it needs to be notable to be included on Wikipedia. That notability does not come from the artists but from how notable the overall topic is; otherwise, Wikipedia would be filled with lists of "Christian" versions of every single genre of music that ever existed. People who want to research this music can do so on their own, but unless the overall topic of Christian EDM is notable enough for its own article (which it so far appears not to be), the list is not notable and should not be on Wikipedia.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep and clarify As for filling up WP, we're NOT PAPER. We do have 10 other lists included in the List of Christian bands and artists by genre. The question I ask as someone unfamiliar with this music is whether the three groups listed have anything in common? The lede sentence giving the criteria seems to be self-contradictory: "List of notable electronic, techno, and dance Contemporary Christian music artists that play Christian electronic music." Techno is defined in the WP article on it as being a form of electronic dance music. Is this a combination list of those who play dance music, those who play techno, and those who play other forms of electronic, or is a list of those who play electronic music, including techno, and those who play electronic dance music. I assume it is not being suggested that all dance music is electronic, but is it the case that all Christian contemporary dance music is electronic? Checking the articles on the individual bands, most clearly play electronic music, but it is not explicitly clear for all of them. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 19:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of a Bad Man

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

This article was previously deleted, but restored based on a couple of sources presented at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 July 1 without prejudice to another discussion... so here it is. While there appear to be a handful of reliable sources out there, I do not believe WP:GNG is met. Kinu ^t/_c 06:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to List of YouTube personalities. I found two lone sources for this series that would give notability. I did find a third source that briefly mentions the series being one of the most watched YT videos in the UK last year, but it was only briefly mentioned. YT hits do not really give notability and this brief of a mention would be trivial at best. Now what I do recommend is adding Humza Arshad's name to the list of YouTube personalities, listing a brief synopsis of the series, and redirecting there. Since he does have the two sources, it's reasonable enough to rationalize him being on that page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If it has two sources proving its notable, then it passes the WP:GNG. You are constantly trying to convince people they need more than that. By your personal standards 90% of Wikipedia articles would be eliminated. Dream Focus 15:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've added him in to the H section of the YT page, as they're sorted by the first letter of their name, and put in a brief note of what he does. All that we need now is to have it be a redirectTokyogirl79 (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: I recommend a salting/protection for the page if/when it gets redirected, as I noticed that it eventually became necessary for Arshad's entry due to it getting repeatedly re-added. Considering that, it's reasonable enough to expect this to happen here as well.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of the sources in the article, I want to say that I've been told on multiple occasions that the Huffington Post isn't usable as source to show notability due to it being pretty much a glorified blog that anyone can contribute to. This one doesn't mention the series in the actual article. Would anyone know if this is usable at all?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the Huffington Post is a reliable source to show notability. Not anyone can contribute to it, they have editorial oversight, and this is an actual newspaper. If part of the site allows anything, then that part can be questioned, but certainly not the rest of it where paid professional newspaper people handle things. Dream Focus 15:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Humza Arshad. I took part of the first DRV, and while participation was low the outcome was to allow recreation of Humza Arshad, which appears to have been recreated and subsequently deleted a few times since. I cannot comment on the content of those versions regarding A3, but deletion per G4 was not warranted anymore, and A7 seems kind of moot considering the amount of community discussion available. The links I had found are dead now (I could try looking for them again, but IIRC they were an interview by BBC Asia and a couple of local articles), but this one works, and adding the two sources from the second DRV I still think that WP:BIO is sufficiently met — Frankie (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:13, 1 November 2012 (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/2012 November 2. Snotbot t • c » 04:08, 2 November 2012 (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 00:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hold up, now. This series has been covered by organizations such as the BBC, The Guardian, Sky News and others. It was hidden mainly because the author failed to include a "References" section (a situation since corrected by yours truly). There's plenty of verifiable, objective evidence from independent sources here. Faustus37 (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Faustus37 (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the deletion review that had the article restored, two reliable sources providing ample coverage were shown. The Huffington Post [10] and The Guardian [11] Dream Focus 15:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources evidenced by editors above. Meets WP:GNG quite obviously. And also trout nom for nominating articles for deletion despite acknowledging "there appear to be a handful of reliable sources out there", which is the requirement for notability. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:43, 18 November 2012 (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. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 04:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Carr (baseball)

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

Non notable minor league baseball player, PROD removed with no reason given Spanneraol (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 23:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not noteworthy. AutomaticStrikeout 02:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I Prod-2ed this one. No majors experience (checked again just to be sure). Fails WP:BASEBALL/N. Faustus37 (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim to notability through either WP:GNG or WP:BASEBALL/N. Go Phightins! 22:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable minor league baseball player. Subject never played in a MLB game and is therefore not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NBASEBALL, and I find no depth of coverage that satisfies the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. I might also add that the article is completely lacking in any references whatsoever, and is a WP:BLP violation in its present condition. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2012 (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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Mirdad

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

No indication that this might meet WP:BOOKS, no improvement since last nomination RadioFan (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is why I always tell people that if they have sources, they need to actually put them in the article rather than just dumping them into the talk page or the AfD page. It makes the article look non-notable and odds are usually high that it'll get put back up for deletion because of this. Never assume that someone will come after you and do the work for you. In any case I found some coverage in some academic books as well as a few journal entries for the Book of Mirdad. It looks like it is considered to be one of his more important works, at least in the author's eyes.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly now, multiple reliable sources. Thanks to the work of Tokyogirl. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on the current state of the article and efforts of Tokyogirl79, I'm withdrawing this nom RadioFan (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Janusz Jankowski

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

No demonstration that subject fulfils WP:GNG or WP:SCHOLAR. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 with an h-index of 34. Would the nominator like to say why he discounted this factor? Xxanthippe (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Reply. Perhaps I'm just out of my depth here but this factor is not, to me, made evident from the article, hence not taking it into account. Can you elaborate (on how this is evident in the article itself)? Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:BEFORE. The notability of the *subject* is more important than what is written in the article itself. If the article can be improved, to the point where notability is evident, then it is not a good candidate for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Drop nom. Thanks, that's fair enough and if other editors happen to be party to information which demonstrates the notability of the subject and wish to note this, I am happy to drop the nom.. That said, with the article not demonstrating notability and a google search appearing inconclusive (to my eyes at least) I found the query as to why I had discounted something that is neither evident in the article or that leaps out from a search a little puzzling. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the scholar link two inches above and all will be clear. Such matters are discussed extensively in WP:Prof and its talks. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

In regard to what you raise in your initial post, no it is not clear to me that the, or how the, link provides the h-index and, whether it does or not (and if it does, apologies for my ignorance), why you would assume I knew it but discounted it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, there is extensive discussion of these matters in Wikipedia. Errors are more likely if one edits in areas in which has one has insufficient knowledge. However, many thanks for the withdrawal of the nomination, it lightens the work load. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

If these extensive discussions show how to derive the h-index from the scholar link, this has eluded me. Mutt Lunker (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there is or should be an answer buried somewhere in the footnotes of WP:PROF, but in any case: (1) Search for the author's name in Google scholar (this usually works best with just a first initial rather than the full name, since some papers are published only with a first initial). (2) If there's a link to a user profile, as there is in this case (and it's the profile of the correct person), then you're lucky: just look at the h-index number near the top right under the photo (all, not since 2007). (3) If not, then look through the search results, counting how many you find that are by the person you're looking for, until your count is at least as large as the "cited by" number of the next paper in the list. The count you stopped at is the h-index. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David, that's very helpful. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2012 (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 Kyocera Slider Sonic. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 23:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kyocera Slider

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

WP:PRODUCT suggests being bold and merging product articles into the company's site. After merging this to Kyocera, I was reverted and asked to take it to AfD. This product does not seem notable on its own. Similar and recently deleted: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kyocera_KX5. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn product. A quick search resulted in nothing more than reviews, ads, forum posts and otherwise trivial mentions. Bjelleklang - talk 12:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge with Kyocera Slider Sonic. Advertisements do not establish notability. Reviews do, when they are substantial indedpendent reviews like the one in cnet DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kyocera Slider Sonic - for the purposes of WP individual mobile phones are generally regarded as notable and we should not discriminate against the products of less well known manufacturers. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as G3. Aside from that one link, there is absolutely zero evidence to prove this term is frequently used. I strongly believe this is a joke. SwisterTwister talk 19:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Squanto (anal)

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

A non-notable and not particularly funny joke among friends. Clearly made up in one day. Prod was added, then removed (how's that for funny?). kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. I was the one who added the PROD, which was removed by the article creator without explanation. Lugia2453 (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2012 (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelblock

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

Non-notable Chrome/Firefox plugin NtheP (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete; the plugin has received coverage in New England Herald, at MTV Greece, and at other more minor places, but it tends to be short and the interest seems fleeting. I'm not even sure it's of enough import to bother integrating into the Nickelback article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't exactly describe those as brilliant coverage. Please note that I am not a Nickelback fan (can't really see why they're in the 'Metal' section at my local record shop), and I don't find them appearing in my browser. Possibly this is because I use AdBlock Plus and block all the ads anyway, being sensible. It'll be a nine day wonder at the most. Possibly it could even be a publicity stunt be the people who wrote it. (I know I'm cynical... Don't care.) Peridon (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—mentions in various entertainment/pop culture-esque pages is not enough to garner sufficient notability to pass GNG. —Theo polisme 14:47, 24 November 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephene Moore

AfDs for this article:

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

This was originally nominated in September 2010, and was caught up in the "don't delete candidate articles before the election" hoopla, and the result was that the article was kept (no consensus to delete). She went on to lose the election. Outside of the one event of running for congress, she does not pass the notoriety threshold, and (since the 2010 elections are long done), the original rationales provided by several editors are no longer relevant. All but two of the citations in the article are about her run for congress (and her relation to the then-current occupant of the seat); of the remaining two, one is a brief article about a trip by the Medical Missions Foundation, in which she is simply mentioned as one of nine volunteers from her local area, and the other (which was a dead link that I will fix) simply notes that she was the 2010 winner of an award from a foundation which doesn't have an article of its own in Wikipedia (I found a section about the group in the founder's bio, and added a redirect for the group). She appears to be a textbook example of WP:ONEEVENT, and the article should be either deleted (my preference) or redirected to United States House of Representatives elections in Kansas, 2010#District 3. The only reason I am running it through AFD is the previous AFD, and the assertions from several editors in the that AFD that the coverage of her from the congressional race alone is enough to meet the notability requirements. Note that in that AFD an editor provided a long laundry list of people who were in the same position as Moore; at least five of them were deleted outright; eight were redirected to the campaign articles, 20 of them won the 2010 election, one won the 2012 election (which makes him notable now), and a couple of others on that list were independently notable for reasons other than their campaigns (one is an appellate judge, for example). Moore and at least three of the remaining candidates on that list need to join the first two groups as either redlinks or redirects. Horologium (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG, since she lost the race there's no justification for her bio to exist in Wikipedia. I can't believe that previous AfD; it's like everyone just said "all our notability guidelines are irrelevant today". §FreeRangeFrog 19:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having lost the race, she's not otherwise notable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:09, 22 November 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edvard Hovhannisyan

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

Contested PROD. Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds he has played in the qualifying rounds of the champions league. There is however a long standing consensus that playing in these rounds does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Correct me if I'm wrong, but having appeared in at least one match with one national league team qualifies the person for WP:NFOOTBALL. I see at least one reference there that he played (in 2010) and is currently playing matches in the Armenian premier league [12]. No caps (and really, Armenia?) but still. Or am I reading that wrong? §FreeRangeFrog 19:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTBALL requires an appearance in a fully professional league, as listed here. You'll note the Armenian Premier League is not among those listed as fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh, wow. I was not aware of that. Seems a bit weird but I guess them's the rules. [13]. §FreeRangeFrog 21:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thanks to nom, I was not aware that the Armenian league is not considered pro. Reversing my !vote. §FreeRangeFrog 21:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country in at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 17:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing GNG. AutomaticStrikeout 19:33, 24 November 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Pușcaș

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the play-off round of the Europa League. However, recent afd's (here and here) have shown that playing in these rounds does not necessarily confer notability under WP:NSPORT. Certainly in this case, he has not received significant coverage for his appearance. Beyond that, he has not appeared at the senior level in any league, fully pro or otherwise, and he still clearly fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to SoccerWay [14] he's only played in the Romanian second-tier league, and I can't find any FIFA-sanctioned international appearances. §FreeRangeFrog 19:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a match between two teams from fully pro leagues or represented his country in a FIFA sanctioned senior international match, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 17:38, 20 November 2012 (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 redirect to Rupashi Bangla Express. — foxj 17:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howrah purulia express

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

This is one of those completely awful articles that technically doesn't meet any CSD. Nominating for snowball clause speedy. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 16:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, it fails WP:GNG per the 0 news results; the unreferenced nature of this article and its generally unencyclopedic style don't help. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 16:36, 17 November 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shana Ting Lipton

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

This person seems to exist and to have written for the LA Times--that much is verified. Notability is not: I don't see her being mentioned in reliable sources discussing her work. I did note a lot of external links in Wikipedia articles to various often trivial publications on her website and I think there's been some fluffing going on in the past. Person does not meet the GNG, and is not sufficiently high profile to pass as an important journalist or writer. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. There is lots of evidence Lipton has written articles, even in very reliable sources like LA Times, but nobody has written about Lipton. There are many journalists in the world who publish articles every day, it's normal and what journalists do, but being a journalist is not notable on its own. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Primary sources exist, but not the vital secondary sources that are required for notability, as in WP:42. Qworty (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Mahran

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the Egyptian Second Division is fully pro, an assertion not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Mohamed Mahran - appearances only in the Polish second-tier league [15]. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Sayed Mostafa - Can't even find him in soccerway, but the refs given are also for second-tier teams, so he also fails to meet the notability guideline. §FreeRangeFrog 19:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - articles is about footballers who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented their country at senior level, which means that the articles fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 17:38, 20 November 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anabela Belikova

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

fails WP:BIO. sources provided are primary and merely confirm she's a model. LibStar (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Support delete. Appears to be just a PR company produced BIO. Her only notable achievement seems to be being friends with [Irina Kulikova]] who was named as one of the top 10 models of 2007 by a apparently minor american magazine V (American magazine). Theres arguments for deleting Kulikova at the same time as she seems only notable for one minor award and uncited claims of being a favourite of John Galliano Dimspace (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, identical IP adresses are used to edit both models pages on several occasions. Dimspace (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant third-party coverage, fails WP:ANYBIO. Also "is friends with X" is a big red flashing warning sign. §FreeRangeFrog 19:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2012 (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 Lance Armstrong. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 03:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Lance Armstrong

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Lance Armstrong

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

Proposed deletion. Following the USADA decision, the palmares for Lance Armstrong has been significantly reduced, and in line with palmares of similar length for other athletes theres is no longer a reason why it needs to be a seperate article. On November 12, 2012 I moved the palmares of notable professional results to the main article Lance Armstrong and it remains there without editorial dispute and as such there is no need for the information to be duplicated Dimspace (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is obviously not needed given what's in the main article; it could have probably been speedied as an A10. §FreeRangeFrog 19:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main page rather than deleting entirely, as a likely search term. Siuenti (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect in agreement with Siuenti. --No unique names 01:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as the person who raised it, i agree with redirecting. ideally to the palmares section of the main article. Dimspace (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless I'm missing something, the fact that Lance Armstrong is being stripped of a large number of titles makes a list of those titles more relevant/notable, not less? davidprior ^t/_c 22:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment The point being that because his list of achievements is now, real estate wise relatively small and is included in the main Lance Armstrong article, a secondary article duplicating that information is superfluous. The list of stripped titles is still shown on his palmares on the main article page, behind a hidden tagDimspace (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Redirect. Not that it matters. But is "List of career achievements by Lance Armstrong" something that someone is going to type into that little search box? I would type "Lance Armstrong" and then follow links if what I want isn't there. Not that it matters. Dingo1729 (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if no-one types it directly, they might go from say "List of career achievements by Wiggo" by changing the "Wiggo" in the URL to "Lance Armstrong". More importantly people may have bookmarked it or linked to it from outside Wikipedia, this prevents link rot. Siuenti (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still seems unlikely. But whatever. Dingo1729 (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cashboard

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

The article fails to meet WP:GNG. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 11:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:B2B, company fails WP:CORP anyway as far as I can tell. §FreeRangeFrog 21:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable company. - MrOllie (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:45, 17 November 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elestor

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

Unremarkable magazine. No sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMAG. Mediran ^{talk to me!} 10:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This AfD has directly replaced a Prod notice ("No evidence that this magazine meets the WP:NMAG notability guidelines") that had not been contested and still had 5 days to run. I'm not sure why, but anyway, as per my earlier Prod rationale, I see no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searched Google.com / Google.kr / newspaper databases - nothing of note (mostly just primary source in Korean language at the magazine website). There is no kr.wikipedia article for it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Cast of the Angler

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

This topic about a UCLA student film project fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). Source searching in Google News archives, Books and Scholar is not yielding any coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Agree. Have researched all the involved producers, directors, actors etc, and none of them went on to any further success. I would support deletion, but whoever deletes it, it might be a nice option (although totally outside of our remit as wikipedia editors) to move the text to the imdb article for the film. Dimspace (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google News and Books found nothing and the fact it was a student film is probably to blame. A search at UCLA's newspaper, The Daily Bruin, provided no results and an advanced search only goes as far as 1994. Unfortunately, we couldn't merge it to UCLA's Wikipedia article because it is not significant enough (students producing it there is not sufficient) or notable. SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 14:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DreamRift

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

The article's subject has a little notability but the article fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Article has insufficient sources. Mediran ^{talk to me!} 10:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is a very close paraphrase of the company's own website, maintaining all the POV content and doing little but changing "our" to "their". I've flagged an article on one of the company principals that also uses that page text for WP:COPYVIO deletion; that possibly also applies here? AllyD (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure if it's a copyright violation but it certainly does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The only sources I can find discuss Dreamrift's games rather than the company itself. §everal⇒|Times 18:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have found several sources that may help: Joystiq [16], GamerShell [17]. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has been rewritten & sourced since the AFD started. SNS (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2012 (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 - author has agreed to deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Explay

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

No assertion of notability. All the article shows is that the company exists. Biker Biker (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's an assertion of nobility. If you're gonna look at the bottom of the articles, there are external links there that serve as testimonials to the company. OptiStar (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you meaning "The E-Book" website review of one of the company's products? It does say (paraphrasing the Google translation from Russian) that the company is known through advertising and low prices. But much more is needed to establish company notability: see WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no credible assertion of notability in article. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:24, 19 November 2012 (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Student life and culture in Indian Institutes of Technology

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

Unsourced essay poisoned by peacock lanaguage and full of original research. This is an encyclopaedia not a college prospectus. Bob Re-born (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article really serves no purpose and student life and culture especially sentences such as "All students have broadband Internet access in their rooms" are unnecessary. It's imaginable for students to have regular amenities and indicating such would be seen as inappropriate for an encyclopedia, original research and possibly promotional. SwisterTwister talk 19:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, someone put a lot of work into this. Unfortunately, WP:NOT#ESSAY. §FreeRangeFrog 20:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An informative page for all those who dream to go to IIT (like me), but just doesn't good enough for an encyclopedia. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 09:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#ESSAY] Cannot believe that this around since 2006! It clearly contains unsourced claims and many of which I feel can be original research. In no ways we can cite this facts and it looks like an essay. As stated above it is not encyclopedic. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 11:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content in this article is best represented in the individual IIT articles. --Anbu121 (talk me) 20:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can accept such articles for individual IITs, considering them as supporting articles for Wikipages on IITs. But clubbing them together to form this page does not make sense to me at all.--GDibyendu (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2012 (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 Saga of the Skolian Empire. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 14:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lyshriol

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

This topic fails WP:N. Google News archive isn't yielding coverage in reliable sources, and Google Books primarily provides links to books written by the author who uses this name in their books. I found this one passing mention ([18]), but not finding significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Also the article is written in an in-universe style that lacks real-world context and sourced analysis. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 07:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 07:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Saga of the Skolian Empire because there are no independent reliable sources to justify a standalone article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I'd be happy to do the merge, as I have redacted many of the Skolian Saga articles. Drop me a note when the discussion is closed. Debresser (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having looked for sources, and finding none that could WP:verify notability. Notability needs more than a WP:TRIVIALMENTION to be established. Would also support a merge as a compromise, but definitely not enough significant coverage to write a good article (in terms of policy). Shooterwalker (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2012 (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 American Indoor Soccer League. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 03:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Memphis Mojo

AfDs for this article:

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

Article which has been previously deleted though a deletion discussion, G4 declined, however the facts have not changed. Proposed team which never played a competitive match and does not meet the WP:GNG. Cloudz 679 07:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 07:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 07:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 07:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Mojo were part of the league history, whether they played one game or a whole season. Including franchise history even for those who did not play many games enriches history for future. There are other sources out there about the team. Deleting this page will be deleting part of league and soccer history, especially when we look at how minor league sports leagues continually have a history of franchise instability.More sources I found on the Mojo in a quick Google search are:

<ref>http://www.usindoor.com/articles/soccernews/aisl-welcomes-memphis-mojo-chris.php</ref>
<ref>http://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/2006/may/15/memphis-mojo-to-build-sports-training-facility/</ref>
<ref>http://www.docstoc.com/docs/131749964/Alhassane-Balde-Memphis-MOJO-AISL</ref>
<ref>http://www.colsoc.com/Default.aspx?tabid=266</ref>
<ref>http://www.usindoor.com/articles/soccernews/aisl-all-systems-go-for-the-mojo.php</ref>
<ref>http://www.indoorsoccerhall.com/aisl.htm</ref>

Bes2224 (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to American Indoor Soccer League. They didn't play a game, hence they don't have enough mojo for a separate article. The league article itself is none too long. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Clarity. Let me "modify" the deletion rationale: add "page independently recreated and edited by lots of people" before "G4 declined" — G4 speedy deletion doesn't cover new articles about the same subjects, and that's why I declined the G4 attempt. However, we don't need articles about non-teams in minor sports leagues, and the content (including the citations provided by Bes2224) will fit well on the league's article. Note that I've put Bes' links into bullets so that they display more easily; it's more convenient for other participants if we can see the URL instead of being presented with little [1], [2], etc. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -They did not play a full season, but they did play 1 game that factored into the regular season standings Bes2224 (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. Giant Snowman 08:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Clarity. Didn't play a competetive game. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. League Octopus (League Octopus 11:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as a WP:G3 blatant hoax. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tasek Football Club

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

No independent sources confirm the existence, let alone the notability, of this club. Mkativerata (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 07:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 07:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under G3 - the only sources I found anywhere point to this being a fantasy football club at the very most (even when searching through the Malaysian Google). Lukeno94 (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Searched as much as I could. They dont seem to exist. Name their stadium as Negeri Pulau Pinang Stadium, which is a major stadium, home of the premier division Penang team, and if they played there they would certainly be mentioned somewhere. The users talk page history shows that he originally included player manager as Ammar Anas who was also the teams most capped player. Cant find any reference of a malaysian player of that name ever having any caps. Pretty sure this is a fantasy football team Dimspace (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW because WP:HOAX. §FreeRangeFrog 20:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems it'd satisfy WP:SNOW unless sources pop up instantly. Couldn't find anything after searcing public resources and that of two colleges I have access to. Thus, none exist (imo). gwickwire | Leave a message 20:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Give this article a red card. A pretty blatant hoax if you ask me. Just some non-notable fantasy football team. Tagged as G3 and A7. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:30, 18 November 2012 (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 Apart from the considerations mentioned below,t he article was a clear copyright infringement of http://www.nipsedu.org.in/pages_mis.php?q=2, and so qualified for speedy deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NIPS Computer Institute

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

The article fails to meet WP:GNG. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 06:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 07:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 07:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 07:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 07:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 07:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nominator, this is a non-notable minor organisation. --Bob Re-born (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2012 (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters HD

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

Lacks notability, lacks verifiable references 0pen$0urce (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LONGEDDY (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC) I wrote some of the article but did not start the article or list of films. Added additional references per the request of 0pen$0urce . Reasons to keep. References are noted and are verifiable. Subjective opinions of the articles "lacking notability" is not objective. Films in Hi Def are relevant to consumers of Blu Ray and HDTV.WP:COMPANY WP:CORP WP:MOVIE[reply]

Comment. I've removed a big chunk of the article. First off, it wasn't neutrally written and we don't need a huge list of every movie ever shown on the channel. We don't do that for channels such as say, HBO or Cinemax and there's no reason to start here. Secondly, the sources weren't usable that were on the article. IMDb isn't usable as a RS and neither are blogs. I am, however, finding other sources out there so I'm optimistic about salvaging the page. But as far as "it's relevant" goes, that's not really a reason to keep.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had luck with references another editor spammed the article with references and already the first one does not support it's inline citation. So looks like more reference cleanup.--0pen$0urce (talk) 07:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: I'm having a really hard time with this one. I've found a ton of sources that talk about the channel getting yanked, but not many that actually talk about the channel itself. Most of what I'm finding are press releases and things that talk about various movies the channel was going to show or had acquired, but not much else. I'm leaning towards having this redirect to the main page for Voom, as there's not much that actually talks specifically about the channel and what I am finding out there mentions the channel briefly in relation to Voom as a whole. When they do mention it, that is.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again in the same boat and thus why I nominated for deletion. It's lack notability and reliable sources.--0pen$0urce (talk) 07:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are numerous articles on the channel itself if one looks in the right places and don't remove/undo reliable cited examples. I have found that if you do a search for MONSTERSHD (no separation) - you will find other relevant and reliable sources on the channel. In addition, numerous references were removed by the two previous editors that are seeking deletion for the article. ( these were clearly relevant and RS). BROADCASTING AND CABLE reference was removed AND is a reliable source for television research. There seems to be a sudden effort to remove channel articles in light of a recent legal dispute between the companies involved in the article. I have noticed Articles relating to a channel called KUNG FU HD was recently deleted by a "Novice" editor? Unclear as to the timing of the request for deletion LONGEDDY (talk)LONGEDDY (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC) — • contribs) 02:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both references were checked, one is a blog, sorry blogs are typically not acceptable references. The other I could not find anything about the article, shouldn't have to search within a reference for what is being referenced. Please read the five pillars of Wikipedia that I provided on your new user page. This has nothing to do with lawsuit. Kung FU HD was deleted because lack of notability and references. YOu keep repeating subjectivity as an issue. May want to look in the mirror sir. Again reason for nomination ,lack of reliable quality references and lack of notability. An obscure, short lived, and now defunct channel is not notable enough to keep. So the article is blanketed with references, with footnotes that lack relevance. Again I will be checking all the references. In the meantime please review wikipedia citing sources, reliable sources policies, the guidance on blogs blogs as references, FYI only administrators can delete an article not a "Novice editor" I will be checking each and every reference that was recently added--0pen$0urce (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also I see you have been blocked for the 3 reverts rule, don't just arbitrarily revert stuff you don not like. You're new and already you're getting off on the wrong footing here. Please see five pillars of wikipedia and also instead of commenting on a "Novice editor" focus on content--0pen$0urce (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks notability and support by the fact reliable, quality sources that cover the article are very hard to coem by. Sorry, but an obscure, short lived, and now defunct for several years channel doesn't seem worthy to have it's own article, especially given the lack of coverage.--0pen$0urce (talk) 07:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Voom_HD_Networks#Channels. This channel/article seems to have slightly more notability than the other VOOM channels that have been discussed before and AfD'd or PROD'd. That being said, I do not think the notability is enough to warrant its own article, and seems to be WP:SNOW that it could grow into something more than a stub. I think including it on the VOOM page would suffice for inclusion of any notability. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~STRONG KEEP~~: The article was improved per the original editor's request for Improved Tags. Check it out. In addition, the reference from a blog that was cited should be an acceptable reference since it is coming from a noted comic book artist, published writer, lecturer and educator,Steven Bissette (this was noted on the blog- check his Wikipedia article, too if in doubt on who he is). Blogs are acceptable if coming from a reliable source. It should not have been deleted and is quite significant and relevant to the network's history and promotional imagery. LONGEDDY (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have already indicated that your opinion is "keep", so I am striking your additional"STRONG KEEP". Repetition of "keep" or "delete" comments from one person can be confusing. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE and references from Reliable Sources (Horror Magazines and Websites) with Citations and Improved Article/Notability and Tags were added per the original request. Why the rush to delete? Deletion should not be an arbitrary, subjective decision made by an editor that claims the network was obscure and without notability. Monsters HD is notable as the first and longest running linear horror channel in the US. It received significat coverage from quality, reliable sources in media, has an existing Toy and DVD line, and is still owned by a major cable programmer, AMC Networks, after being put into limbo by an $2.4 billion lawsuit which was recently settled in October 2012. Again, why the rush to delete or merge? ""'KEEP""' LONGEDDY (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN focus on content PLEASE. You keep making accusations of subjective edits. What are your intentions exactly? You're just dumping references, many repeated and irrelevant to the information your adding. I keep checking your inline citations and asTokyogirl79. Your conduct is of concern and I feel your contributions lack a neutral point of view, please review snowball, this appears exactly what is going on here. Also please don't just throw material into that article as a attempt to save it without referencing it.--0pen$0urce (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RELEVANT ARTICLE" on its own with FOCUSED CONTENT and IMPROVED, REFERENCED, RELIABLE and NOTABLE Sources on the subject. The subject of the article is more than a tv channel - it exists as a brand with an existing ancillary Toy Line and DVD line. KEEP. STILL RELEVANT AS A BRAND and question remains if channel will come back, in some form.LONGEDDY (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing where this is a brand now. Up until you created your account that article only had 1 questionable reference, now it has 30 that all seem to repeat and not support the information. By the way may want to try making groups since several references that were recycled from previous versions.--0pen$0urce (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Longeddy, have you taken a look at WP:AFDFORMAT? Specifically, "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line." Also, the bold text is getting distracting and should be used for individual opinions, or, if necessary, an additional "comment." Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Kelly. Please forgive my distracting bold text. Still learning while trying to improve the article. LONGEDDY (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Open$0urce, I took your recommendation and grouped the article into sections. Thanks. I think it looks better. Please let me know what you think. On another note, assume good faith. I don't understand what you mean by "questionable" references? The publications and websites are legitimate and reliable. In fact, I provided Wikilinks to Fangoria and RueMorgue (the leading genre magazines that referenced MONSTERS HD). Can you be more specific? I really would like to make the article the best I can but I am concerned that you don't believe or are not looking at the articles cited.LONGEDDY (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Improved citations, thanks to TokyoGirl79! I appreciate the suggestions as I try to learn Wikipedia while doing my best to improve the article. Open$0urce recommendation to group the article in sections was welcomed! Thanks! I still want to know why the published references continue to be questioned though. Please let me know, if you have the time, why or what is needed. I truly have made every effort to document and improve the article over the past couple of days. I came to improve the article to add titles to a list that already existed and found the elimnation of said list and titles to be undone. (I found it to be a valuable reference as a BluRay DVD collector. I haven't added back because I agree - the article needed improvement. I think it has come a long way and will continue to provide information and construct as need be. I hope you can remove from Articles for Deletion based on my WP:AGF efforts to improve the article. Thank you for your consideraton, suggestions and, especially, continued patience with this "newbie." LONGEDDY (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still hold a stance or either delete or merge, also have concerns that one new editor who has made a rather large volume of edits pertaining to this article and discussions about it the degree a neutral point of view issue could be raised with the article as well as advocacy concerns.--0pen$0urce (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- "Speedy Keep" while improving Article which is still under construction. Planning to add a section on other Horror cable TV networks in the U.S. and abroad, since others have their own article - (eg. See the entry for DUSK fka SCREAM TV - which is no longer airing but does have its own article. Just because a channel does not broadcast anymore does not mean it doesn't warrant its own article (See Z Channel). With all the references and citations that are now listed. Please check them out and WP:AGF. There are more out there on the web and in other magazines and publications if you assume good faith. Originally film titles of movies aired on the channel were added and then deleted because it wasn't done for HBO. I haven't added back yet but I do know know that some channels listed on Wikipedia list films and programs. Why can't they be entered here? I totally agree, the article needed improvement. Additional information was added and references from reliable sources were found. Again, I wonder why there is a quick desire to delete or merge this and other VOOM Channels (See Animania HD, Family Room HD, etc). Again, I don't believe KUNG FU HD should have been deleted nor should the other VOOM Channels. Each was unique and had their own distinct programming and identity. (just like Z Channel and SCREAM TV). LONGEDDY (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why the concern to save the article all of a sudden and attempt to improve them all of a sudden after years. Why is one new editor making a rather large number of edits, as well as reverting other editors contributions. Kung FU HD was deleted per a consensus was found. Again notoriety is lacking bigtime. So is a Neutral point of view on these edits. Also consider wp:undue, this is a minority view on this subject. Multiple editors feel that list of programs is not needed, dispute resolution measures should be taken and a consensus reached.--0pen$0urce (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see one editor vehemently defending and trying to save article. Somewhat aggressive editing tactics, to include reverts of other editors, and claiming references are reliable when multiple other editors who also work on other things besides one or two related pages have checked and challenged references. Not seeing a consensus to save, seems the discussion is leaning towards delete. Also insinuations are being made after being asked not to do such. This also leans on wp:undue as an opinion of one or a minority has little weight on wikipedia.--0pen$0urce (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Expansion - ** Facts that are incessantly questioned and have (AGAIN) been substantiated & backed up within the article - leading to additional citations and efforts of one to improve, reference and indeed try to save the article nominated for deletion. Vehemently defended due to a rush to delete by the subjective opinion of a nominating editor. Rue Morgue citations backed up by online citation and reference from Best-Horror-Movies.com. {Please read the articles cited if anyone still has questions} Read the links and read the article. I stand by the facts and welcome all "Fangoria" "Rue Morgue" readers and others to chime in if it isn't true. In addition, the Rue Morgue publication is available for purchase as the link suggests if one really needs to question and triple check. WP:AGF The Rue Morgue cover story articles are even referenced in the link . In addition, unclear of what the deletion nominating editor refers to as very non-mainstream publications. HorrorHound is a leading horror genre publication and so is Video Watchdog. Both are notable and reputable. Both have been around for quite some time and are available in Barnes and Noble nationwide and are still being published.. The Phantom of the Movies' Videoscope was also available in Barnes and Noble and Borders. LONGEDDY (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded and improved article with additional section to substantiate additional questons on "Slogan" WP:AGF. to reiterate (AGAIN) reliable sources on the subject. Will continue to expand. Would appreciate constructive additions/ improvements instead of threats of deletion and edit wars. The suggestion of adding sections to this article was a good one and continues to fuel the article. How about a section as I proposed on other entrants in the horror television category in the U.S. and abroad. I welcome it and all contributors and will try to expand on that concept myself to IMPROVE the article.LONGEDDY (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Practice what you preach, you keep reiterating assume good faith, yet accuse others of "threats" and "edit wars". You're the one undoing and reverting others contributions, the very definition of edit war. You jumped right in and shouted "subject edits", couldn't the same claim be made on your edits? You insinuated the proposal for deletion has something to do with this AMC lawsuit, that's not assume good faith. Not all those sources; surprise surprise can be verified easily, such as the extensively used print ones. Already a I found 2 additional references that did not support. There are roughly 4 million other articles on wikipedia, as a new editor check em out as well as read up some more on the pillars and things. I still think this article lacks notoriety, and recent extensive edits now have raise point of view conerns, as well as too much undue weight may be given to a minority opinion.--0pen$0urce (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge My vote holds general the same as original, I am leaning more towards a merge with voom than outright delete. This has grown into a snowball. I don't like being accused of things and in the same breath have accuser practically scream WP:AGF, Hippocratic by definition. Since I am not here with an agenda, and I know many many other articles need attention, I shall move on. In closing further consideration should be taken that this article may now present a point of view issue and too much undue weight is being given to a minority opinion. --0pen$0urce (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well, the wall of text above will no doubt help keep away additional opinions. But it appears to be a historically notable cable television channel, meets WP:GNG.[19][20][21][22]. Article still needs major paring, though.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 05:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Meets WP:GNG with additional information and citations from reliable sources.LONGEDDY (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the vote- you can only vote once even though it's getting relisted. I know you're new here, so I want to state that I believe you re-voted in good faith, but you can only state "keep" once even if the discussion is relisted. It just means that the discussion is getting pulled over into another week.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - My bad. Thank you for clarifying Tokyogirl79. You have been most helpful!LONGEDDY (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current state meets notability, however the maintenance tags should stay until it is reviewed and a consensus is reached on neutrality and tone. Still concerned thatwp:advocacy is a concern with some edits and conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0pen$0urce (talk • contribs) 15:46, 20 November 2012 (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 arguments presented by Shaidar cuebiyar and the 2-0 keep consensus (non-admin closure) Vacation^nine 00:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clowns of Decadence

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

A topic about an Australian band that appears to fail WP:BAND. Google Books provides quite limited results; basically one source with a passing mention (see [23]). Google News archives reveals coverage on NME.com and The Sydney Morning Herald, but the coverage is minimal. For example, here's the search results at NME.com: [24], which provides this one very short article: [25] along with another that has the band's name in the search results but the article itself has no information ([26]) When clicking on this latter link, it just redirects to another page on the NME site. Here's the passing mention in the The Sydney Morning Herald article: [27]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~It's worse than that - the MRR mention is of the '80s Melbourne band of the same name, not this one. Delete - David Gerard (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)~~ Keep per Shaidar cuebiyar - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – According to WP:BAND#5: "two or more albums ... on one of the more important indie labels". We have Siren Records/Entertainment or Homegrown Artists releasing Kamikaze Karnival (1993),^[1] Dirty Tricks Incorporated (1994),^[2] Too Ugly for Airplay (1995),^[3] and Clowns of a Lesser God (1996).^[4] The label is an indie one but did exist for a number of years in Adelaide in the 1990s, it released a range of Homegrown compilations e.g. Homegrown 94 (1994).^[5] - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaidar cuebiyar (talk • contribs)

^ Clowns of Decadence (Musical group) (1993), Kamikaze karnival, Homegrown Artists, retrieved 21 November 2012
^ Clowns of Decadence (Musical group) (1994), Dirty tricks incorporated, Siren Records, retrieved 21 November 2012
^ Clowns of Decadence (Musical group) (1995), Too ugly for airplay, Siren Entertainments, retrieved 21 November 2012
^ Clowns of Decadence (Musical group) (1996), Clowns of a lesser god, Siren Entertainment, retrieved 21 November 2012
^ Mark of Cain (Musical group); Sin Dog Jellyroll (Musical group); Capital F (Musical group); Blue Experience (Musical group); Bliss (Popular Musical group); Kinetic Playground (Musical group); Clowns of Decadence (Musical group); Egg (Musical group); Oblong (Musical group); Jazz Odyssey (Musical group); Raisin Toast (Musical group); Crush (Musical group); Bearded Clams (Musical group); Numbskulls (Musical group); Where's The Pope? (Musical group); Stain (Musical group) (1994), Homegrown 94, Siren Records, retrieved 21 November 2012

- Yeah, that convinces me. Still needs third-party refs, but that establishes the prima facie case to keep. Now to make the article not terrible ... - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harshdeep hura

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

Contested PROD (without additional references or comment); author fails WP:MUSICBIO by far. One of the references given was to an Uncyclopedia article... §FreeRangeFrog 03:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:MUSICBIO. Salih (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 08:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of attained notability. Could be a CSD A7? AllyD (talk) 09:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was previously an AfC submitted under a variant user account: [28] where it was rejected as non-notable. AllyD (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article seems to have enough resources now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.239.110.162 (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LinkedIn, Spotify, iTunes... And do any of these meet WP:RS criteria? AllyD (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2012 (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 (G11 and G4) by User:DGG. Gongshow ^Talk 08:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Andrew Bovino

AfDs for this article:

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

This seems to be a puff BLP and WP:ONCE. If anything this rates a redirect to Robyn Frankel v. Palo Alto Medical Foundation Group, which does seem to be notable (albeit a mess at the moment). §FreeRangeFrog 03:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:12, 17 November 2012 (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:SK#1. I withdraw this nomination. I found some sources. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pork Recordings

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

A record label that appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Google News archives search is not yielding significant coverage in reliable sources, nor are customized searches such as this. Sources are mostly blogs that consist of passing mentions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per [29], [30]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:51, 17 November 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Kershaw

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. All of this appearances in films have been bit parts, his band only had local success, and being the friend of a notable person does not make him notable. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 02:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has a breif mention on IMDB, but would tend to agree that it does not fit with WP:BIO

*Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:

*Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

*Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

*Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Dimspace (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor actor, possible COI issues to boot. Fails WP:NACTOR by far. And I mean FAR. §FreeRangeFrog 20:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- currently aged 21 and NN as yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Aird

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

At this time player does not meet WP:GNG or meet relevant guidelines at WP:Footy as has not played in a fully pro league. Whilst Rangers players do overtime receive more coverage than other players at same level this player has yet to do so. Blethering Scot 19:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Believe He merits an article. Rangers are one of the biggest, most known, clubs in British football. It is an unusual situation where they are a professional team playing in an unprofessional league. The player is a regular in the squad and there is numerous newspaper and on-line coverage about him and his playing career so far for rangers. It is an unusual situation, but I think the article should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iainturnerisgod (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The club he plays for notability is not in question, this player is. There is not enough coverage out there to prove he meets GNG which is all that matters in this case as he is at least two seasons away from meeting WP:Footy. We shouldnt make special cases for Rangers players and they should be subject to what is essentially the higher policy. Rangers players will over time gain higher coverage and should be created at a time when they have enough and not just for one event either.Blethering Scot 21:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. Blethering Scot 21:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete No reason at all to make an exception for Rangers, they no longer exist. The new club might have a big ground, but they are not a big club yet. No real indication of GNG, has played a few games, but doesn't seem to have received any greater level of coverage than may other young players who have only played a handful of games. Would be notable if Rangers were in the Premier league, but they aren't, so he is not. Fenix down (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Blethering Scot 21:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning this article fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer Please note there is a copy of the article at User:Johnelwaq/Sandbox4. Please make sure something is done to provide proper attribution to the copy when this AfD is closed. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL LA Kings 23 (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC) — LA Kings 23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- GNG is a possibility, but it definitely doesn't pass NFOOTBALL, as the player does not play in a fully professional league. His club is the only professional club in its league (out of a total of 10)........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentUser:LA Kings 23 is a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Gregoryat. Patken4 (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For fuck sake man, he plays for one of the most famous football clubs in the world 86.154.102.139 (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and we shouldn't give Rangers-players a free pass to an article just because they play for a "big club". But we also have the general notability guideline, and with sources like this and this, I believe this article is close on "significant coverage in reliable sources". Mentoz86 (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is highly subjective but its my believe he no where near it yet. Blethering Scot 17:54, 8 November 2012 (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 00:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An awkward one this - he clearly plays for a highly notable team but in a division that doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL. I'd probably lean more towards keeping the article than deleting it, but the Rangers situation makes an interesting problem. The only other equivalent situation I can think of would be when ACF Fiorentina went bankrupt in 2002 and started again in the 4th tier. But even that doesn't work, because Serie C2 is a pro league. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 00:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - having had specific articles about this individual published in multiple countries, it does seem to scrape WP:GNG, despite its apparent failure of individual project guidelines. Cloudz 679 07:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Supposed to be a footballer, fails WP:NFOOTBALL. The end. §FreeRangeFrog 20:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:GNG trumps WP:NFOOTBALL, not the other way around. Mentoz86 (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 17:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable fourth division footballer. If the newco Rangers club ever reach the SPL - and good luck to them - then maybe these guys can have articles. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2012 (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Key Largo (boat)

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

Fails to demonstrate notability, the page is for all intents and purposes empty and is a dead end with no links to any other pages & possibly WP:NOTCATALOG Gbawden (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep The company, sessa marine, is a notable yacht builder and the model mentioned comes up easily in a google search. If article can be expanded upon and notable sources are cited. It will qualify.Righteousskills (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Not a lot, but I was able to find a review from an American magazine and several references in Italian. It might make more sense to have an article on the manufacturer and merge this to that. Mangoe (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2012 (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 00:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable product stub, article makes no indication of why it is notable. The only mention of this product I can find is on the manufacturers website. --neon white talk 13:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 00:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a product of a company that doesn't even rate a standalone article on Wikipedia. If it did, I'd go for a redirect. §FreeRangeFrog 20:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward a mention in the company's article if it can be shown they meet WP:GNG. As far as this product on its own goes, I don't see any notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:09, 18 November 2012 (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. Two deletes to one keep, and two neutral. Good arguments from both sides. (non-admin closure) Vacation^nine 00:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevis Amateur Athletic Association

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

Non notable athletic association. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 02:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. I would've given it the A7. Dengero (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.

I am the creator of the challenged article.

The Nevis Amateur Athletic Association (NAAA) is notable because it meets the Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations, here: Non-commercial organizations.

1.) The scope of its activities is both national and international in scale.^[1]

2.) Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[1] In Addition, participation of an athletic team of from Nevis in (regional) international competitions (separate from a Saint Kitts team) ^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13] implies of course the involvement of the Nevis Amateur Athletic Association.

The article was created (as "by-product") of a past project on governing bodies for the sport of athletics affiliated to the Association of Panamerican Athletics (APA), the South American Athletics Confederation (CONSUDATLE), the Central American Isthmus Athletic Confederation (CADICA), the Central American and Caribbean Athletic Confederation (CACAC), and the Iberoamerican Athletics Association (AIA), and is intended to be part of a future project on the Leeward Islands Athletic Association (LIAA), where NAAA is an independent member association, and on the competions that are organized by it.

Remarks:

1.) I appreciate arguments rather than opinions, especially when speedy deletion is requested.

2.) I appreciate recommodations from users familiar with the topics of Athletics, the Caribbean, the Leeward Islands, or Nevis.

CroesJ (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ ^a ^b Nevis Track Team Places Fourth in Anguilla, Nevis Pages Ltd., May 24, 2011, retrieved November 6, 2012
^ Blackett, Lester (March 28, 2008), NEVIS ATHLETE LOOKS TOWARD OLYMPICS, The St. Kitts-Nevis Observer, retrieved November 6, 2012
^ Blackett, Lester (March 21, 2008), TANIKA RANKED WORLD’S NO. 4; CARIBBEAN’S NO. 1 JUMPER, The St. Kitts-Nevis Observer, retrieved November 6, 2012
^ Gingerland clinches Inter Primary Championship title from Charlestown, Nevis Island Administration, March 25, 2010, retrieved November 6, 2012
^ High expectations at St Thomas Primary: Parry saves the day, SKNList.com - The St.Kitts-Nevis List, April 11, 2012, retrieved November 6, 2012
^ Anguilla hosts the 2011 Leeward Islands track and field meet, Anguilla News, May 20, 2011, retrieved November 6, 2012
^ Anguilla hosts successful 2010 Leeward Islands Youth track and field Championship, Sunset Homes - Anguilla Lifestyle, May 20, 2011, retrieved November 6, 2012
^ Local sports — St. Thomas - V.I. National Youth Track and Field Team Selected, V.I. Source Publications, Inc., June 2, 2006, retrieved November 6, 2012
^ VITFF Bulletin: 7-5-06 V.I.National Junior Track and Field Team wins 10 (Final total = 12) medals at Leeward Islands Junior Championships (Continued)…, The Virgin Islands Track and Field Federation, July 5, 2006, retrieved November 6, 2012
^ LEEWARDS YOUTH CHAMPIONSHIP, SKNproud.com, May 2011, retrieved November 6, 2012
^ Morton, Curtis (May 27, 2011), SPORTS - ATHLETICS - Renika and Kezron star in Leeward Islands meet, The St. Kitts-Nevis Observer, retrieved November 6, 2012
^ Leeward Islands Youth Championships 2009 - 5/30/2009 to 5/31/2009 - SKNAAA - LIYC 2009 - Silver Jubilee Athletic Stadium, St. Kitts - Medal Count - Combined: Men + Women, Saint Kitts & Nevis Amateur Athletic Association, May 27, 2011, retrieved November 6, 2012
^ BVI gets 20 gold medals at Leeward Islands Champs to finish 2nd, BVI News, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands, May 24, 2011, retrieved November 6, 2012

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because athletes occasionally enter foreign competitions does not mean that the organization is truly international. As far as I am aware, every single one of those competitions are hosted on small islands with a very small pool of athletes, so I doubt that makes it notable. I can't really tell from the notability guidelines whether or not such small countries' (US Virgin Islands won't count as it's not a country on its own) championships are notable, so this is a Neutral vote at the moment. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

1.) NAAA is affiliated to the Leeward Islands Athletic Association (LIAA), a regional international confederation governing body of athletics for national governing bodies and multi-national federations within the Leeward Islands, as an independent member association. Its athletes compete regularly (rather than occasionally) at the championships.

2.) The championships hosted 200 athletes (see Reference 7 from above). In my point of view, this is not a very small pool of athletes.

3.) The Virgin Islands Olympic Committee is an independent member of the IOC, its athletes participated for their country, e.g., at the 2012 London Summer Olympics. Why should they not count?

4.) Different Wikipedia guidelines for "small" and "big" countries (to the disadvantage of the small ones)? I can't imagine. If this was the case, it would be, in my point of view, a discrimination, and would not agree with my understanding of Wikipedia.

CroesJ (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence As it stands I feel the article offers little that couldnt be covered on Saint Kitts & Nevis Amateur Athletic Association page, as a sub section. However, if the article was expanded to include notable events, such as athletes sent to the olympic games (I note that St Kitts and Nevis have entered the last five olympics sending 7 athletes in total to the London Olympics) then i would support its retention. I think we have to deal with notability with a certain amount of leaway with smaller nations. So support deletion based on article as it is with content moved to subsection of St Kitts & Nevis AAA article, but if the article can be fleshed out with athletes competing at the olympics, or notable results within the region then I would support its retention Dimspace (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going through, i can find a large number of world championship medals won by the combined St Kitts and Nevis, but I cant find any for Nevis born athletes. On that basis I would support moving the article to the combined article for St Kitts & Nevis. Dimspace (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2012 (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 Jared_Evan#EPs. title presents a useful redirect (non-admin closure) Odie5533 (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th Chapter

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

Looks like this hasn't garnered enough (any) independant reliable sourcing for a standalone article. The sources provided in the article are user generated content and very sketchy and google news doen't mention this at all which suggests there is not significant coverage in the media/press. All in all, looks non notable and should be deleted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 00:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jared_Evan#EPs - The best source the article currently provides would probably be The Source. Google News found two Greek links here and here as well as one English link here. The article claims vibe.com praised the EP but this is false because it never actually talks about the album aside from "Pretty interesting concept". SwisterTwister talk 02:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per ST. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 03:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article lacked participation, however it was enough for a closure after it was relisted thrice (the limit). I closed this per keep because there wasn't any support for deletion in the debate while there were three editors who supported keep. I could have closed it per NC, but as there wasn't any support for the deletion other than the nom and at least three editors agreed to keep, I'll close it per keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 03:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LimeLife

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominated in 2009. Not sure why it wasn't deleted the first time. This company is not notable and their article is just free promo. If it were one of the most innovative companies in the world it would have a lot more info since 2009. TV | talk 17:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes article and San Francisco Business Times article seem to establish WP:GNG. It does seem to have fallen off the radar since then, admittedly. week keep. Morwen - Talk 18:56, 2 November 2012 (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 00:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unfortunately there's no criteria for "website that generated hype at one point and has since become irrelevant". The given references certainly meet WP:CORP. §FreeRangeFrog 20:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I was typing my vote, I considered voting "neutral" but I now think there is enough to suggest some significance especially being the only female-friendly mobile gaming company, despite there hasn't been much activity and it may be due to this 2010 acquisition by Total Beauty Media. Google News found several results and as these results will show they have released several games such as "Law & Order: Celebrity Betrayal" and "Top Chef Challenge", also indicating significance. A year before the acquisition, LimeLife acquired a company of their own, Tapatap, which would also improve the article. I plan to add more content later today, SwisterTwister talk 21:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protect-A-Bed

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

Non-notable company. Citations are all based on primary sources or advertorials. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG. Note that these sources found are NOT primary or advertorials; they're from reliable newspaper and magazine sources: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am unconvinced about those links above. They appear to be mostly verbatim press releases, which Wikipedia:Third-party_sources#Press_releases warns against using as sources. [40] is actual journalism, at least. That and the Daily Record make it a week keep from me, although it needs some serious cleanup/ Morwen - Talk 18:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Furniture Today is a newspaper, and the articles are written by its staff writers. Home Textiles is a magazine, although after consideration, some (but not all) of the articles appear to possibly be sourced from press releases, although they're written by staff writers. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:26, 2 November 2012 (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 00:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Northamerica1000. AutomaticStrikeout 01:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I accept NA's argument; the sources are sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 23 November 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Andresen

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

Notability is not inherited. MSJapan (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 00:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No direct information about subject, only mentions that the subject is the lead dev for the product. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Support delete. Offers nothing that couldnt be covered by including his name in the main Bitcoin article. Dimspace (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per nom, fails WP:GNG. Restore original redirect to Bitcoin. §FreeRangeFrog 20:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This would only confuse readers. The Bitcoin page does not even mention him. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2012 (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. Spinning Spark 19:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rosetta C. Lue

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

Director of an office within Philadelphia city government. This doesn't seem notable enough per our guidelines at WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. Prod removed without addressing this concern. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As PROD endorser. The notability just isn't there. This is a promotional article for an aspiring politician I guess, but it fails WP:POLITICIAN by far. §FreeRangeFrog 03:31, 8 November 2012 (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 00:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hopelessly promotional article for non-notable civil servant. Since it's gotten this far, let the AfD conclude, but I might have speedy deleted this as G11. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There were enough assertions to notability in the original article version I found during NPP. Most admins would have rejected a CSD. §FreeRangeFrog 20:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it would have passed speedy A7 for assertions of importance, but G11 is for being entirely promotional. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 03:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M. P. Vijayakumar (civil servant)

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

here is very lessevidence of notability provided for this person. This article does not provide enough good quality references.it uses weasel words.Editors have a WP:CoI regarding the subject matter (Harishrawat11 (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 2. KTC (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are definite NPOV issues, especially considering Vijayakumar was charged with contempt of court in 2004. Frankly the article itself could use a lot of work in terms of correct English. However, he was clearly an important political figure in Chennai for some time. I do think we have notability here. Faustus37 (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Activity-based learning in India and Tamil Nadu (Redirect to Activity-based learning in India), per WP:BASIC, with no disrespect to M. P. Vijayakumar's achievements. I found a few additional refs,[41][42][43][44][45][46] but (combined with those within they article) they don't look to me enough to warrant/sustain an article, which may explain why the 'Early career' section is completely unsourced. -- Trevj (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Prime Minister's Award conveys notability as does court case. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2012 (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 00:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after a rewrite removing or referencing the uncited material about his accomplishments in office---I am in the process of doing this. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DGG's cleanups make his notability clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Good job, DGG! Bearian (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 14:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjel Corporation

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

Advert + marginal notability Corporate 04:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs more sources, no doubt about this, but reliable third party references exist. Corporate spam, which was added by SPAs at some point is removed now. Beagel (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since Beagel was willing to clean it up Corporate 16:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

very weak keep provided Beagle or someone adds some material. The spam may have been removed, but there needs to be some cited material added. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 17 November 2012 (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. G11, hopelessly promotional--and I'm also G11'ing the article on his institution, Ma'din DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Ibrahimul Khaleelul Bukhari

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

There is hardly any evidence of notability provided for this person. This article does not provide enough good quality references. Most of the edits are done by only one contributor who seems to have a WP:CoI regarding the subject matter.Delete per lack of any WP:RS to support notability Harishrawat11 (talk) 05:44, 3 November 2012 (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/2012 November 3. Snotbot t • c » 06:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wait he could potentially be notable, lets ask for some sources. If he is the founder of a notable institution for WP he could be too. Though ill admit the one news source is not lending credibility and im doubting if all the content is trueLihaas (talk) 06:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, unreferenced person at a not notable unreferenced academy. Then lots of fluff about the academy. I'm sure he is a nice person, though. --Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:18, 17 November 2012 (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. Spinning Spark 18:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevinmap

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

Website with no evidence of notability. No WP:RS in English that I can find; Chinese sources may exist but I cannot find any (in my limited capability to do so, of course). Possible WP:COI given the author's name. Kinu ^t/_c 08:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unremarkable software and/or website; fails basic WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog 22:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete Website is used by 20+ NGOs in China, including Liao Xiaoyi's Global Village of Beijing. Search of "kaiwenmap beijing" on Google shows several employees of the enterprise. No WP:COI for author.§Wendylinlu 15:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 09:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable website ad, self-produced solitary reference. --Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. 0 hits on LexisNexis. If it was notable, someone would have written something about it somewhere. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2012 (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. Spinning Spark 17:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caverphone

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

This article is unreferenced and the only good coverage I could find online was this source (in Indonesian). There doesn't seem to be any other significant coverage on Google Books, News, or Scholar, although there are a few mentions. We could probably do with a final decision about whether or not this can be kept, as it has been tagged for notability since 2008. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I see references but not a lot; various of these act as if it's something quite well-known, but it doesn't seem to be something that CS texts want to talk about. Mangoe (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2012 (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 00:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep this paper talks about it as if it were a standard tool, and this one the other Google Scholar hits likewise list it as one the the standard ways of approaching the problem. Apparently not very much used, but there are 3rd party references. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 14:41, 24 November 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Himansh Kohli

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

Actor who does not meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Maybe he will become notable in future, but not yet. bonadea contributions talk 05:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a bit to nomination rationale: the actor had one of the starring roles in a TV series, but this has not resulted in any press coverage and it is indicative that the blurb about his being cast in an upcoming film [47] presents him as a "radio jockey", only mentioning the TV series cursorily without including its name (so the series itself is clearly not very notable). All sources are very brief notices and do not constitute anything near significant coverage in multiple sources. Per WP:BEFORE I have spent some time looking for other sources but only found forum posts and Facebook pages - nothing reliable/secondary at all. --bonadea contributions talk 09:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2012 (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 00:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage in WP:RS is very cursory and not enough to warrant a WP:BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

possible Keep Star role in a major series might be enough--though the WP article on the series does not discuss him, the plot shows him as a central character. But this is the sort of material where an editor in the US cannot usefully find material. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Cannot" is a bit too categorical, but I see your point. As a non-American I am rather sensitive to any US-centric bias, and I do wish there was better coverage of notable people and concepts outside North America, so I do try to dig up evidence of notability for these kinds of articles if I can. I'm just not convinced that the series would be characterised as "major" (although it's certainly notable). --bonadea contributions talk 10:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after several weeks and multiple relisting, this article has failed to generate sufficent references to reliable sources to help it meet WP:RS RadioFan (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Times of India has a steady coverage [48] of him and his role in Humse Hai Life. While the coverage in any one article is not in-depth, taken together they seem to indicate notability for a lead actor in a popular Indian soap. If this were a US or British leading soap, there would be no question of giving a star actor their own article. Spinning Spark 17:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not significant coverage of this person anywhere. The Time Of India articles offer only the most trivial mentioning of him. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2012 (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. Michig (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yug (TV Series)

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable, short-lived TV series. The article is mostly plot related original research. - Mr X 15:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferences! Yes, as of now. Non-notable? The criteria for notability of TV shows considers every TV show as notable if it is aired on a national television. While this show was aired in 1997, i dont think there were any other channels at all in India. Short-lived? Whats that supposed to mean? Btw, do you how many episodes were aired? If you know that could go in the article. What is plot related OR? Plot sections of TV shows and films don't require references. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was a notable Indian show (like Shaktiman, Chandrakanta etc). But, I don't know how to collect newspaper references which I read 1997-1998. Most of Indian newspapers archives don't go back to that period! --Tito Dutta (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this that "Yug Badla, Badla Hindustan" serial? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, that's the serial with a splendid track Yug Badla, Badla Hindustan. Was very popular one time! --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to consider in the guideline (WP:TVSERIES) is "... a national television program may not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any significant media coverage." I'm skeptical about a series that only ran for a single year. A larger concern is that, if the article was written without any references, purely from the editor's memory, then it falls into the realm of unverifiable, original research. - Mr X 13:16, 3 November 2012 (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 00:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once again, systemic bias. And unfortunately I do not have much evidence (since it is from pre-internet era). The nominator has told this series may not be notable since it ran for a single year. Perhaps true for American TV series. However, many Indian TV series ran for 13 or 26 episodes (telecast once a week for 13 or 26 weeks), and remains embedded in the mind of millions of people. TV came much later in India compared to US. It is only in the late 80s that gradually TV started to have substantial viewership. Of course this series is not as notable as Mahabharat (TV series), but still it was a popular TV series.

I agree that the lack of sources make it difficult to prove (documentary proof) that it is not original research. Objectively speaking, I can not deny that without references, it continues to be unverifiable. However, the collective memory of a number of editors (who either saw the series or were around when the series was aired) can be considered (subjectively) as a testimony to its existence, pending objective proof.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources can definitely be found in newspapers like Sanmarg, Dainik Bhaskar etc... of 1997-98. But how to collect those newspaper? I wish to have an "Expert help" lifeline here like Kaun Banega Crorepati! --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we can not collect archives of those newspapers. For now, we have added some references in the article, for the proof of its existence, and that it was aired in Doordarshan, the national TV channel. I increasingly feel that some guidelines need to be modified or relaxed for non-US or non-European countries. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Suddenly started getting so many references. And a good thing about them is that they are all encyclopedic; not random modern shows she-celebrated-her-birthday-on-set crap. Definite keep. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per excellent sources added by User:Dharmadhyaksha. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2012 (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 Slough Feg#Former members. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Reuben Diavola

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

all 3 references given do not mention this person, so this is unreffed. he appears to be notable as a former drummer for Slough Feg. i dont think thats enough. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Slough_Feg#Former_members - This musician is not notable as a member of Slough Feg or independently and I found an insufficient profile here and Google Books found one minor mention here. Google News provided nothing relevant. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 2 November 2012 (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 00:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band article as suggested above. Not enough WP:RS to warrant a standalone biographical article. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:13, 17 November 2012 (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. (non-admin closure) Vacation^nine 00:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starch (game)

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

I have searched a lot and didn't find any useful information to prove the notability of this videogame. I know it is very old so that off-line citations may be the best way to do this, but they weren't provided and I am not able to find them (not even in Google Books). — Ṟ Ṉ™ 09:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like said off-line citations are already provided? Unless someone pulls those out and find the references are only incidental, let's keep it. Morwen - Talk 12:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, the current sourcing should be enough to keep the article. Diego (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to concur too, but i have checked the sources and they just make passing mentions of the game (except one of them which gives it a paragraph) :( — Ṟ Ṉ™ 16:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check all of the sources, including the BBC Acorn User and the Acorn User? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked at all the sources, looked for more, and attempted to find scanned archives of Acorn User. I'm not convinced that this game passes GNG for a brief mention in Eurogamer and a mention on a top ten list. If someone has offline sources, now's the time to make them appear. Merging these "top games" into the Archimedes article (with citations on why they're notable) would be an option. Category:Acorn Archimedes games looks full, but mostly because it lists ports of games from other consoles. czar · · 18:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be contradicting yourself. If you looked at all of the sources then why did you have to attempt to find scanned archives of one of them? Did you look at the Acorn User source or not? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typo. Struck it—thanks. (The Acorn User articles are available here. The 1990 source is brief/peripheral, and the 1992 reference is from an ad.) czar · · 02:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -(to make this a formal not-vote). For me, the Eurogamer and Acorn User appearances are enough to support a "snowflake" article and/or to merge into another appropriate place (maybe to a list of Acorn Archimedes games?). This is game is not mentioned in-passing but described directly, and coverage is significant as it includes critical review. So the content shouldn't be deleted in any case but kept by the WP:PRESERVE policy. Let's remove the detailed Levels sections to comply with WP:PLOT, include the reception by the professional reviewers of both articles, and leave it at that. Diego (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, so nobody else has to download the PDF and check: the Acorn User #101 (Dec 1990) reference is a full paragraph, putting it as number 6 of the top 10 games that year. I'd say it counts as more than brief. And if it's in their top 10, it seems likely there was an additional full review of it that year. I wonder if Risc User also reviewed it. I'm willing to belief that the 1992 reference is indeed an ad, and there isn't of use in establishing WP:GNG, but Acorn User+Eurogamer should cover it, shouldn't they? Mind, the plot summary section should go, and we don't have a very good explanation of whatever the unique mechanic is supposed to be. Morwen (Talk) 11:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage of this game does not appear to be significant. 4 sentences in the Dec. 1990 issue, the Eurogamer retrospective only describes the gameplay, and the Aug. 1992 issue is a small blurb on the bottom of an advertisement. I don't feel this game comes close to passing the WP:GNG. Acorn User has many pages devoted to video game reviews, but in their entire run we've only found 4 sentences they've written on this game. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define "significant"? For me, describing the gameplay of a video game is significant. Diego (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I define it based on the subject matter. For video games, the bread and butter for showing notability to me is a review in a periodical. For gaming mags from the late 80s early 90s, those reviews are often very short, but all the reviews from then tended to be much shorter than they are today. The significance is still there because they are the topic of the review. I don't believe that 4 sentences inside a larger article constitutes significant coverage. And I do not think that simply discussing gameplay passes the threshold either. I love articles about old games, it's why I collect old gaming magazines, but for a game to have an article on Wikipedia I believe it should at least meet the WP:GNG. Take a look at the article I wrote on PHM Pegasus. It's a very old game. Not many people wrote about it, but I believe it meets the WP:GNG because it still managed to receive multiple full reviews from magazines at the time. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget that Notability is a style guideline (deciding whether to have a stand-alone article or not), not a core content policy. This article is not against Neutrality nor What Wikipedia Is Not. Fact is, this game *has* been described by several reliable independent sources, and it *has* received critical commentary. Even if both are brief, they don't merit being deleted as you suggest; simply removing everything wouldn't be an improvement to Wikipedia. GNG deliberately avoids talking of the length of sources' coverage - thus, saying "there should be longer coverage and/or full reviews" is not required by the guideline; so for me, what we have is enough to pass the test. Even if we don't agree to that, the question to ask is where else we could place that content. I would support merging it into another viable article, but I think the current "snowflake" short article is the best way to meet the style, unless you can suggest a better place. Diego (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, the GNG is vague on this matter and I try to apply it as best I can given the subject matter. I would not oppose a merger into perhaps an article about the Acorn Archimedes, or an article about Acorn Archimedes software/games. But I do not believe the handful of sentences we have uncovered about the game warrant a full article. Not every word written in reliable sources needs to be included somewhere in Wikipedia. In regards to WP:NOT, this argument falls under WP:IINFO as stated at the top of WP:N. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those arguments are right in general, but not in this particular case. This is not a "summary-only description" of the work. Notability is about having enough content to write more than one paragraph (which this has), and INDISCRIMINATE is about not just describing the work's formal structure but also placing it in context saying how it was received by the world (which it also does).

Let's think less the letter of the bureaucratic procedures that we have developed through the years and more about what they're intended to achieve. If I want to learn about this obscure game, the article describes its setting, provides a summary of its gameplay, establishes its relative importance to other similar games and compiles the few coverage it received including references to the magazines with exact date and page where it occurred. This is exactly what Wikipedia should provide, as a tertiary compilation of the existing reliable sources for all conceivable topics that have received it, no matter how arcane.

Now, your current stance is to delete all this. What are the arguments for providing a red link when looking for "Starch videogame"? How is that an improvement to Wikipedia? Why are you measuring notability by volume instead of results? I really want to understand that position. Diego (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is one of notability: is the subject notable? Based on what we have found about the game, I would say that answer is no. See also WP:LOSE. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if everything is reduced to what the letter of the guidelines say instead of their spirit, then your criterion for saying that this game is not notable (that GNG requires "full reviews from magazines") is against what the GNG itself says ("Significant coverage ... need not be the main topic of the source material").

But policy is not law, and WP:LOSE is not even a guideline but an essay. I've already explained how this article does meet GNG, and how even if it didn't we should keep the content, not delete it, because it's not a part of "everything" but of facts reported by reliable sources.

And you didn't answer my main question - how deleting it is an improvement? Now it's your turn to explain how the essays and guidelines you refer to apply to this particular case, not in the abstract but to the actual description of the videogame Scratch. Why a red link is better for Wikipedia than the current short article? The only answer you've provided so far is "rules must be obeyed", which is against the Ignore All Rules pillar. Diego (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We clearly have different viewpoints here: you see that the GNG allows for a wide definition of significant coverage, and I look more at the coverage the game received in the context of the published medium. To answer your main question, I believe articles must be notable so that Wikipedia avoids being an indiscriminate repository of information, or in this case obscure video games. I've written too many short articles to be against them, and any red links to the game should be removed if the article is deleted. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, your definition of indiscriminate doesn't match Wikipedia's definition of indiscriminate. Wikipedia has always admitted obscure topics as long as someone reliable has written about their context and importance. Diego (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2012 (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 00:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:12, 17 November 2012 (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. Spinning Spark 16:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Katheder

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

Subject is a taekwondo competitor with no international competitions as an adult. She's not listed in the top 230 of the world rankings. Success as a junior competitor is not grounds for notability. The only source is a listing of her record as a junior competitor and there's an external link to her own website. Papaursa (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNOW, currently fails WP:ATHLETE--Ymblanter (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best this aritcle is WP:TOOSOON. She's been in no major adult competitions, is not ranked in the top 200+, and has earned zero WTF ranking points. Her success as a youth competitor is insufficient to claim notability. Mdtemp (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATHLETE. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2012 (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. Michig (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manjil india

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

Article has no evidence of notability and written like an advertisment, I placed tags on the page before but the creator had removed it, I didn't go for a PROD because I knew that the creator will remove it again TheChampionMan1234 03:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability cited, but deserves a listing in TV Guide Mumbai for sure. --Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As usual with non-western entities this is difficult but I feel that a simple Google search would have returned a lot more hits than what I'm seeing. Also, the channel is basically new, so this might be a simple attempt at promotion. I'd say it fails WP:GNG and may be a case of too soon. §FreeRangeFrog 02:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable tv channel. Delete per WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2012 (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. Michig (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sri Radha Mohan Jew

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

The importance of the article as per WP:NOTABILITY cannot be determined. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE not notable,poorly written,(Harishrawat11 (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails my usual tests for notable houses of worship. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability could not be established as I could not find any reliable sources. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2012 (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 move to incubator. Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unfettered Spinning Spark 16:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfettered

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

I feel a little bad nominating this for AfD given that this book goes towards a good cause, but here's the problem: this hasn't received any in-depth coverage in a source that is both reliable and independent of the publisher, authors, Suvudu, or anyone else that is otherwise involved with Speakman. (Speakman is a blogger for Suvudu.) It also doesn't help that the article has non neutral and borderline promotional language such as "anyone who purchases a signed edition of Speakman's The Dark Thorn will get a first crack at the corresponding number for the Unfettered release". I feel bad for Speakman and if he had an article on here I'd be more than willing to have this redirect to his page, but he doesn't and this book just doesn't pass notability guidelines at this time. I'm open to suggestions, but I want to stress to anyone coming into this AfD that you must have a suggestion that is feasible and any sources given must be reliable for this to pas WP:NBOOK. The book does not inherit notability by having notable authors publishing for it, no matter how wonderful the cause is. (WP:NOTINHERITED) I'd also like to state beforehand that AfDs are not decided on a vote. (WP:NOTAVOTE) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes I feel bad for nominating Delete under the circumstances, although he beat cancer so great news in the big picture and Obamacare is no longer threatened so hopefully no one will be w/out health insurance ever again. Back to the AfD: it's a case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL, the rules are pretty clear, we need multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the book in depth. With books that is usually achieved with book reviews (WP:NBOOK). The current sources are all unreliable from Wikipedia viewpoint (primary source and/or blogs). Probably the book will be reliable sometime in 2013 so recommend saving the current text of the article to User space and wait until sources are available then recreate once notability is assured. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not notable, sorry. --Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pains me, but fails basic notability. The only halfway RS I found is this, and it's an opinion piece. §FreeRangeFrog 20:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment Fits nicely in with WP:CRYSTAL - it hasn't even been published yet. I suggest that it be incubated somewhere until it comes out. There are certainly enough well-known authors in it that it will likely be kept in 2013. The Steve 05:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with the article being incubated.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2012 (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. Spinning Spark 15:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ridan Publishing

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

I came across this while looking into some edits and after removing a ton of non-usable links to various non-notable book blogs and such (original editor has been notified about WP:RS) that stated that this or that author was a finalist in some contest (some of which were non-notable in and of themselves) or that the book was well received by Joe Smith in Everywhere, USA. (Original version of article can be seen here: [49]) I did a search to find sources and couldn't find anything that was independent and reliable that showed notability for this publishing company. I found a lot of blogs (none of which are usable) that were talking about a controversy concerning the publisher, but nothing that would show notability. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no sources that discuss the publisher. See WP:ORG for why the products (books, awards, authors) don't contribute towards notability. "The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and come back later. Clearly a real publisher (proven by the number of authors in blogs claiming that they haven't been paid). But no external references - not notable yet. --Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is that even with the limited information it is sufficient for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomsburg Municipal Airport

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

The article on Bloomsburg Municipal Airport contains little notable information, and almost all of that could easily incorporated into the underdeveloped Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania#Air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King jakob c (talk • contribs) 03:03, 3 November 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An article being a stub is not a proper rationale for deletion. Airport not only serving community of about 15,000, but also the county of Columbia with a population of about 65,000 is easily worthy of inclusion. Airport-specific content like runway length and standard FAA links would be out of place for the Bloomsburg city article. --Oakshade (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then perhaps consolidate it into a single section? Each of the sections (except the lead section) contains less than one sentence. King jakob c (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The lack of length of a different article has nothing to do with the notability of this topic. If you'd too expand that article, go ahead, but content of this one is out of place one.--Oakshade (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Merge to Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania#Air would retain the information and consolidate it all in one place. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania#Air per User:Northamerica1000 and nominator with no prejudice against recreation. The official website according to the article does not exist and I am not sure if it ever existed, which drastically kills its notability. It makes no sense to have a stand-alone article when there is not enough information for a stand-alone one. All of its content can easily be turned into a single paragraph. I searched this airport on many search engines and very little good info pops up and if you ask anyone who is not from Bloomburg what this airport is, they will have no idea. 01:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't exist?[50]. A vast majority of articles are about topics that people have no idea existed. WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not grounds to delete an article. --Oakshade (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most airports are notable and with a history back to the 1930s and use during the second world war. The fact that the article is a stub doesnt prevent it being developed in the future. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but there is limited information on the history of the Bloomsburg municipal airport. I searched both "Bloomsburg Municipal Airport" and "Bloomsburg Municipal Airport History" and there's nothing except passing mentions and databases on at least the first 3 pages for both searches. King jakob c (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Airport in use since 1930s is clearly notable enough to sustain an article. That it needs improvement and the fact that there are few online sources is not a reason to delete. Look to historic local newspapers and you'll surely find the info to expand the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Airports are notable and a merge with the city article would be inappropriate. Mackensen (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2012 (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 Edward Douglas-Scott-Montagu, 3rd Baron Montagu of Beaulieu#Marriage and children. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 03:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Douglas-Scott-Montagu, Baroness Montagu of Beaulieu

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable, what little press cited is a local which is only interested in her because of her husband. Notability is not inherited. TheLongTone (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet curiously enough, one of the sources cited doesn't even mention her husband or the fact that she is married. Are you sure this is the case of inherited notability? Surtsicna (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since I afd'd this article somebody has added a number of references to the article. I've looked at the online ones, and they confirm my contention of non notability: essentially articles about her husband who, unusually for an hereditary member of the House of lords, is actually notable]]. Which is probably why she is Gyles Brandreth's book which is a print reference. Good references for proving she exists, but not to back a claim of notability.TheLongTone (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...Curiously, the editor who took the trouble to expand and further reference the aricle did not consider ading a 'keep' vote to this page.TheLongTone (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. After reading about this lady's work for various international bodies, presumably charities, I reread Wikipedia:Notability (people), as I thought that work might make her notable, but I found that what I had in mind was in the section on politicians. I suggest giving the creator a little time to look around for new sources, in case the general notability guideline can be met. Moonraker (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Edward Douglas-Scott-Montagu, 3rd Baron Montagu of Beaulieu#Marriage and children; there's space there for it and the target article will benefit from the expansion. DrKiernan (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment That seems sensible.TheLongTone (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2012 (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 10:42, 2 November 2012 (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 00:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As above. Not independently notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all of the above; also, wives of minor nobility do not automatically inherit notability. If her charitable work gets more notice, then we can add her back in. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2012 (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. Spinning Spark 15:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey W. Robbins

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

I couldn't find any independent sources at all and his work doesn't seem to be well cited. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very low h-index, not a significant academic position, only an associate editor of the journal. St Anselm (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - He holds a Chair in a college, albeit ith under 2000 students, but that number is pershpas typical of specialist colleges. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it is named chairs that demonstrate notability, not being a Chair in general. See WP:ACADEMIC. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2012 (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 00:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing any of the WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2012 (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. Spinning Spark 14:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Mithal Jiskani

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

Can't find any significant coverage of the article subject from reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG guidelines. Sasata (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not present any evidence for passing WP:PROF nor could I find any myself e.g. in the citation record. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly not a significant figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oaagha (talk • contribs) 12:39, 9 November 2012 (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, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:08, 17 November 2012 (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. Spinning Spark 14:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blur (Re-Produced EP)

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

No notable EP release. It hasn't charted, hasn't been certified, nothing. Fails WP:NALBUMS. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 05:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News provided no relevant results but while continuing searching, I found a blog here and a soulculture.co.uk link here which provide little use. Aside from that, the other results were blogs or repeated the information shown at soulculture.co.uk. SwisterTwister talk 21:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2012 (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, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:07, 17 November 2012 (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 Non-admin closure Article speedied as WP:CSD#G11 by RHaworth. §FreeRangeFrog 21:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wakeman by Seymore Green

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

Unremarkable sci-fi comic book. No sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BKCRIT. Mediran ^{talk to me!} 00:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually should be CSD#G8, the author's bio was speedied as well. §FreeRangeFrog 03:58, 17 November 2012 (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. Spinning Spark 14:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Talk Radio

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

Completing nomination for IP 49.176.1.222. Their rationale, posted originally on the article's talk page, is included verbatim below. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this article for deletion. Although the article writer seems very tech savvy there is no justification of notability for this show over any other 3WBC show. I would even remove it's listing from the 3WBC article. The 3WBC website does not give the show extra attention either. A google search reveals not much either. There are several community radio stations around the world called Tech Talk Radio. The itunes app doesn't mean much either, except that the show's producers are tech savvy. I think the article has been written here by one of the tech savvy producer's of the show and not by an independent assessment of it's worthiness.

Could someone please write the reason for delete on the Afd page?

49.176.1.222 (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advert for small local station show that lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2012 (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 00:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, radio shows will rarely receive significant attention or will there be any history. Now this article lists the history but there aren't any reliable third-party sources to establish notability or verification. Google Books found nothing but Google News found old forums posts from a website, digitalpodcast.com, which forums aren't sufficient or reliable (such forums may be visited by radio experts but we can't always rely with that). I also found an irrelevant techtalkradio.com here which appears to be United States-based, not Australia. SwisterTwister talk 01:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Nothing to indicate notability. Plenty to indicate it's an advert from the producers. 58.175.249.163 (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:07, 17 November 2012 (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. Spinning Spark 12:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ProFusion Imaging Expo

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

Advert without enough salvageable content Corporate 14:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real evidence of notability. Hairhorn (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Advertising without being so bad as to be a speedy, but still spam nonetheless. There is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:05, 17 November 2012 (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. Michig (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tigran Aklyan

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

Per wp:notabilty Antelope Hunter (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a pseudobiography of one event which also violates WP:BLPCRIME. The allegations don't satisfy WP:PERPETRATOR. Just one of several individuals caught up in a government crackdown. I'm not finding significant RS coverage for this person besides the arrest. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Slander fest. This is not notable in the least. Come back with a conviction, and a couple of prominent publications explaining how it is notable. --Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Current content is also in gross opposition to WP:BLPCRIME. There's zero out there containing encyclopedically biographical content. It's WP:TOOSOON to base an article on this individual without at least a notable conviction. JFHJr (㊟) 07:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others, plus innocent until proven guilty. Cloudz 679 13:34, 19 November 2012 (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 WP:HEY (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saravanan meenakshi

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

Doesn't seem a notable television program. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now it does. --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 17:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 17:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references establish notability. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:03, 17 November 2012 (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. Michig (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Diotaiuto

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

A one event biography that is essentially a news story. I see no encyclopedic value or notability in this individual. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This si a news item. I do not see the ongoing coverage that would show that this transcends ebing just a news item. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As the nom says, a one-event situation. AutomaticStrikeout 03:18, 17 November 2012 (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. Spinning Spark 12:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nocy

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

does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC - can't find substantial coverage in news sources. one linked review from an apparently second-rate website. prod removed by page author Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this musician to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Should that remain the case, I suggest deleting the album article for Flames of Spain as well. Gongshow ^Talk 02:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking the in depth coverage in independent sources as required by the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NMUSIC. FurrySings (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2012 (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. Michig (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Edgerton

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

No evidence of passing WP:PROF or any other notability criterion. The minor award he has won is enough to save this from A7 speedy deletion, but not enough I think for notability. The main creator and editor of this article, 4efrswm (talk · contribs), claims to be the subject, so there is also a COI and autobiography problem here. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for every reason given in the nomination. I have been looking at this one and its sources for quite some time and have never thought he passed the notability standards. Qworty (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no possible notability--the minor award is not sufficient. Aside from the mention of the award, and the link to his own web page, the references are all to his parents and his non-notable swimming hobby. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 23 November 2012 (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.

[1] Clowns of Decadence (Musical group) (1993), Kamikaze karnival, Homegrown Artists, retrieved 21 November 2012

[2] Clowns of Decadence (Musical group) (1994), Dirty tricks incorporated, Siren Records, retrieved 21 November 2012

[3] Clowns of Decadence (Musical group) (1995), Too ugly for airplay, Siren Entertainments, retrieved 21 November 2012

[4] Clowns of Decadence (Musical group) (1996), Clowns of a lesser god, Siren Entertainment, retrieved 21 November 2012

[5] Mark of Cain (Musical group); Sin Dog Jellyroll (Musical group); Capital F (Musical group); Blue Experience (Musical group); Bliss (Popular Musical group); Kinetic Playground (Musical group); Clowns of Decadence (Musical group); Egg (Musical group); Oblong (Musical group); Jazz Odyssey (Musical group); Raisin Toast (Musical group); Crush (Musical group); Bearded Clams (Musical group); Numbskulls (Musical group); Where's The Pope? (Musical group); Stain (Musical group) (1994), Homegrown 94, Siren Records, retrieved 21 November 2012

[nevis_05-6] Nevis Track Team Places Fourth in Anguilla, Nevis Pages Ltd., May 24, 2011, retrieved November 6, 2012

[nevis_01-7] Blackett, Lester (March 28, 2008), NEVIS ATHLETE LOOKS TOWARD OLYMPICS, The St. Kitts-Nevis Observer, retrieved November 6, 2012

[nevis_02-8] Blackett, Lester (March 21, 2008), TANIKA RANKED WORLD’S NO. 4; CARIBBEAN’S NO. 1 JUMPER, The St. Kitts-Nevis Observer, retrieved November 6, 2012

[nevis_03-9] Gingerland clinches Inter Primary Championship title from Charlestown, Nevis Island Administration, March 25, 2010, retrieved November 6, 2012

[nevis_04-10] High expectations at St Thomas Primary: Parry saves the day, SKNList.com - The St.Kitts-Nevis List, April 11, 2012, retrieved November 6, 2012

[nevis_06-11] Anguilla hosts the 2011 Leeward Islands track and field meet, Anguilla News, May 20, 2011, retrieved November 6, 2012

[nevis_07-12] Anguilla hosts successful 2010 Leeward Islands Youth track and field Championship, Sunset Homes - Anguilla Lifestyle, May 20, 2011, retrieved November 6, 2012

[nevis_08-13] Local sports — St. Thomas - V.I. National Youth Track and Field Team Selected, V.I. Source Publications, Inc., June 2, 2006, retrieved November 6, 2012

[nevis_09-14] VITFF Bulletin: 7-5-06 V.I.National Junior Track and Field Team wins 10 (Final total = 12) medals at Leeward Islands Junior Championships (Continued)…, The Virgin Islands Track and Field Federation, July 5, 2006, retrieved November 6, 2012

[nevis_10-15] LEEWARDS YOUTH CHAMPIONSHIP, SKNproud.com, May 2011, retrieved November 6, 2012

[nevis_11-16] Morton, Curtis (May 27, 2011), SPORTS - ATHLETICS - Renika and Kezron star in Leeward Islands meet, The St. Kitts-Nevis Observer, retrieved November 6, 2012

[nevis_12-17] Leeward Islands Youth Championships 2009 - 5/30/2009 to 5/31/2009 - SKNAAA - LIYC 2009 - Silver Jubilee Athletic Stadium, St. Kitts - Medal Count - Combined: Men + Women, Saint Kitts & Nevis Amateur Athletic Association, May 27, 2011, retrieved November 6, 2012

[nevis_13-18] BVI gets 20 gold medals at Leeward Islands Champs to finish 2nd, BVI News, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands, May 24, 2011, retrieved November 6, 2012

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.